Jump to content

RZ1029

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    375

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by RZ1029

    Who are the real terrorists?

    in Debates

    Posted · Edited by RZ1029

    look at the debt money that war costs. lol. see the connection. lol.

     

    He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. -Benjamin Franklin

     

    War's cheap. Bullets are even cheaper. Problem is military contracts made back after WWII that designate individual companies as the sole supplier for certain objects for the US military. That's PART of the problem with the $200 hammer. The other half is some channeling of funds to development, though it's mostly the first. Also, I like the quote. You're right, neither should ever have to be compromised, ideally. Unfortunately, inspirational quotes and idealism rarely works out well.

     

    Also, @ginny:

     

    Thank you for bringing that up. I was not aware that the Brits took such ah... vigorous approach towards their Anti-Terrorist operations. However, to the best of my knowledge, which I like to think is sizable, the US doesn't take near the same approach. It's much more about proof before action, though it's not always that way. There have been a few times where action has been taken before full proof was acquired, thankfully it's never gone terribly wrong. Either they've been guilty or were quickly cleared without incident.

     

    EDIT: Also, my apologies for the post lacking in quotes and color. I'm accessing this through a proxy, and it takes some of those functions from my disposal.

    Who are the real terrorists?

    in Debates

    Posted · Edited by RZ1029

    <snipped>

    You can just search for what I wrote, it won't be that hard to find.

    I find the accusations of the 6,000 deaths that supposedly are all recorded in those WikiLeaks documents, most of which I've read or skimmed. I see plenty of civilian casualties that result from suicide bombers engaging US troops, and killing innocent civilians in the process. Same with car bombs, firefights, et cetera. Most of those 6,000 deaths are civilian deaths reported and accounted for by US troops during operations in Iraq, not from a 5.56x45 to the head.

     

    Also at the last part, so we fight terrorism with terrorism? I am not on the side of the Taliban or Al Qeuda, I am simply saying that the USA shouldn't act like they are perfect, and realize that taking away personal freedom and rights due to fear is not going to work.

    Anyone who claims perfection is stupid, and much further from it than those who realize they aren't. I'm also not seeing Obama stand up to claim he's god... even though some people seem to think he is. Taking away personal freedom and rights... wait, wait, what?! You mean attacking us on our own soil is a personal freedom?! Jeez, must have missed that in the Constitution. And even over there, the Iraqi government is in charge over there now, we simply act as the enforcers until they are able to do so themselves. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks the U.S. government identified Osama Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the faces behind the attacks. The later was from Pakistan and is now arrested and in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

     

    However, Osama bin Laden was Saudi Arabian. His Saudi citizenship was stripped of him and he was disowned by his family when they renounced his involvement in 'radical Islam'. Bin Laden and several other Al Qaeda leaders are believed to be hiding near the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Now, as I mentioned earlier, I'd have no problem with invading Pakistan, but as it stands, we can't do that.

     

    Short History Lesson on Afghanistan in Spoiler

     

    Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, the U.S. and British air forces began bombing al-Qaeda and Taliban targets inside Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom. On the ground, American and British special forces along with CIA Special Activities Division units worked with commanders of the United Front (AKA Northern Alliance) to launch a military offensive against the Taliban. These attacks led to the fall of Mazar-i-Sharif and Kabul in November 2001, as the Taliban and Al Qaeda retreated toward the mountains of the Durand Line border with Pakistan. In December 2001, after the Taliban government was toppled and the new Afghan government under Hamid Karzai was formed, the International Security Assistance Force was established by the UN Security Council to help assist Karzai and provide basic security to the Afghan people.

     

    2002 and on, the Taliban regrouped while more coalition troops entered the escalating war with insurgents, which we headed up. At the same time, NATO assumed control of ISAF in 2003 and the rebuilding of Afghanistan began, which is funded by the international community especially by USAID and other U.S. agencies. The European Union, Canada and India also play a major role in reconstruction. The Afghan nation was able to build democratic structures and to make some progress in key areas such as health, economy, educational, transport, agriculture and construction sector. It has also modernized in the field of technology and banking. NATO, mainly the United States armed forces through its Army Corps of Engineers, is rebuilding and modernizing the nation's military as well its police force. Between 2002 and 2010, over five million Afghan expatriates returned with new skills and capital. Still, Afghanistan remains one of the poorest countries due to the results of 30 years of war, corruption among high level politicians and the ongoing Taliban insurgency backed by Pakistan. U.S. officials have also accused Iran of providing limited support to the Taliban, but stated it was "at a small level" since it is "not in their interests to see the Taliban, a Sunni ultra-conservative, extremist element, return to take control of Afghanistan". Iran has historically been an enemy of the Taliban.

     

    NATO and Afghan troops in recent years led many offensives against the Taliban, but proved unable to completely dislodge their presence. By 2009, a Taliban-led shadow government began to form complete with their own version of mediation court.[141] In 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama deployed an additional 30,000 soldiers over a period of six months and proposed that he will begin troop withdrawals by 2012.

     

    Alright, my main points are in bold there, where I wanted to point out just what we're doing in Afghanistan, and the fact that we're actually welcome there, much as we are in the new Iraqi government. We are helping them rebuild, and in many cases, it's bigger and better. Much of what has been done in the Middle-East by US forces were as a part of UN-Sanctioned actions, in which others nations participated. If you noticed, at the end of one of those bolded parts, it mentions that India, Canada, and the EU were all aiding them in rebuilding, and it's pretty well-known that the UK and Canada have both committed a decent number of troops to the war.

     

    Where is your proof that Iraq had ANY kind of facilities that could be used to be WMDs?

    Give me a while to call a few friends and see if I can get satellite photos. I'm not sure if that stuff's classified or not. You also also skip to the end of this post to read about that as well, in response to Balagor.

     

    I face palmed when you said you thought the country was becoming too socialist, that fits into this debate though so I would like to hear why you think that.

    Alright, since you seem to think it fits, I shall explain. The definition of Socialism:

     

    so·cial·ism

       /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA

    –noun

    1.

    a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

    2.

    procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

    3.

    (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

     

    Well, let's see... Socialism has been generally considered the opposite of Capitalism. Government interference versus laissez-faire economics. Since World War II, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt set up and enacted the New Deal, the government has become more and more involved in economics. While the original New Deal program was almost a necessity to recover as quickly as we did, the expansion upon it has become far from needed and simply added to government involvement in the economics of the US.

     

    The Emergency Banking Act gave the government full control of US banks, and they were all shut down. It also provided for the re-opening of the banks under the control of the Treasury, which did so gradually and re-opened... 3/4? I believe, of the Federal Reserve banks within the next three days or so. And by the end of 1933, over 4000 smaller banks were closed and consolidated by the US government. So much for letting things be, if they fail, they fail. But, I bet you're tired of my history lessons, so we'll go to the more recent issue that applies much more directly to this topic. The recent bailouts, putting the US government even further into debt. While a sum of that money was repaid, and is still being repaid, the government is still at a loss and we've hardly recovered any. That's why Socialism and Communism fail, you can't regulate business into perfection, only destruction. Similarly, I believe one of the government offices running the largest deficit is the Post Office. I don't remember there being any allowances for that in the Constitution, saying the government would provide for your postage at a constant loss to us. Something that doesn't need to be done by the government and could easily be handed over to companies already in place in the private sector. Rates will go up, of course, but we'd have just eliminated a deficit-running section of our government that we can do without.

     

    It doesn't matter if the 6,000 deaths were directly caused by troops, it matters that the war that has no purpose is causing them.

    Alright, let's assume that this war really has no point, which I disagree with entirely. We're still over there, operating in an assistant capacity to the governments that have requested our assistance. See my earlier history lesson if you've already forgotten. And because we are welcomed there by the governments, I think there's a pretty big difference between us putting a bullet in their head and them dying because we're over there, helping them, which their government requested.

     

    Also using your argument, you do know that a group of republican congress people went to support a small terrorist group who is fighting Al Qeuda right now? That means part of our government should be the exact equal to the Taliban in your eyes. I mean this by law of course, and by law it doesn't matter if the terrorists are fighting our enemies or not.

    I'm not quire sure what you're referring to, but there is a difference between freedom fighters and terrorists. If they are killing innocent civilians, they are terrorists, and I shall call them as such. If they are fighting Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda only, they are freedom fighters, much like the Northern Alliance I already mentioned in my history lesson. As for being backed by Republican Congressmen and women, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but would appreciate a link to that news article or wherever you read that.

     

    So, why do you think we still need to be in this war?

    The individuals who attacked us are still at large and our presence is still requested and needed by the Afghan and Iraqi government, and we would only be setting them up for failure if we drop the ball and pack up for home.

     

    The Declaration of Independence did not have to do with USA law. It was pretty much just a letter declaring the Independence of the USA from the British, and even if it did have to do with law it would only apply to citizens in the country and not in Iraq.

    So you're telling me that the reason we decided we needed our freedom is only good enough for us, and not the rest of the world? And are you then, by saying the Declaration of Independence doesn't apply to Iraqis, saying that they are not 'men'? "All men are created equal." Not all Americans, all men. Which we now considered to be every last soul on this Earth, no matter their creed, color, sex or disability.

     

    I would like to know your reasons for still supporting the war even after our constitutional rights have been destroyed to "protect" us.

    I'm going to assume you're talking about the Patriot Act? It's no worse than the suspension of Habeus Corpus that Lincoln enacted during the Civil War, no worse than the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII, no worse than the execution of foreign military officers in the Revolutionary War. It is not worse than the murder of approximately 3,000 innocent civilians in a civilian target in New York City.

     

    The USA PATRIOT Act (it's full and correct title) dramatically reduced restrictions on law enforcement agencies' ability to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

     

    The Act was passed with huge popularity in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of the Republican and Democrat parties.

     

    Besides, if you're not a terrorist, you've got nothing to hide. Personally, I have no problem with the government checking into everyone, myself included, if it means I never have to watch another 9-11. They're checking up on people, not dragging them out of their beds in the middle of the night and executing them for being suspected of possibly maybe being terrorists. They use it together information on suspected terrorists to either confirm or deny that suspicion.

     

     

    @RZ1029

    I quote you from post #20

     

    "The US government is terrorist for what, exactly? Retaliating for an attack made on our soil, against a foreign power? Assuming that we would have never gotten any cooperation from Saddam Hussein, which it's pretty clear we didn't, I doubt we're about to be like... 'Oh well, guess they just get away!'. Now if they did that, you can feel free to mark me as a terrorist, because there's some sh** I'm about to go fix" End quote.

     

    The entire world knows that he was NOT behind, he had NO mass destruction weapons. It was unsupported US warfare to go into Iraq, like so many other warfares.

    However with your statements, and your corrections from Gallup, you give me the impression that I was wrong when I state that it is the US gouvernment that is the terrorist.

    To address the first half: It is very easy to crucify them after the fact. Decisions had to be made based upon what they knew at the time from MI6, the Mossad, the CIA, and I believe some UN strategists and analysts. However... (another history lesson inside)

     

    The issue of Iraq's disarmament reached a crisis in 2002–2003, when Bush demanded a complete end to alleged Iraqi production of weapons of mass destruction and full compliance with UN Security Council Resolutions requiring UN weapons inspectors unfettered access to suspected weapons production facilities. The UN had prohibited Iraq from developing or possessing such weapons after the Gulf War and required Iraq to permit inspections confirming compliance. During inspections in 1999, Iraq alleged that UN inspectors included U.S. intelligence agents that supplied the U.S. with a direct feed of conversations between Iraqi security agencies as well as other information. This was confirmed by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

     

    During 2002, Bush repeatedly warned of military action unless inspections were allowed to progress unfettered. In accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1441 Iraq reluctantly agreed to new inspections in late 2002. The weapons inspections did not uncover any WMD in Iraq. Shortly before the invasion Hans Blix, the lead weapons inspector, advised the UN Security Council that Iraq was cooperating with inspections and that the confirmation of disarmament through inspections could be achieved in a short period of time if Iraq remained cooperative.

     

    Before the Gulf War, in 1990, Iraq had stockpiled 550 tons of yellowcake uranium at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad. In late February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate reports (later found to be forgeries) that Iraq was attempting to purchase additional yellowcake from Niger. Wilson returned and informed the CIA that reports of yellowcake sales to Iraq were "unequivocally wrong." The Bush administration, however, continued to allege Iraq's attempts to obtain additional yellowcake were a justification for military action, most prominently in the January 2003, State of the Union address, in which President Bush declared that Iraq had sought uranium, citing British intelligence sources.

     

    In response, Wilson wrote a critical New York Times op-ed piece in June 2003 stating that he had personally investigated claims of yellowcake purchases and believed them to be fraudulent. After Wilson's op-ed, Wilson's wife Valerie Plame was publicly identified as an undercover CIA analyst by a columnist.

     

    The CIA had contacted Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, who was being paid by the French as an agent. Sabri informed them that Saddam had hidden poison gas among Sunni tribesmen, had ambitions for a nuclear program but that it was not active, and that no biological weapons were being produced or stockpiled, although research was underway.

     

    Ok, now the big focus is on that last paragraph, but I thought it was only fair to give the full story. But first, let's start at the top and work our way down. After the Gulf War, Iraq was not allowed to own or develop WMDs, and I'm not entirely sure they were even cleared for a nuclear power program. And for a while, they cooperated, that cooperation ended until Bush threatened military action. They then began to comply, but during that time we (CIA, MI6, and Mossad) received some information suggesting they may be developing them in bunkers constructed during the time of noncompliance. During the 2002 inspection, nothing was found, though there were a few things suggesting research may be occurring. Research they weren't cleared to do under previous UN sanctions.

     

    Yellowcake uranium:

    Yellowcake is used in the preparation of uranium fuel for nuclear reactors, for which it is smelted into purified UO2 for use in fuel rods for pressurized heavy-water reactors and other systems that use natural unenriched uranium.

     

    Purified uranium metal (not the uranium oxide) can also be enriched in the isotope U-235. In this process, the uranium is combined with fluorine to form uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6). Next, that undergoes isotope separation through the process of gaseous diffusion, or in a gas centrifuge. This can produce a moderately enriched uranium containing about four percent U-235 that is suitable for use in large civilian electric-power reactors. With further processing one obtains highly-enriched uranium, containing 90% or more U-235, that is suitable for use in compact nuclear reactors - usually used to power naval warships and submarines, or in nuclear weapons. However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is a worldwide surplus of highly-enriched uranium, and not much is made anymore.

     

    Now, that enriched Uranium can be used to make nuclear weapons. Yeah... I'm gonna classify that under 'violation of UN sanctions'.

     

    And to address the second half: thank you.

    Who are the real terrorists?

    in Debates

    Posted · Edited by RZ1029

    Once again I did post saying that when I say "USA" or "We" I mean the government and not the people, when I posted some of the stuff it may of seen offensive but it was a good kick start for people to post different opinions here.

     

    @RZ1029

    The Taliban did not attack us, Al Qeuda attacked us. The Taliban was temporary helping them at a certain point, but stopped helping them a few years ago.

    Using your analogy, its more like Al Qedua shot up a house and hid in the Taliban house for a few hours, then we went and shot up the Taliban house and let Al Qeuda go to other houses while we kept shooting at the Taliban. Not to mention that the Taliban house also had a lot of innocent people in it as well but we didn't care. If we wanted to catch Al Queda then we should invade Saudi Arabia, that's were most of them are.

    1) Guilt by association. It's called a RICO case, or aiding and abetting. However you prefer to look at it. 2) Innocent people die every day, it's unfortunate, but it happens. Do I like it? No. Do I condone free-fire zones? No. 3) I'd agree with you about invading Saudi Arabia, but unfortunately doing that's not a viable option at the moment.

     

    Any country could have the possibly to be making WMDs, North Koera probably has WMDs and is doing weapons trades with Iran, should we invade them also? The thing is the CIA already told us that they were not before we invaded.

    1) North Korea is also ruled by a leader who is geniunely crazy enough to use it. Better to just let him live out his little delusion, thankfully people don't live forever. Oh, and feel free to go ahead and invade Iran to make sure there's nothing there, I've got no problem with it. 2) The CIA had reason to believe they didn't, the Israeli's had intel suggesting they may, which was backed by MI6. And the whole 'any country could be making WMDs'... no. Just no. You can't brew a WMD in your garage, and many countries simply don't have the facilities to do it, period.

     

    I don't know why you think Saddam Hussein was working with them, I have seen no proof of that.

    I said they had been in contact, not that they were working together. There were several intercepted messages between the two that led the CIA and other intelligence services the US works with to believe they could be working together.

     

    That's not in the Constitution, that's in the Declaration of Independence and it has nothing to do with US law.

    You are correct, my apologies, I need type slower and make sure I'm saying what I'm thinking. However, the 'has nothing to do with US laws' is terribly incorrect. It is the basis for all US laws. It's where this country came from, it's what should guide is, though too often it doesn't. If the Declaration of Independence doesn't have anything to do with the US law, then why do we have so many freedoms that we fought a war for? Oh, right! Now I remember.

     

    The US already knows of all terrorist groups in the middle east, we don't need to gather intelligence to find out who they are, we need to do it to find out what they are doing. Loosely connected groups would not be a huge deal compared to strongly connected groups.

    Lolwhut?! Do you really think we know everyone holed up in every last cave in Iraq? Loose connections are all you need for radical extremists to become enemy combatants. Those loose connections turn into a few AK-47s and RPGs loaned out. We find out who they are and who they're connected to, we cut off that connection before they become a threat to us.

     

    1. The military contracts have a ton to do with the war, and it isn't really for another debate since it fits perfectly in this one.

    2. Good question, but there has been missing money from Iraq and missing oil from Iraq also, where did that go?

    3. They could of done so on their own, but they are right in the middle of were they would be attacking. Its a much better stratgey to get a ally from a long distance away to do the attack so the war zone won't spread to other ally countries.

    1) My opinions deal with the military contracts even existing, from a Capitalist standpoint, not so much anything contained within.

    2) The money is believed to have been stolen or 'mis-allocated' by corruption within the Iraqi government. No surprise given the state of the government still. As for the oil, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.

    3) Israel has fought several militaries (sp?) at once before. Notably, in the Six-Day War I mentioned in my last post. It was several nations against Israel and Israel had a very decisive victory.

     

    I don't know where you got that from, people do not want us there. In fact around 94 percent of the country don't even know why we are there and who we are. If you see a man in big body armor with guns would you be rude to him?

    I got that from about two dozen people I know who have served all across Iraq, and some in Afghanistan. Where did you get yours? It's one thing to be rude, but I'm not about to invite anyone into my house for a drink, no matter how scary they might be.

     

    That's a majority, the thing is we are now fighting if Afghanistan to wipe out the Taliban for no reason. The people there don't care much about the Taliban and we are making things worse.

    Again, no majority, where are your statistics coming from? I'm pretty sure I'd care about any group who brings a foreign military into my home country. The situation in Afghanistan is much different from the one in Iraq, it's more of a search and destroy mission than a terrorist hunt anymore. We've identified the major threats, we're now working to eliminate them. Cleared them out of the hole, now to chase them down and stamp them out.

     

    Over 6,000 deaths is no accident.

    Of those 6,000 deaths, I think maybe 50 were actually from direct actions taken by US troops, and then it was usually due to noncompliance and being a threat. It's easy to tag someone as friendly after the fact, but when you're in a place where someone who wants to kill you might be around any corner, better safe than sorry and better him than me. Also, I'm going to assume you pull your figures from those infamous WikiLeaks documents everyone seems to know about, yes so few seem to have read?

     

    So your saying I have to be a patriot at all times even if the government messes up? That goes against one of the main things the founding fathers wanted. By definition, the government is a terrorist organization.

    There's a difference between being a patriot and not being a traitor. There's a right and wrong way to do things, and a right and wrong way to say things. Personally, I think the government is becoming far too Socialist for my tastes, but there's a difference between calling them a bunch of corrupt Socialists who're trying to ruin the country and turn us away from everything this country was founded upon and saying I believe their policies may be borderline unconstitutional. (The second is a better reflection of my opinion.)

    And for your reading pleasure:

     

    ter·ror·ism

       /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA

    –noun

    1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

    2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

    3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

     

    Hmm... 9-11-2001... ring any bells? I remember where I was, and I remember fear.

    I see lots of figures you call, but I don't see many sources cited. I'm not a fan of that. Back them up and I'll be back to answer.

    Who are the real terrorists?

    in Debates

    Posted · Edited by RZ1029

    Another of my usual deals, replies in color.

     

    When I was young (many years ago) we had Rohte Armé, Brigate Rosso, Bader Meinhoff, IRA and Carlos.

    They were all terrorists. They fought for something, but they were terrorists by that simple reason they killed innocents.

    Supermarkets, railroads, planes, stations and airports were there goals.

    It was both religious and political. IRA was an example of that.

    *cough* Uhm... yes... because the World Trade Centers were totally military targets... yep. Can't deny the Pentagon and the White House aren't, though.

     

    A coin has 2 sides. Your enemy is your enemy's friend. A terrorist is at the same time a freedom fighter.

    For me a terrorists who only has the guts to kill innocents in an airport is still a terrorist.

    However a terrorist who fight for a cause and kill his/her enemies be it soldiers or politicians who are responsible, are freedom fighters in my world.

    Alright... a little disconcerting in my book, but I'll let that slide. My question is, what about when your enemy ARE the innocent civilians?

     

    When are people innocents, and when are they partaking in a conflict? Take Hezbollah for example. Israel call them terrorists.

    I call them freedom fighters, since they only attack civilians who illegally live in the occupied West Bank.

    The civilians living there, call for Israel Army for protection, thus they become the real terrorists,

    So... they're terrorists for calling for aid from an army that has the right to that land to begin with? The West Bank was claimed by Israel after the Six-Day War in 1967, if I remember correctly. They were never annexed, but it was established as a spoil of war and an Israel possession. Much the way the US used to own several territories and yet they had little to no rights.

     

    This brings me to the OP´s statement that the USA are the terrorists. This is not quite true. It is only the US government who is a terrorist. Not the US people.

    The US government is terrorist for what, exactly? Retaliating for an attack made on our soil, against a foreign power? Assuming that we would have never gotten any cooperation from Saddam Hussein, which it's pretty clear we didn't, I doubt we're about to be like... 'Oh well, guess they just get away!'. Now if they did that, you can feel free to mark me as a terrorist, because there's some sh** I'm about to go fix.

     

    As far as I know only a minority supports the ongoing wars of the US.

    Ehh... wrong. From Gallup:

     

    In general, how would you say things are going for the U.S. in Iraq -- [ROTATED: very well, moderately well, moderately badly, (or) very badly]?

    2010 Jul 8-11: Very Well: 5% Moderately Well: 45% Moderately Bad: 38% Very Badly: 10% No Opinion: 2%

    I'm no math whiz, but 50% > 48%. Not by much, but it's still a majority.

    Also... no offense guys... but can ya please spell check? I've noticed it in a few different posts now, and it drives me a little nuts.

    Ban for Fun

    in Forum Games

    Posted

    Touche. Unfortunately for you, you only gave one of the two required reasons for banning, and thus I must ban you. And... I don't like being banned, so I have two reasons for banning you.

    Who are the real terrorists?

    in Debates

    Posted · Edited by RZ1029

    All of my replies in-quote, placed in color pretty much in immediate response to the topics covered.

    Let me start with saying the reasons we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

     

    The reasons we invaded Afghanistan might be justified by some, I never liked the war but ill keep going.

    1. The Taliban WAS helping Al Queda.

     

    That's all I can think of for that... Now does this mean we should go attack them just because we got bombed?

    ((Uhm... yes, pretty much. That sounds like a pretty good explanation to me. Somebody shoots up my house, I'm going to put them in a body bag.)) The point of terrorism is to spread fear through violence. The people who bombed us are WINNING by being in a war with us. We did what they wanted us to do, be afraid and attack back. To be afraid and take away freedom and rights...

    ((Not seeing the point here, there's a difference between retaliation and fear.))

     

    Now why did we invade Iraq? This is a much more serious issue...

    1. Bush claimed they were making weapons of mass destruction, or already had them. It was proven they were not even CONSIDERING making them.

    ((Israel and the US had reason to believe there was the possibility of WMDs within the country. I can't cite sources, as most of those are still considered classified and likely still in play as far as military operations an politics go.))

     

    2. Bush claimed Saddam Hussein was working with Al Queda, which is 100 percent false.

    ((Uhm... actually, they believed that they were in contact and MIGHT have been working together. We now know the first half is true, and the second half was not.))

     

    3. To "free" the people from the rule of Saddam Hussein. This IS a valid reason, but its not a imperfect nations job to free other countries. If the USA was close to perfect I would fully support the act of nation building and non violent take overs.

    ((Hmm... I'm going to pull out the Constitution real quick.... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.." I'll call that justifiable.))

     

    4. To gather intelligence on terrorist groups. This is also a false reason, since there were no major terrorists groups in Iraq strongly associated with Al Qeuda.

    ((STRONGLY associated. Strong associations are obvious, thus not requiring intelligence. It's the ones that AREN'T obvious that we need to know about BEFORE they decided to ah... I don't know... fly planes into four different buildings or something like that?))

     

    The real answer to both of the above things is the following...

    1. Help military contractors get richer.

    2. Make money off foreign oil.

    3. Help Israel wipe out Iraq for not wanting to work with them.

    (( 1) Nice side-effect, and also an entirely different debate. I've got an issue with the military contracts anyways.

    2) IF we're there to make money off foreign oil: 1) Where's the money? 2) Where's the oil?

    3) Israel could probably do that on their own. They've been uber-funded by us for the so long, they've got extremely competent and well-armed military forces that would probably be more than capable of doing so.))

    <snip>

    We invaded the countries in attempt to wipe out terrorism, what have we really done? The people of Afghanistan DO NOT want our help anymore. They are happy as they are now, and they are siding with the Taliban to get us out!

    ((Uhm... actually, MOST of them like us there. Have you spoken to any soldiers who've actually been there, or do you just pick things up on the news? I'm friends with several deployed soldiers, and even during house-to-house searches, they were often offered drinks, asked to come in and cool off, and treated like heroes in many cases. Obviously there are people who don't want them there, but that's going to happen everywhere.))

     

    Think about that for a second, innocent people are siding with the Taliban, simply to get us out of their country. Yet we still insist we are helping them?

    ((I think that kind of disqualifies them as innocent. However, again, still a minority.))

    We kill innocent people everyday because of the war, and people still support the wars?

    ((They are called casualties of war, and anyone who hears the word war and doesn't expect some, and accept some, is very naive. It is regrettable, it is something to mourn, but it happens.))

     

    That being said, I am calling every single person who supports the war right now a terrorist. Just because your on the side of the "good guys" doesn't mean you really are a good guy. I am not saying the other terrorist groups are not bad, but the USA is the biggest terrorist group in the world now.

    ((Terrorist, eh? Alright, then I'm going to call traitor. Someone willing to dismiss their government as a terrorist organization is, by definition, a traitor. Siding with the good guys DOES make you a good guy, but the 'good guy' is a relative point of view.))

     

    Discuss?

    ((Discussed.))

    I would also like to add that the above statements are a mixture of facts and opinion, which I believe should be easy enough to tell apart. Also, in the opinions stated, I am highly biased, but will be more than happy to agree to disagree with anyone who has an idea counter to mine. I am also happy to share my opinion with them, assuming they remain civil, and I shall do likewise. And should I ever be found hypocritical to these words, please feel free to call me out on them. What I say may be taken as blunt, but I mean nothing offensive towards anyone.

×
×
  • Create New...