Tweet
Originally posted by Jaakko
It's spelled "moron".
It's spelled "moron".
You're a moron not a maroon.
-
mistake noted.
You're a moron not a maroon. -
the rest of your post was premised on their being a political gain from hitting a random village. Which Ive responded to.Originally posted by Jaakko
It really helps when you only quote the first sentence of my argument, doesn't it? You don't have to say anything when you pretend that's all there was!"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Are you seriously suggesting that AQ had legitimate targets in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and they hit the embassies by mistake?Originally posted by MOBIUS
The point was the US wouldn't have liked it if China decided to use the US' modus operandi for retaliating to having their embassies bombed..."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
"BTW, if anyone was still wondering, this is the kind of **** that makes two thirds of the world hates the US enough to fly a plane in a stupid building."Originally posted by dannubis
Please do explain the last sentence to me then.
Someone who thinks flying a plane into "a stupid building" is a reasonable enough thing to do that 2/3 of the world supports the idea. A stupid building, I might remind you, where 50,000 people were at work on the morning of September 11, including thousands of non-US citizens, including many muslims."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
And that is analogous to the matter at hand, how?Originally posted by MOBIUS
The point was the US wouldn't have liked it if China decided to use the US' modus operandi for retaliating to having their embassies bombed...
The US is after someone(s) responsible for an attack on one of our embassies that killed a number of Americans and over two hundred non-americans. The perpetrators of that attack (which was unquestionably deliberate) are non-state actors. We cannot seek to respond to the situation by demanding concessions from another country (or by declaring war on them, for that matter). We can only try to hunt down and capture or kill the people who did it, or hope that someone else manages to nab him/them.
In a situation that was truly analogous to this, but where the country whose embassy was blown up was China instead of the US, the US would certainly agree that China had a right to go after the perpetrators.
In the case you brought up, China was able to protest to the government that carried out the attack - that of the USA - and ultimately the dispute was resolved and compensation paid. The USA has always maintain the attack was a mistake. If it wasn't, it's an act of war. As would be deliberate retaliation by the Chinese.
If the Chinese are involved in a future war in which they "mistakenly" bomb a US embassy, of course the US will protest. We will seek an apology and compensation, just as the Chinese did.
What about this do you not understand?
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.Comment
-
Political gain from being seen as "strong against terror". The methods of the US on this front have been quite evident, as are the thousands of civilian casualties.Originally posted by lord of the mark
the rest of your post was premised on their being a political gain from hitting a random village. Which Ive responded to."On this ship you'll refer to me as idiot, not you captain!"
- Lone StarComment
-
Jaako,
Perhaps I should've added a wink smilie to my post. Maroon is a specific reference to the picture that has often been posted here and elsewhere. I know how to spell moron.
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.Comment
-
If you mean this, it's "morans":Originally posted by Arrian
Jaako,
Perhaps I should've added a wink smilie to my post. Maroon is a specific reference to the picture that has often been posted here and elsewhere. I know how to spell moron.
-Arrian
"On this ship you'll refer to me as idiot, not you captain!"
- Lone StarComment
-
dannubis, it wasn't directed to anyone, more like a general point.
Am I the only one who thinks, that this is all a bunch of anti-american huffing, because there's nothing Bush can do, that is actually good? Even if he was able to kill with 100% ratio of AQ terrorists, there would be still some people who would cry and whine about it?
Am I the only one who thinks, that regardless of that, this striek was a complete **** up? As in, if you want to kill terrorists, by all means, just stop wasting so many by standers, or should I say try to at least get one bad guy.. 1/100 kill ratio isn't that good.
Am I the only one who thinks, that there should be some limits when 'collateral damage' is just too high? I don't care about Somalia, I really don't, it's a screwed up country with screwed up people, but when you get so many civilians dead for .. one guy with ties, which is at best speculation adn sounds like covering a complete **** up to me, or anyone else with more than half a brain, ... but still, they are actual human beings, so there needs to be some rate of success. As in, if too many civilians die, it's actually a FAILURE?
Is that a bad word now, failure? Why is it, that no one says anything about it, challenges the whole success thing? Why do people, who claim, that they don't always agree with their goverment, ALWAYS AGREES WITH THEIR GOVERNMENT? Blind defending, if this isn't a **** up, then nothing is. If it's too difficult to understand it, picture it happening in your own town, and you'll see how big of a **** up it is.
All I'm saying is, when force is used, it should be used accordingly, and it there's a failure, well I guess it should be called a failure?! Failures happen. BUt if we go about trivializing it, like we do these days, "well, have you ever used a CMX3958 optical device, it's not easy. Add constant movement, pressure, I mean you tell me you can shoot better than that, you have no right to criticize you *******, you know nothing".. well to these people, I usually say, do you know how difficult it is to wipe your own ass, because if you did, you maybe need help with it, because it isn't difficult. And if it is, you need help, and leave your ****ty ass alone.In da butt.
"Do not worry if others do not understand you. Instead worry if you do not understand others." - Confucius
THE UNDEFEATED SUPERCITIZEN w:4 t:2 l:1 (DON'T ASK!)
"God is dead" - Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" - God.Comment
-
I've seen "maroon" too.Originally posted by Jaakko
If you mean this, it's "morans":
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/...ain_morans.jpg
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.Comment
-
Originally posted by Jaakko
Political gain from being seen as "strong against terror". The methods of the US on this front have been quite evident, as are the thousands of civilian casualties.
Theres no doubt on anyones part here that the Admin would bomb a village where there are AQ, so theres nothing to prove. The only gain is if they actually GET somebody important, which is why they focus efforts on that.
US rules of engagement in general have been discussed elsewhere, and are not materially different from those of other NATO countries in Afghanistan and Iraq."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin BuberComment
-
Pekka,
If we failed to kill anyone of significance and furthermore killed ~100 innocent people, of course it's a failure.
What exactly happened, however, is unclear to me. This is something that happened thousands of miles away, and about which there are many conflicting reports.
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.Comment
-
Sure Lotm, whatever, whatever... maybe it was a technical malfunction.Originally posted by lord of the mark
"BTW, if anyone was still wondering, this is the kind of **** that makes two thirds of the world hates the US enough to fly a plane in a stupid building."
Someone who thinks flying a plane into "a stupid building" is a reasonable enough thing to do that 2/3 of the world supports the idea. A stupid building, I might remind you, where 50,000 people were at work on the morning of September 11, including thousands of non-US citizens, including many muslims.
My point stands, killing civilians in order to get at your target will create conditions where you find people ready to give their lives in order to get you.
Besides I already explained myself a few posts down."Ceterum censeo Ben esse expellendum."Comment
-
You and I both know it wasn't a mistake, hence my point...Originally posted by Arrian
And that is analogous to the matter at hand, how?
What about this do you not understand?
-ArrianComment
-
Otherwise known as "Operation Latest Failure: Sweep Innocent Civilian Casualties Under the Carpet #206" is already in full swing!Originally posted by Arrian
What exactly happened, however, is unclear to me. This is something that happened thousands of miles away, and about which there are many conflicting reports.
-Arrian
Comment
Comment