• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

100 protesters burn American flag outside U.S. embassy in London

You know, there is a great amount of middle ground between the "Kill all the Muslims and let Got sort it out" on one side and the "I gotta defend and/or trivialize Islamism because all the really cool kids are doing it" attitude on the other.

Unfortunately, such attitudes go woefully unrepresented in discussions such as this.
 
The puppet masters pull the strings and make the puppets jump. A dozen or so dickheads in London get together and burn a paper American flag. In response a dozen or so dickheads in America become all pissy and outraged. It is stupidity on both sides.
 
With a few exceptions during WW-II ours has been a Nation that goes out of it's way to to fair and civil and to try to limit civilian loses.

Islam goes out of it's way to maim and kill innocent people from any walk of life.

After 9-11 we could have done as we did in Japan but burning Tokyo almost to the ground and obliterating two other Cities with A-bombs but we didn't and it has cost us dearly.

I don't believe at playing War as we have so far, and did in Vietnam.

You have to go to War to win and no half way half-assed measures or it ends up being drawn out into and endless quagmire and we finally give up and go home and thousands died for nothing and nothing changes other than the bad guys have time to regroup and come back another day even stronger.

Now we know the Taliban has told it's murderers to back off until Obama completes his retreat.

Once our troops are down in numbers where the Taliban no longer fear them They will kill off the Government in power and go right back to where they were before 9-11.

Obama is the stupidest idiot to ever come along. You never ever tell the enemy you plans. What does he have for brains?

Nothing I suspect.

One last thing for Aunt Spicker. It took far less than 100 to bring about the reality of 9-11.

Councilmans been drinking again.

World War Two references are so retarded in this instance its not even funny. You're not fighting a governmental entity.

In World War Two you were trying to defeat a country, to get that country to surrender, that country hard an army, navy, air force, mechanized units... These guys are a bunch of rag tag assholes hiding in caves and mountains and among civilian populations. You can nuke them all you want but here's the rub.

You measure the success of a mission by two things, was it successful and how few civilians did you hurt. They measure success by how many. And if you did nuke anywhere in the midle east you would open up pandoras box. The entire world would rise up against you for being so reckless.

Do the deaths of 3000 people at the hands of extremists deserve the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians? Why are those lives any less meaningful Mr. ****ing Pro Life? Because they're not American?

IT's shameful, pathetic and downright idiotic that you can sit on your moral high horse passing out judgement on those who believe abortion should be legal, but at the same time feel its ok to commit mass murder in the name of revenge just because you value foreigners next to nothing.
 
Last edited:
Councilmans been drinking again.

World War Two references are so retarded in this instance its not even funny. You're not fighting a governmental entity.

In World War Two you were trying to defeat a country, to get that country to surrender, that country hard an army, navy, air force, mechanized units... These guys are a bunch of rag tag assholes hiding in caves and mountains and among civilian populations. You can nuke them all you want but here's the rub.

You measure the success of a mission by two things, was it successful and how few civilians did you hurt. They measure success by how many. And if you did nuke anywhere in the midle east you would open up pandoras box. The entire world would rise up against you for being so reckless.

Do the deaths of 3000 people at the hands of extremists deserve the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians? Why are those lives any less meaningful Mr. ****ing Pro Life? Because they're not American?

IT's shameful, pathetic and downright idiotic that you can sit on your moral high horse passing out judgement on those who believe abortion should be legal, but at the same time feel its ok to commit mass murder in the name of revenge just because you value foreigners next to nothing.

I know I didn't just watch you justify killing a bunch of innocent civilians with nukes and in the same reply be so handily against killing a bunch of civilians with nukes. Please tell me you didn't. Dear God, I think you did. Your credibility just took a minuteman right up the tail pipe.

War is about more of the enemy dying than you dying. We were not attacked at Pearl Harbor by the civilian population of Japan. We were attacked by it's military. A little more organized than the taliban, but the same idea. No real difference. If you can justify us nuking Japan then using the same logic I can justify us nuking Afghanistan. See how that works? It's called all is fair in love and war.

Let's play a little game. You're a terrorist. You hate America. You and your terrorist brethren decide you want to attack the USA and you plan and accomplish 9/11. You see the USA retaliate with a large scale nuclear attack on your homeland, wiping it off the map and making it unlivable, if you even live through the nukes. Does that send a clear message that you don't want to **** with the USA when you're shooting AK-47's and they're slinging 100KT nuclear warheads?

What message does it send when we reply with a few bombs, lots of riff-raff between political parties here at home and a stronger more organized terror organization as a result? As a terrorist, I want scenario number 2. I sure as **** don't want to **** with scenario number 1.

What say you?
 
I know I didn't just watch you justify killing a bunch of innocent civilians with nukes and in the same reply be so handily against killing a bunch of civilians with nukes. Please tell me you didn't. Dear God, I think you did. Your credibility just took a minuteman right up the tail pipe.

War is about more of the enemy dying than you dying. We were not attacked at Pearl Harbor by the civilian population of Japan. We were attacked by it's military. A little more organized than the taliban, but the same idea. No real difference. If you can justify us nuking Japan then using the same logic I can justify us nuking Afghanistan. See how that works? It's called all is fair in love and war.

Let's play a little game. You're a terrorist. You hate America. You and your terrorist brethren decide you want to attack the USA and you plan and accomplish 9/11. You see the USA retaliate with a large scale nuclear attack on your homeland, wiping it off the map and making it unlivable, if you even live through the nukes. Does that send a clear message that you don't want to **** with the USA when you're shooting AK-47's and they're slinging 100KT nuclear warheads?

What message does it send when we reply with a few bombs, lots of riff-raff between political parties here at home and a stronger more organized terror organization as a result? As a terrorist, I want scenario number 2. I sure as **** don't want to **** with scenario number 1.

What say you?

You have utterly and completely failed to grasp my point.

I'm not justifying the use of nuclear weapons against civilian populations. But there's one vital difference between using nuclear weapons against a country that you're trying to get to surrender in a World War, and a non government entity like Al Queada, but that's something you can't seem to grasp.

You could nuke Afghanistan, but what good would that do? The Taliban and Al Queada kill Afghans themselves, so what good would it do except exclusively kill the innocent and not actually destroy Al Queada?

You'd be playing right into their hands with such a brash move. You'd unite the world against you, everyone would turn their backs on you and isolate you for committing mass murder for the actions of a few. What are you going to do hah? Nuke everyone who breaks diplomatic ties with you?
 
Guess where the OP stopped? ...

"A small group of Muslims staged a counter-demonstration nearby, holding up placards reading 'Muslims Against Extremism' and 'If You Want Sharia, Move To Saudi'.
Abdul Sallam, 41, who was waving a sign that read 'Keep The Silence', travelled down to London from his home in Glasgow to show the strength of his feelings.
He said: 'I'm a Muslim. What they're doing is bringing shame on all Muslims.This is not part of the teachings of Islam.
'Islam is all about peace, but what they want to do is hate other people... "

Bigots on either side don't want his message heard.
 
I know I didn't just watch you justify killing a bunch of innocent civilians with nukes and in the same reply be so handily against killing a bunch of civilians with nukes. Please tell me you didn't. Dear God, I think you did. Your credibility just took a minuteman right up the tail pipe.

War is about more of the enemy dying than you dying. We were not attacked at Pearl Harbor by the civilian population of Japan. We were attacked by it's military. A little more organized than the taliban, but the same idea. No real difference. If you can justify us nuking Japan then using the same logic I can justify us nuking Afghanistan. See how that works? It's called all is fair in love and war.

Let's play a little game. You're a terrorist. You hate America. You and your terrorist brethren decide you want to attack the USA and you plan and accomplish 9/11. You see the USA retaliate with a large scale nuclear attack on your homeland, wiping it off the map and making it unlivable, if you even live through the nukes. Does that send a clear message that you don't want to **** with the USA when you're shooting AK-47's and they're slinging 100KT nuclear warheads?

What message does it send when we reply with a few bombs, lots of riff-raff between political parties here at home and a stronger more organized terror organization as a result? As a terrorist, I want scenario number 2. I sure as **** don't want to **** with scenario number 1.

What say you?

No Afghanis or Iraqis attacked us on 9/11. When you suggest nuking the terrorist's homeland, are you speaking of Saudi Arabia, since all but one were Saudi?
 
No Afghanis or Iraqis attacked us on 9/11. When you suggest nuking the terrorist's homeland, are you speaking of Saudi Arabia, since all but one were Saudi?


The only reason to link Afghanistan to Iraq is to muddy the understanding of both. Is it your contention that Afghanistan was attacked unjustly?

j-mac
 
How many civilian deaths were caused by the terrorist targets hiding like cowards among civilian populations?

j-mac

How many of them would have been hiding there if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq? Basically zero. As Colin Powell said, "you break it, you own it."
 
How many of them would have been hiding there if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq? Basically zero. As Colin Powell said, "you break it, you own it."

Did you support Saddam?

j-mac
 
Did you support Saddam?

j-mac

No, I didn't support him. There are a lot of evil f*cks in the world who I don't support. But it's not our responsibility to depose all of them.
 
Bush1 supported Saddam, until he didn't.
 
Last edited:
George Bush ordered these people to be killed by American soldiers?

George Bush ordered the invasion that created the conditions that allowed those civilians to be killed. You break it, you own it.
 
The only reason to link Afghanistan to Iraq is to muddy the understanding of both.

LOL! Too bad you didn't convince George W and the GOP of that!


Is it your contention that Afghanistan was attacked unjustly?



Yes, there was no need for a war against the Afghanis. The Afghanis did not attack us and were of no threat to us, just as the Iraqis did not attack us and were not a threat to the US.

We should have used our law enforcement agencies and special OPS to track down the Saudi criminals that attacked us on 9/11.

As the conservative think tank, the Rand Corp. pointed out in their analysis for the military, the war on terror was a failure.
 
Last edited:
LOL! Too bad you didn't convince George W and the GOP of that!


Is it your contention that Afghanistan was attacked unjustly?

j-mac

Yes, there was no need for a war against the Afghanis. The Afghanis did not attack us and were of no threat to us, just as the Iraqis did not attack us and were not a threat to the US.

We should have used our law enforcement agencies and special OPS to track down the Saudi criminals that attacked us on 9/11.

As the conservative think tank, the Rand Corp. pointed out in their analysis for the military, the war on terror was a failure.

I would part company with you on that one. Afghanistan was harboring our sworn enemeis and refused to expel them. They were providing them refuge to train for and plan attacks against us. IMO that war was justified.
 
George Bush ordered the invasion that created the conditions that allowed those civilians to be killed. You break it, you own it.

This is why I don't worry too much about religious creationists mandating the teaching of bogus crap in public schools. The outcomes of that experiment couldn't do any more damage to the mental faculties of American students than the education process did to yours.

George Bush is responsible for the murder that one Iraqi commits against another Iraqi. One has be a lunatic to be swayed by such "tight" and "well considered" reasoning.
 
I would part company with you on that one. Afghanistan was harboring our sworn enemeis and refused to expel them. They were providing them refuge to train for and plan attacks against us. IMO that war was justified.

As would the majority of the country at the time. I still agree with the Rand Corp, that it was counter productive. As soon as we leave, it will continue to be available to terrorists. Besides, there are terrorists all over the world. I personally don't feel that waging war against all those countries would help anything either.
 
This is why I don't worry too much about religious creationists mandating the teaching of bogus crap in public schools. The outcomes of that experiment couldn't do any more damage to the mental faculties of American students than the education process did to yours.

George Bush is responsible for the murder that one Iraqi commits against another Iraqi. One has be a lunatic to be swayed by such "tight" and "well considered" reasoning.

Yes, of course he was responsible. You know, the buck stops here and all that? It's no different than the law on felony murder. If you break into a store, expecting it to be empty, but there are people inside and one of them pulls out a gun and shoots at you, but hits an old lady across the street, killing her, then YOU are guilty of felony murder because YOU created the condition that led to the killing. In Bush's case it was perfectly foreseeable that the invasion would lead to tribal strife and civilian deaths. That's what Powell was referring to when he said, "you break it, you own it."

I guess he didn't realize that wingnuts have trouble with conceptual thinking?
 
This is why I don't worry too much about religious creationists mandating the teaching of bogus crap in public schools. The outcomes of that experiment couldn't do any more damage to the mental faculties of American students than the education process did to yours.

George Bush is responsible for the murder that one Iraqi commits against another Iraqi. One has be a lunatic to be swayed by such "tight" and "well considered" reasoning.

Evidently, you have not compared the deaths by violence preceding our invasion of Iraq with the violent deaths after we invaded Iraq.
 
Last edited:
As would the majority of the country at the time. I still agree with the Rand Corp, that it was counter productive. As soon as we leave, it will continue to be available to terrorists. Besides, there are terrorists all over the world. I personally don't feel that waging war against all those countries would help anything either.

Well, I don't agree with the *way* we went about it. Clearly we had a very good opportunity to take out bin Laden in the early going -- and blew it. Then we withdrew necessary support to shore up the new regime in order to go fight in Iraq. We should have been out of there five or six years ago.
 
Back
Top Bottom