Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Marines suffer first casualties in Afghan campaign

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Marines suffer first casualties in Afghan campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    They are "giving thier lives" so people like you can bloviate about utter nonsense to try and pass off your couch sitting pseudo-intellectualism as something of value.
    This is somewhat exaggerated. The Afghanistan campaign wasn't initiated because homeland civil liberties were directly mortally threatened; ascribing that element to every single military campaign is mere political propaganda and dilutes the effects of those actually intended to defend civil liberties.

  2. #12
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,260

    Re: Marines suffer first casualties in Afghan campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    This is somewhat exaggerated. The Afghanistan campaign wasn't initiated because homeland civil liberties were directly mortally threatened; ascribing that element to every single military campaign is mere political propaganda and dilutes the effects of those actually intended to defend civil liberties.



    Nonsense.

    Al Qaeda attacked my country, my family, my friends.

    Taliban aided and abetted them by giving sanctuary.

    They directly attacked our freedom:

    The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International



    Bloviating about some "War for poppy" is idiocy at its finest. To ascribe afghanistan anything other than another battle in this animating contest of Freedom, is rather ignorant or chosen obtuseness.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  3. #13
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Marines suffer first casualties in Afghan campaign

    The idea in Afghanistan should be the same as it was in Iraq. You need to create a situation where the culture itself realizes the benefit of turning against the extremists. If we just bombed a bunch of AL-Qaeda quacks, and went home, then eventually we face the same thing in the future since either Al-Qaeda would reform and again gain shelter within the borders, or another group would come about. Just satiating our desire for revenge is continuing along the same circular path of getting nowhere, in regards to terrorism.

    However the logistics of Afghanistan is quite different than Iraq. They lack the infrastructure and education levels that Iraqis had. Because of this, we see competing warlords in various regions that are "unreachable" by their government, be it the Taliban or the current regime. In order to unify a culture against extremists, the infrastructure has to improve vastly.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Marines suffer first casualties in Afghan campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Nonsense.

    Al Qaeda attacked my country, my family, my friends.

    Taliban aided and abetted them by giving sanctuary.

    They directly attacked our freedom:

    The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
    No, they didn't, and as I said, that's mere political propaganda. Widespread civil liberties were never threatened with destruction by a single attack that they perceived as retaliatory, immoral as that might have been. Moreover, the point that stronger elements of the Taliban opposed that action illustrates the reality that removing them from governmental status altogether had little effect on the defense of civil liberties here, though a case could certainly be made that it was justifiable on the basis of defense of civil liberties in Afghanistan.

  5. #15
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,260

    Re: Marines suffer first casualties in Afghan campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    No, they didn't, and as I said, that's mere political propaganda. Widespread civil liberties were never threatened with destruction by a single attack that they perceived as retaliatory, immoral as that might have been. Moreover, the point that stronger elements of the Taliban opposed that action illustrates the reality that removing them from governmental status altogether had little effect on the defense of civil liberties here, though a case could certainly be made that it was justifiable on the basis of defense of civil liberties in Afghanistan.


    Saying "nuh uh" is hardly debate. I provided you with an outline, and a link for your review.


    Furthermore I refer you to bin laden's letter to America, in which he states that in order for them to stop attacking us, Bill Clinton needs to keep it in his pants, and we must come to islam.


    Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America' | World news | Observer.co.uk



    There is no doubt the al qaeda attacks, and the taliban's sheltering of them were direct attacks on our nation and our freedom. There is no debate here.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  6. #16
    Professor
    WillRockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 09:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,950

    Re: Marines suffer first casualties in Afghan campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Are you suggesting Obama is providing the strategy to the Generals?
    I am speculating without evidence on any of this, but if it is a strategy, Obama would have approved it. Why the lol?

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Marines suffer first casualties in Afghan campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Saying "nuh uh" is hardly debate.
    Exactly. Unfortunately, that's exactly what you've done even after I made it apparent that not only were widespread civil liberties not substantially threatened by a single attack, but the Taliban opposed these interventionist tactics, and their forcible removal from government thus had little effect on the protection of civil liberties here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Furthermore I refer you to bin laden's letter to America, in which he states that in order for them to stop attacking us, Bill Clinton needs to keep it in his pants, and we must come to islam.
    As made apparent in his 1996 fatwa (and confirmed in that letter, for that matter), his two chief complaints were U.S. financial support for the Israeli government, whom he considered to be committing many moral injustices violating the "sacred" nature of the Al-Aqsa mosque, as well as direct U.S. military presence throughout the Middle East, most notably in Saudi Arabia. He doesn't seem to have much of an interest in merely assaulting "freedom" or "liberty" (you'll notice that he didn't attack the more libertarian democracies of Scandinavia, for example), and it's of course the case that populations that serve as Al-Qaeda recruiting grounds object far more to U.S. policy in the region than to domestic "principles."

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    There is no doubt the al qaeda attacks, and the taliban's sheltering of them were direct attacks on our nation and our freedom. There is no debate here.
    There are few things of such a stereotypically propagandist nature as referring to "our nation and our freedom." But crude nationalist rhetoric conceals the obvious aforementioned reality that a single attack (which they conceptualized as retaliation rather than proactive aggression, regardless of the legitimacy of that belief) does not pose a widespread threat to civil liberties in the U.S., nor does their chief interest seem to be the elimination of widespread civil liberties in the U.S.

  8. #18
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,260

    Re: Marines suffer first casualties in Afghan campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by WillRockwell View Post
    I am speculating without evidence on any of this, but if it is a strategy, Obama would have approved it. Why the lol?


    Becaus your post was so full of fawning of the current president and scorn for the former, I just found your swooning rather humorous.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  9. #19
    ANTI**ANTIFA
    ReverendHellh0und's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Temple of Solomon
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 05:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    75,260

    Re: Marines suffer first casualties in Afghan campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Exactly. Unfortunately, that's exactly what you've done even after I made it apparent that not only were widespread civil liberties not substantially threatened by a single attack, but the Taliban opposed these interventionist tactics, and their forcible removal from government thus had little effect on the protection of civil liberties here.

    And then resorting to "I know you are but what am I" is rather peurile in nature....


    "interventionist tactics", what a joke.


    As made apparent in his 1996 fatwa (and confirmed in that letter, for that matter), his two chief complaints were U.S. financial support for the Israeli government, whom he considered to be committing many moral injustices violating the "sacred" nature of the Al-Aqsa mosque, as well as direct U.S. military presence throughout the Middle East, most notably in Saudi Arabia. He doesn't seem to have much of an interest in merely assaulting "freedom" or "liberty" (you'll notice that he didn't attack the more libertarian democracies of Scandinavia, for example), and it's of course the case that populations that serve as Al-Qaeda recruiting grounds object far more to U.S. policy in the region than to domestic "principles."

    Please read what we must do to stop his attacks. We must come to islam for one.


    Lets not cherrpick in order to maintain a version of bloviating that you have become renowned for!






    There are few things of such a stereotypically propagandist nature as referring to "our nation and our freedom." But crude nationalist rhetoric conceals the obvious aforementioned reality that a single attack (which they conceptualized as retaliation rather than proactive aggression, regardless of the legitimacy of that belief) does not pose a widespread threat to civil liberties in the U.S., nor does their chief interest seem to be the elimination of widespread civil liberties in the U.S.

    More pseudo intellectualism. You need to get out more. The WTC attacks were a direct attack on our nation and its freedom. I have proved this, your propaganist ways can't stand reality.
    Let evil swiftly befall those who have wrongly condemned us

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: Marines suffer first casualties in Afghan campaign

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    And then resorting to "I know you are but what am I" is rather peurile in nature....
    If my comment was merely a reversal of yours, than perhaps you should acknowledge the puerility present in your own posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    "interventionist tactics", what a joke.


    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Please read what we must do to stop his attacks. We must come to islam for one.

    Lets not cherrpick in order to maintain a version of bloviating that you have become renowned for!
    No, I didn't see that section as a mandate that he had issued, nor was Western Christianity or secularism listed as a reason for the initiation of AQ aggression. Even if it was, I suspect that he'd find far fewer individuals willing to aid him in the task of forcible conversion of the inhabitants of Western countries to Islam, both because of the lack of feasibility of that approach and because of the aforementioned fact that polling indicates a higher degree of opposition to U.S. policy than U.S. principles of religious pluralism or governmental secularism. As noted, he didn't attack Sweden.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    More pseudo intellectualism. You need to get out more. The WTC attacks were a direct attack on our nation and its freedom. I have proved this, your propaganist ways can't stand reality.
    No, you haven't "proved" anything. There are three factors that you've apparently chosen to desperately ignore at all costs:

    1. The plane hijackings and crashings were acts of mass murder, but alone, they did not pose a threat to widespread U.S. civil rights or liberties as a whole. It's thus disingenuous to pretend that the mere right to speak and express sentiments freely was threatened by those actions.

    2. There is little evidence that OBL or Al Qaeda were strongly opposed to civil rights or liberties in the U.S. alone, or that their interest in attacking U.S. targets was based on ardent opposition to such rights and liberties. Rather, the apparent reality is that they were opposed to U.S. government Middle Eastern policy, most significantly financial aid to the Israeli government and direct military presence and interventionism in other parts of the Middle East. Even if this were not the case, the populations that serve as their primary bases of recruitment indicate opposition to U.S. government foreign policy rather than domestic "principles."

    3. Even if the first two points were untrue (and there's no compelling reason to believe they are), senior elements of the Taliban opposed the interventionism of Al Qaeda, and Mullah Omar was known to be a foe of the strategy of attacking the U.S. The forcible removal from governmental office and continued conflict with the Taliban thus cannot be conceptualized as a necessary defense of civil rights and liberties in the U.S. (especially in light of the fact that AQ themselves poses no substantial threat to those), though it is arguably justifiable on the grounds of the domestic repression of the Taliban.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •