• 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!

Two U.S. Soldiers Reportedly Killed in Shooting at Germany's Frankfurt Airport

A couple more thoughts, DiAnna...



Let's try to keep things in perspective. I haven't read anyone saying, "Dead Americans - A-okay", nor anything approaching that. I have read comments discussing whether the attack could be described as a terrorist act, or an act of war. Whichever side of that discussion you fall on does not make the event any more or any less tragic or the act any more or less heinous.

My point in posting Big Tom's hideous comment from the thread about the innocent Afghan boys being killed by NATO helicopters was that if you are going to say, "Afghanistan is a warzone, so deaths there are to be expected and hence less regretted," then you are leaving yourself open to accusations of double standards.

It is true that the Afghan boys were not targetted, but mistaken for insurgent troops. That does not make one jot of difference to their families and yet those that made the mistake will not be held accountable for that mistake. Lack of intent does not exonerate anyone for a crime, if it did manslaughter would not be a recognised crime in most judiciaries.

As far as those poor soldiers in Germany are concerned, they may or may not have been the victims of terrorism, or the victims of retribution for perceived American acts elsewhere in the world. Of course, they may have been victims of a lone individual with mental health issues. Whatever the case, nothing is making their killing justifiable any more than the killing of the Aghan kids is justifiable. It is worth pointing out, however, that the killer of the soldiers is being brought to justice, unlike the killers of the Afghan boys.
 
Andalublue said:
I don't mean to sound antagonistic, and that's NOT my intention, but isn't it rather playing into the neo-con 'War on Terrorism' game to have a semantic discussion about whether the attack was a terrorist act or not? I think the point about motive is correct. If the motive was to make Allied, particularly American, soldiers feel threatened wherever they might be in the world, then you could describe it as 'terrorism'. The trouble is, the term has been so misused for its propaganda value that in the minds of many, if not most people, it has ceased to mean anything.

Whether it was an act of terrorism or an act of guerrilla warfare, it was just one more murderous event in a conflict that no one seems interested in bringing to an end by negotiated, peaceful means. Where is the peace process that might edge towards a reduction in the conflict between Islamism and the West?
Click to expand...

The fact that Islamic jihadis are killing people all over the world is not a "neo-con 'War on Terrorism' game".

There are people all over the world, including Muslims, who are trying to bring an end to it. The response from jihadis has been to target those Muslims and anyone else trying to stop them.

What non-military methods do you recommend the 'West' proceed with to bring about an end to this latest jihadi war?

Leaving the region will not work. Not fighting them will not work. Attempts at diplomacy receive a middle finger and will not work.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
These two aren't mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Never implied that they were. The term terrorism has been misused and may mean different things to different people.

jihadis believe their acts of terrorism are acts of war. Was this guy a jihadi or a nut case? We'll have to wait and see.
 
Ron Mars said:
The fact that Islamic jihadis are killing people all over the world is not a "neo-con 'War on Terrorism' game".
Click to expand...
That 'game' is the use of the term to differentiate all the actions of the enemy from those of the Allies. If you can portray your enemies behaviour as qualitatively distinct and infinitely more heinous than the behaviour that you are engaging in against them, then you can justify all kinds of abuses such as extraordinary rendition, the pretence that water-boarding isn't torture, suspension of the Geneva convention and the treatment of enemy prisoners such as that conducted at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.

There are people all over the world, including Muslims, who are trying to bring an end to it. The response from jihadis has been to target those Muslims and anyone else trying to stop them.
Click to expand...
Yes, quite. So tactics that allow these b****rds to claim the high moral ground and to recruit on the basis of both perceived and real abuses of local populations by the invading Allies. I think that the belief that this conflict can be resolved through entirely military means is so patently deluded that it's hard to credit that anyone really believes it.
What non-military methods do you recommend the 'West' proceed with to bring about an end to this latest jihadi war?
Click to expand...
I think I mentioned earlier, don't dehumanize your enemy, begin dialogue, then negotiate.

Leaving the region will not work. Not fighting them will not work. Attempts at diplomacy receive a middle finger and will not work.
Click to expand...
So, do you believe that all the various Islamists movements, plus the Iranians, plus the Somalia issue all be resolved through military action? If so, why do we appear no nearer a victory?
 
StillBallin75 said:
Intelligence has many dimensions. Some of today's Islamic extremists are quite resourceful and "intelligent," but in my opinion anyone who thinks that they'll make the world a better place by doing ***** **** like this has serious moral reasoning issues.
Click to expand...

All of that is true no doubt, I agree.

Because they have questionable moral reasoning does not necessarily mean jihadis are not intelligent people. It's a lot more than just some of them.
 
DiAnna said:
The soldiers were unarmed. To me this is akin to an American civilian running up to a bunch of unarmed Afghan soldiers in the Kabul airport and shooting them dead while yelling, "God wants me to do this!" At least the Kabul airport is located in a legitimate war zone. The airport in Germany was not.

In a debate, any position can be logically justified. Some are just more difficult to justify than others.
Click to expand...

That's a good analogy.

From jihadis point of view, however, the entire world is a war zone. They will attack anywhere.

Schools, churches, public buildings, hotels, nightclubs, buses, trains .......
 
Andalublue said:
I dare say we may not agree. I remember the British government saying that people who would blow up whole city centres, pubs full of innocent people, the Queen's uncle by marriage, and the hotel housing the entire British cabinet could not be negotiated with, but they were and peace (albeit imprefect) returned to Ireland. South Africa is another example of where negotiation with your enemies resulted in peace, also imperfect, but a quantum degree better than the outcome would have been should the route of conflict have been followed through to the end.

First acknowledge your enemy's humanity, then speak, then negotiate.
Click to expand...
The key difference, which is why I believe there is no negotiating with these freaks, is the examples you gave were over disputes of an oppressed group fighting back against their oppressors. In cases like that, negotiation can be fruitful and lead to a peaceful solution because the two sides can reach a mutual understanding. That is not the case with radical Islamists because from their perspective, they are commanded by G-d to slay down infidels and they will not negotiate, as religious zealots tend, a divine command.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
The key difference, which is why I believe there is no negotiating with these freaks, is the examples you gave were over disputes of an oppressed group fighting back against their oppressors. In cases like that, negotiation can be fruitful and lead to a peaceful solution because the two sides can reach a mutual understanding. That is not the case with radical Islamists because from their perspective, they are commanded by G-d to slay down infidels and they will not negotiate, as religious zealots tend, a divine command.
Click to expand...

I might agree with you if I believed that all the Islamists operated as a monolithic bloc, which they don't. I think that there is a vast difference between the Shi'a-affiliated groups and the Wahhabi groups. Not all of them can be approached in the same way, not all of them believe in permanent, endless religious war. I have to believe that dialogue, however limited at the beginning, has to be the way forward because... what's the alternative? Permanent, endless religious war?
 
Andalublue said:
I might agree with you if I believed that all the Islamists operated as a monolithic bloc, which they don't. I think that there is a vast difference between the Shi'a-affiliated groups and the Wahhabi groups. Not all of them can be approached in the same way, not all of them believe in permanent, endless religious war. I have to believe that dialogue, however limited at the beginning, has to be the way forward because... what's the alternative? Permanent, endless religious war?
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about all Islamists -- I'm talking about the radical ones who believe G-d commands them to slay down infidels.
 
Andalublue said:
That 'game' is the use of the term to differentiate all the actions of the enemy from those of the Allies. If you can portray your enemies behaviour as qualitatively distinct and infinitely more heinous than the behaviour that you are engaging in against them, then you can justify all kinds of abuses such as extraordinary rendition, the pretence that water-boarding isn't torture, suspension of the Geneva convention and the treatment of enemy prisoners such as that conducted at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
Click to expand...

The methods used to fight this war by jihadis are “infinitely more heinous”.

Grab Abu was an abomination not the norm. The majority of prisoner at Grab Abu were not abused. The US military prosecuted the offenders. They were not promoted and given medals.

We are not abusing prisoners at Gitmo. Not only what I've read about Gitmo convinces me of that, but my neighbor’s daughter has been stationed there for over three years and deals with the prosiners every day. I talk to her about twice a year when she comes home. She was of your opinion before she left. After a few months she realized none of what she believed was true.

What part of the Geneva Convention spells out the protections guaranteed to jihadi terrorists?

Andalublue said:
I think I mentioned earlier, don't dehumanize your enemy, begin dialogue, then negotiate.
Click to expand...

What do you do when all the peace and diplomacy offerings receive a middle finger?

Andalublue said:
So, do you believe that all the various Islamists movements, plus the Iranians, plus the Somalia issue all be resolved through military action? If so, why do we appear no nearer a victory?
Click to expand...

I don’t believe this war will be won only on the battlefield. We can win there and still lose the war. However, we cannot afford to lose on the battlefield and have no choice but to fight jihadis. If you think that’s delusional then so be it.

Free and peaceful nations defeated jihadis in Iraq and I believe we will defeat them again in Afghanistan.
 
SE102 said:
They guy was probably mentally unstable like the US Army base shooter.
Click to expand...

All radical Islamics are mentally unstable in my book. Here's an analogy. I love dogs. Rabid dogs are a danger to society and must be shot on sight for the good of society and to put them out of their misery. Putting down a rabid dog doesn't negate that fact I love dogs and think they should be treated humanely. Same goes for mentally unstable maniacs who go around shooting people. It doesn't matter if they do it while yelling "Allah hu akbar!" in Germany or screaming about the Federal government in Tucson, Arizona.
 
Basically I'm getting from you, dead Americans, A-okay. Which pretty much makes me want to do unacceptably violent things to those who think as you do... and the disgusting people who agree with your pathethicly vile hatefulness.
Click to expand...

You are aware that those people include your president,, Barry?? Most of the dems and the whole of the liberal horde?

"Meh, it's a warzone."
Click to expand...

I guess that you haven’t noticed that you house, your neighborhood, your city, our country and all of our people are part of a war zone mapped out by the people who inspired the killings in Germany.

Our government should be less restricted as to where and when they can strike back at the islamo radicals. We need to strike not only the foot soldiers of jihad but those who support them.

Whichever side of that discussion you fall on does not make the event any more or any less tragic or the act any more or less heinous.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. We can’t look at the individual deaths in a vacuum. They are not in a vacuum. The innocent deaths caused by our forces are tragic but not as tragic as it would be to let the terrorists go because one of their kids may be killed. The terrorists target women and children. If they don’t want innocent people killed all they have to do is lay down their arms or at least stop pointing them at us.

then you are leaving yourself open to accusations of double standards.
Click to expand...

Let’s use this standard; the Americans in Germany were killed intentionally by and islamo radical dog because they were American troops. The kid in Afghanistan was accidently killed because his father was a terrorist who was trying to kill American troops and Afghans who don’t want to live under Taliban rule.


unlike the killers of the Afghan boys.
Click to expand...

So you’re thinking that our troops should be charged with war crimes every time our enemies can produce a dead child and claim that we killed an innocent?

a conflict that no one seems interested in bringing to an end by negotiated, peaceful means
Click to expand...

Sure, all we have to do to end this peacefully is to submit to islamo rule. Look at islamoism and you will see that the cult was created with the sword as a thorn in the sides of the Christians and the Jews. Mohamed was an illiterate drug addict who came up a reason to rob passing caravans. After that he used his army of thieves to attack the other Arabs and force his rule on them. Conveniently his religion gave him authority to kill anyone who resisted. Islam was headed and spread for more than a thousand years by war lords who claimed to have the will of God on their side. Still we see killed thugs ruling most of the islamoised Middle East. Because the cult almost requires an executioner as the leader I don’t see that the current purges in Africa will change the standard of living for the average person. The abusive war lord is a prime tenant of islam that the people have accepted for hundreds of generations.
 
the pretence that water-boarding isn't torture, suspension of the Geneva convention and the treatment of enemy prisoners such as that conducted at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
Click to expand...

Torture?? We regularly water-board our won troops to give them an idea of what it is like. If you want to know what torture is – and let’s remember that many in the liberal horde wanted to impeach President Bush over water boarding – take a look at the actions of Saddam in Iraq. Take a look at the communists in Cambodia who tortured people not of information but to terrorize them and the general public who could hear the screams of the people who were having their finger nails pulled out, shocked of various parts of their bodies, having broken glass inserted in orifices, etc. That is torture.. Pouring water on a terrorist’s face to get critical information that may have saved American lives is not torture.

There is no credible evidence that any of the horrors claimed by the terrorists actually happened at Guantanamo. Abu Ghraib was minor pay back done by people who were a little stupid – or there wouldn’t have been pictures – but wanted to hurt our enemies.

We can’t keep the stupid and the few pathological killers out of the military and we should punish them as we always do.
 
X Factor said:
At least you agree with me that he didn't sound outraged. So it's not just me. He didn't sound resolute to me either though.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think that is just how Obama is. He is just a guy that doesn't show a lot of emotion. I think he has conditioned himself always to remain cool and a bit detached. Very helpful in some respects but not in others. I try to focus on what he does rahter than how he says something. I am not pleased about a lot of what he does but I don't read anything in how much emotion he does or doesn't show.
 
Well it's a good thing many of us took fire and put our lives on the line for Kosovo Muslims.... your welcome asshole...


RIP brothers.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Well it's a good thing many of us took fire and put our lives on the line for Kosovo Muslims.... your welcome asshole...


RIP brothers.
Click to expand...

Agreed on RIP, disagreed on damning all Kosovo Muslims for the actions of one radical. Major Nidal Hasan is an American born Muslim. Would you damn all American Muslims for his actions on November 5, 2009?

If we are going to win the war on terror, meaning winning the war on radical Islamics, then we need to work smarter, not harder by enlisting the aid of main stream Muslims. Condemning all of them goes against our best interests.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
That just means the killing was for Allah. That alone doesn't make it terrorism.
Click to expand...

It's called fanaticism. It is a form of terrorism because of the intent behind his fanatic actions. That mean's its wrong....
 
Last edited:
Divine Wind said:
eaning winning the war on radical Islamics, then we need to work smarter, not harder by enlisting the aid of main stream Muslims. Condemning all of them goes against our best interests.
Click to expand...

The key word here is "moderate".

The way some of the leftist reactionaries describe it, the term applies to any who are not actually currently in the pucess of drawing a knife across the throat of an infidel. The way the reactionary righties define it, there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.
 
Divine Wind said:
Agreed on RIP, disagreed on damning all Kosovo Muslims for the actions of one radical. Major Nidal Hasan is an American born Muslim. Would you damn all American Muslims for his actions on November 5, 2009?
Click to expand...

I might be a little miffed if I risked my life for them, then had one of em shoot at me. :shrug:

I'd get over it.


If we are going to win the war on terror, meaning winning the war on radical Islamics, then we need to work smarter, not harder by enlisting the aid of main stream Muslims. Condemning all of them goes against our best interests.
Click to expand...

This I agree with.
 
jambalaya said:
To be fair, I think that is just how Obama is. He is just a guy that doesn't show a lot of emotion. I think he has conditioned himself always to remain cool and a bit detached. Very helpful in some respects but not in others. I try to focus on what he does rahter than how he says something. I am not pleased about a lot of what he does but I don't read anything in how much emotion he does or doesn't show.
Click to expand...
I might agree with you if I had never seen him get pissed before. I have, like I say, at perceived political foes. Then he starts talking about ass kicking and sht. His outrage seems selective sometimes, let's just say that. You're right though, compared to other things, the tone of his voice is not a big deal.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
really? what's your point here?
Click to expand...

I know right? It is this type of agenda driven trolling that turns a discussion into high school like chatter.
 
DiAnna said:
Thanks for not answering the question that was put to you, which was Why?

Nobody asked about Pakistan or Yemen. Clearly, you are trying to equate the slaughter of unarmed USA soldiers in a German airport with terrorist attacks in Pakistan and Yemen. Also, the ignoring of NATO soldiers in Afghanistan is quite telling. It was a cold-blooded slaughter of unarmed USA soldiers in an area that was supposedly a neutral zone.

Basically I'm getting from you, dead Americans, A-okay. Which pretty much makes me want to do unacceptably violent things to those who think as you do... and the disgusting people who agree with your pathethicly vile hatefulness.
Click to expand...

I care no more about dead americans then dead egyptians, pakistanis or Yemenis or Israelis or Palestinians or Canadians. A life is a life to me regardless of nationality

You still failed to answer the question.

The soldiers were unarmed in Germany a neutral zone, which makes you feel it is terrorism. What about when the US attacks people in neutral zones like Pakistan or Yemen? It kills unarmed fighters when it does (hitting them in homes or driving)

This is entirely a neutral question, applying the same standard you apply to the labelling of the killing of the US soldiers to the killing of fighters in Afghanistan and Yemen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom