• 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!

Head of the Pakistani Taliban Killed by US Drone Strike

OldWorldOrder said:
No, I won. I have a six figure job because of my experiences and I enjoyed my experiences there (Iraq and Mindanao, in my case) to such an extent that every couple years I volunteer every few years to go out to those locations.

So apparently not everyone lost. This will require critical thinking, as opposed to just a blanket statement that now you want to defend to ridiculous extents in order to protect your viewpoint. Did you mean every nation-level actor?
Click to expand...

Not one of your friends were hit or killed? If so, good for you. You were lucky.
 
Blue_State said:
Not one of your friends were hit or killed? If so, good for you. You were lucky.
Click to expand...

No, some were. Does that mean I lost? Wouldn't that mean that virtually everyone loses at everything? My grandmother died in 1999. Does that mean I lost the 90s?

My point is that saying stupid **** like "everyone loses" is a lazy platitude. It doesn't mean anything, and people say things like that when they can't or won't actually use their mind to create a solid argument.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
No, some were. Does that mean I lost? Wouldn't that mean that virtually everyone loses at everything? My grandmother died in 1999. Does that mean I lost the 90s?

My point is that saying stupid **** like "everyone loses" is a lazy platitude. It doesn't mean anything, and people say things like that when they can't or won't actually use their mind to create a solid argument.
Click to expand...

When I lost a friend, I felt I lost. My friends life being cut short is a loss. Grandma dying at 89 is a good life. If you can't see the difference then there really is no helping you.
 
Blue_State said:
When I lost a friend, I felt I lost. My friends life being cut short is a loss. Grandma dying at 89 is a good life. If you can't see the difference then there really is no helping you.
Click to expand...

Since we all lose friends, that means we all lose all the time, no matter what. So, again: it's meaningless.
 
Blue_State said:
Isn't that the theory the Russian's went with when they invaded and tried to hold Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

Yes, but they didn't invade Pakistan. Furthermore, the Soviets had to deal with factors that we don't - significant outside support for the mujahideen, and the fact that the insurgency itself was a popular resistance movement.
 
apdst said:
Killing the enemy isn't genocide.
Click to expand...

It is genocide, or close to it, when civilian areas are attacked with weapons of mass destruction such as nukes, fire bombs and deadly chemicals. One of the many problems with war is people get so angry and/or start to like killing so much that they go beyond military necessity and into mass murder, this happens to even the most "civilized" people.
 
Captain America said:
I hope all future wars are fought with drones. I'd rather have our soldiers safely tucked away, operating the drones and guns and missiles, with a wobble stick, drinking a Mountain Dew.

I find it puzzling that most of the drone critics seem to be conservatives. Their sympathy for the terrorists and softness on the fight against terrorism is so out of character.

I wonder why that is?

_B_M_?

Can I buy a vowel?
Click to expand...

Remote control killing with videogame type interfaces is likely to create even more indiscriminate killing since the killer has no human connection with the victims. (that appears to be the case with the drone video that Manning released] You might not like drones so much when they belong to our opponents and you and your loved ones are the target.

Since the whole process is secret we don't know whether the people we kill intentionally (not to mention the unfortunate people who just happen to be in the area] actually deserve their fate. Many of the people the USA has imprisoned and tortured in Guantamo and elsewhere were later found to be innocent. There is certainly no reason to think that the victims in Yemen or Somalia ever intended to harm the USA.

Obama has proven to not be anything resembling a liberal so I don't see why you feel a need to defend him. Extrajudicial murder away from the battlefield is as contrary to liberalism as you can get.
 
Hard Truth said:
It is genocide, or close to it, when civilian areas are attacked with weapons of mass destruction such as nukes, fire bombs and deadly chemicals. One of the many problems with war is people get so angry and/or start to like killing so much that they go beyond military necessity and into mass murder, this happens to even the most "civilized" people.
Click to expand...


I must have missed all those reports of "drone nukes" :doh

Do you stop at nothing in your support of terrorism?
 
Sherman123 said:
A nonsense platitude. I lay at your feat the unprecedented peace of Europe and the rise of the modern international order both of which were won by political and military conflict embarked upon by the Western democracies.
Click to expand...

I lay at your feet the genocide of the Native Americans. WWII was one of the few justifiable wars, but many non-combants were killed and many cities were needlessly destroyed by the allies during WWII solely for revenge or love of killing. It was not a 1OO% just victory. There never are.
 
Last edited:
Gardener said:
I must have missed all those reports of "drone nukes" :doh

Do you stop at nothing in your support of terrorism?
Click to expand...

I never said that there are drone nukes. I never supported use of terrorism. If you disagree with me, or want to criticize my opinions, please stick to crticizing what I actually said, not what you imagine I said. You won't fool anyone with deception when my posts are right here for people to see for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
I never said that there are drone nukes. I never supported use of terrorism. If you disagree with me, or want to criticize my opinions, please stick to crticizing what I actually said, not what you imagine I said. You won't fool anyone with deception when my posts are right here for people to see for themselves.
Click to expand...

Yes,your posts ARE right here for all to see in various forums. They display no sympathy for the victims of terrorism, only the perpetrators, use bloated, inaccurate language geared towards creating false impressions and are very histrionic in tone.

It all adds up to one rather inescapable conclusion.
 
Hard Truth said:
I lay at your feet the genocide of the Native Americans. WWII was one of the few justifiable wars, but many non-combants were killed and many cities were needlessly destroyed by the allies during WWII solely for revenge or love of killing. It was not a 1OO% just victory. There never are.
Click to expand...

Your example is irrelevant. The point in question was whether violence could bring about lasting peace, it self-evidently can. You remain wrong.
 
Sherman123 said:
Your example is irrelevant. The point in question was whether violence could bring about lasting peace, it self-evidently can. You remain wrong.
Click to expand...

I said a lasting just peace.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
By what disease or war? And by who; Native Americans, Europeans or Americans?
Click to expand...

With a variety of techniques by European Americans. Are there historic revisionists of this now also?
 
Gardener said:
Yes,your posts ARE right here for all to see in various forums. They display no sympathy for the victims of terrorism, only the perpetrators, use bloated, inaccurate language geared towards creating false impressions and are very histrionic in tone.

It all adds up to one rather inescapable conclusion.
Click to expand...

I have a lot of sympathy and feel really, really bad about victims of terrorism. Feel better? If I haven't said that before it is because it is too obvious to state since no one on this forum has defended terrorism. Not only that, I actively protested against terrorism when it was being done to the Nicaraguans thirty years ago and people were defending it.
 
Hard Truth said:
I have a lot of sympathy and feel really, really bad about victims of terrorism. Feel better? If I haven't said that before it is because it is too obvious to state since no one on this forum has defended terrorism. Not only that, I actively protested against terrorism when it was being done to the Nicaraguans thirty years ago and people were defending it.
Click to expand...

Yet you refer to the killing of known terrorist ring leaders as "murder".

If you actually did have any sympathy for the victims of terrorists, you would most definitely NOT bemoan their deaths while trying to create sympathy for them by making them the victim, instead, as is patently in evidence by this twisted choice of words.
 
Sherman123 said:
Which I gave the most relevant and intense example of. You remain wrong.
Click to expand...

As I said, WWII was a good war that was won with mass killing and acheived a lasting peace. However, since much of the killing was unnecessary it wasn't completely just.

Fire Bombing of Dresden
"....Critics of the bombing argue that Dresden—sometimes referred to as "Florence on the Elbe" (Elbflorenz)—was a cultural landmark of little or no military significance, and that the attacks were indiscriminate area bombing and not proportionate to the commensurate military gains.

'It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.'........"
Wikipedia
 
CRUE CAB said:
One dead, 50 new fighters born. Great job.
Click to expand...

You never know, it could decrease moral to kill their leader.

They are enemies as supporters of Al-Qaueda (among other things) and as such we should be conducting such strikes and disposing of our enemies through death or being prisoners of war.
 
Gardener said:
Yet you refer to the killing of known terrorist ring leaders as "murder".

If you actually did have any sympathy for the victims of terrorists, you would most definitely NOT bemoan their deaths while trying to create sympathy for them by making them the victim, instead, as is patently in evidence by this twisted choice of words.
Click to expand...

mur·der
/ˈmərdər/
noun
noun: murder; plural noun: murders1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
"the stabbing murder of an off-Broadway producer"
synonyms: killing, homicide, assassination, liquidation, extermination, execution, slaughter, butchery, massacre; More

1. Per both the USA's and international law, killing that is not in self defense, not on a battlefield and not after a trial is considered murder.

2. Many of the people targetted by drones are not enemies of the USA, they are involved in Yemen and Somalia's civil wars.

3. I don't believe that a handful of government officials acting in secret with limited information should be trusted to pick people to assassinate all over the world. I belive in due process and fair trials, formerly considered a traditional "American" value.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Do you believe that the only reason to ever use violence is to, in the long run, prevent further violence?
Click to expand...

Most of the time, yes. I think that is the only reson to get involved in wars that are not attacks on the USA-to prevent a genocidal situation. Self defense and protection of our autonomy are also valid reasons.
 
Gardener said:
Yet you refer to the killing of known terrorist ring leaders as "murder".

If you actually did have any sympathy for the victims of terrorists, you would most definitely NOT bemoan their deaths while trying to create sympathy for them by making them the victim, instead, as is patently in evidence by this twisted choice of words.
Click to expand...

For one example, I never had a problem with the killing of Bin Laden because there was solid proof of his crimes (he publicly admitted them and made more threats]. However, there was an attempt to capture him before he was killed, as there should have been. (assuming the reports are correct]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom