• 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!

Supporting the war on terror

Bodhisattva said:
You are doing it again. Straw Man. We are talking about bombing terrorists... not Islam or Islamic countries. Bombing a country is a direct effort to target the government. I already explained this. ISIS is not the government. In fact... governments want them gone too... no government in the world wants Al Quada or ISIS in their country. No stable govrrnment anyway.
Click to expand...

That gives me an idea.

No stable government wants to have Crips, Bloods, MS 13, or any of their ilk around.

I wonder if we could end groups like that through drone attacks and smart bombs? If it works for ISIS, why not for gangs? What's the difference?
 
DashingAmerican said:
I would quit funding any Middle East countries. And would take care of whoever is funding and or selling weapons to them in the first place.
Click to expand...

I see. And what exactly have you now done?

Are you even aware that the vast majority of weapons in use over there are from the former Soviet Union and other former Warsaw Pact nations?

So what exactly has been accomplished, other than make yourself feel better?

And let's see, " take care of whoever is funding and or selling weapons to them"? So are you saying that we should attack Iran and Russia? Is that what you are saying? Because those are the major suppliers of weapons and funding to the two sides (as well as Turkey, our ally).

So make up your mind, will you? Get out, or attack them more? You can not pick both, no matter what you are saying.

Bodhisattva said:
I know. The point was that we stopped them from killing innocent people by bombing them into submission. Just what dashingamerican says is impossible.
Click to expand...

Oh, indeed it is.

For those that are old enough to remember, Libya was a major exporter of terror in the 1980's. Some of the bloodiest attacks were sponsored, bankrolled, or ordered by that nation.

Then on 2 occasions the US President struck directly at that nation, and it's President. And after that, Libya got pretty damned quiet for a while. Then they started to act up again by bombing and hijacking airliners, so the US sent aid to Chad during their war with Libya, resulting in several crushing defeats.

Now I am a pacifist, but I am also a realist. And when one side absolutely refuses to end a conflict, you can never have peace. And I refuse to simply roll over just because somebody else wants something I or somebody else has.

And I absolutely will not in any way support the atrocities and abominations that ISIS has been doing for the last several years. Personally, I find the very concept of allowing such an organization to continue, and to perform such atrocities upon civilians completely distasteful, and find anybody that thinks nothing should be done to people like that as completely and utterly morally bankrupt, more concerned with their own wants and needs than the life and wellbeing of other human beings.

How people can ignore such things is beyond me. It has to be something pathological to have such little concern for others, or to have more concern for the criminals than for the victims.
 
Dittohead not! said:
What about friends and family of people who just happened to be nearby when a drone blew up a terrorist?
Click to expand...

"Just happened to be nearby"?

The vast majority of the strikes have been in the middle of nowhere.

I guess that as long as there is a single human shield, we should never attack anybody, anywhere.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You are doing it again. Straw Man. We are talking about bombing terrorists... not Islam or Islamic countries. Bombing a country is a direct effort to target the government. I already explained this. ISIS is not the government. In fact... governments want them gone too... no government in the world wants Al Quada or ISIS in their country. No stable govrrnment anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes I get what you're saying but terrorists aren't in a magical land that doesn't belong to any country, are they?
 
Dittohead not! said:
What about friends and family of people who just happened to be nearby when a drone blew up a terrorist?
Click to expand...

I would no more blame the USA than I would a cop in a shootout with cracked out Cripp gang bangers in the house next door.

Dittohead not! said:
That gives me an idea.

No stable government wants to have Crips, Bloods, MS 13, or any of their ilk around.

I wonder if we could end groups like that through drone attacks and smart bombs? If it works for ISIS, why not for gangs? What's the difference?
Click to expand...

gangs are not out randomly attacking people... shooting up malls or beheading innocent people. That said i have no problem using the SEALs to attack drug cartels in Mexico or even here in the states. Kill 'em.
 
Oozlefinch said:
I see. And what exactly have you now done?

Are you even aware that the vast majority of weapons in use over there are from the former Soviet Union and other former Warsaw Pact nations?

So what exactly has been accomplished, other than make yourself feel better?

And let's see, " take care of whoever is funding and or selling weapons to them"? So are you saying that we should attack Iran and Russia? Is that what you are saying? Because those are the major suppliers of weapons and funding to the two sides (as well as Turkey, our ally).

So make up your mind, will you? Get out, or attack them more? You can not pick both, no matter what you are saying.



Oh, indeed it is.

For those that are old enough to remember, Libya was a major exporter of terror in the 1980's. Some of the bloodiest attacks were sponsored, bankrolled, or ordered by that nation.

Then on 2 occasions the US President struck directly at that nation, and it's President. And after that, Libya got pretty damned quiet for a while. Then they started to act up again by bombing and hijacking airliners, so the US sent aid to Chad during their war with Libya, resulting in several crushing defeats.

Now I am a pacifist, but I am also a realist. And when one side absolutely refuses to end a conflict, you can never have peace. And I refuse to simply roll over just because somebody else wants something I or somebody else has.

And I absolutely will not in any way support the atrocities and abominations that ISIS has been doing for the last several years. Personally, I find the very concept of allowing such an organization to continue, and to perform such atrocities upon civilians completely distasteful, and find anybody that thinks nothing should be done to people like that as completely and utterly morally bankrupt, more concerned with their own wants and needs than the life and wellbeing of other human beings.

How people can ignore such things is beyond me. It has to be something pathological to have such little concern for others, or to have more concern for the criminals than for the victims.
Click to expand...

Sure I would attack any COUNTRY that is supporting terrorism and would openly admit that I was attacking a country and not hide behind the premise that I am targeting groups and not countries.
 
Oozlefinch said:
I see. And what exactly have you now done?

Are you even aware that the vast majority of weapons in use over there are from the former Soviet Union and other former Warsaw Pact nations?

So what exactly has been accomplished, other than make yourself feel better?

And let's see, " take care of whoever is funding and or selling weapons to them"? So are you saying that we should attack Iran and Russia? Is that what you are saying? Because those are the major suppliers of weapons and funding to the two sides (as well as Turkey, our ally).

So make up your mind, will you? Get out, or attack them more? You can not pick both, no matter what you are saying.



Oh, indeed it is.

For those that are old enough to remember, Libya was a major exporter of terror in the 1980's. Some of the bloodiest attacks were sponsored, bankrolled, or ordered by that nation.

Then on 2 occasions the US President struck directly at that nation, and it's President. And after that, Libya got pretty damned quiet for a while. Then they started to act up again by bombing and hijacking airliners, so the US sent aid to Chad during their war with Libya, resulting in several crushing defeats.

Now I am a pacifist, but I am also a realist. And when one side absolutely refuses to end a conflict, you can never have peace. And I refuse to simply roll over just because somebody else wants something I or somebody else has.

And I absolutely will not in any way support the atrocities and abominations that ISIS has been doing for the last several years. Personally, I find the very concept of allowing such an organization to continue, and to perform such atrocities upon civilians completely distasteful, and find anybody that thinks nothing should be done to people like that as completely and utterly morally bankrupt, more concerned with their own wants and needs than the life and wellbeing of other human beings.

How people can ignore such things is beyond me. It has to be something pathological to have such little concern for others, or to have more concern for the criminals than for the victims.
Click to expand...

Ï
Well said...
 
DashingAmerican said:
Yes I get what you're saying but terrorists aren't in a magical land that doesn't belong to any country, are they?
Click to expand...

So what? What is your point? Who is complaining we are bombing ISIS? What should we do about ISIS? I hear you complaining... "we are bombing countries". So the hell what id ISIS is in a country?
 
DashingAmerican said:
Sure I would attack any COUNTRY that is supporting terrorism and would openly admit that I was attacking a country and not hide behind the premise that I am targeting groups and not countries.
Click to expand...

So... ISIS is in Iraq. Is Iraq supporting them? No. Should we openky attack Iraq? From where i sit you dont have the foggiest idea about foreign policy or relations.
 
Bodhisattva said:
So what? What is your point? Who is complaining we are bombing ISIS? What should we do about ISIS? I hear you complaining... "we are bombing countries". So the hell what id ISIS is in a country?
Click to expand...

As I've said, I have no problem attacking ISIS, but we should call it what it is. If we're bombing ISIS in Afghanistan, we're bombing Afghanistan.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I would no more blame the USA than I would a cop in a shootout with cracked out Cripp gang bangers in the house next door.



gangs are not out randomly attacking people... shooting up malls or beheading innocent people. That said i have no problem using the SEALs to attack drug cartels in Mexico or even here in the states. Kill 'em.
Click to expand...

So you're ok with the government killing it's own citizens instead of giving them a trial?
 
Bodhisattva said:
So... ISIS is in Iraq. Is Iraq supporting them? No. Should we openly attack Iraq? From where i sit you don't have the foggiest idea about foreign policy or relations.
Click to expand...

You said it, Iraq isn't supporting them, we SHOULD be attacking countries that are.
 
DashingAmerican said:
Sure I would attack any COUNTRY that is supporting terrorism and would openly admit that I was attacking a country and not hide behind the premise that I am targeting groups and not countries.
Click to expand...

So then you think we should attack Iran.

You are aware are you not that most of the actual support is not coming from nations, are you not? And we are literally talking about dozens of differing groups and factions, who are generally working together under the ISIS umbrella.

ISIS is not a single monolithic organization, like say the German Army of WWII. It is more like the dozens of various Socialist-Marxist factions fighting in Russia after the fall of the Czars.

DashingAmerican said:
So you're ok with the government killing it's own citizens instead of giving them a trial?
Click to expand...

Depends, are you talking about a criminal or military action? Because you can not have it both ways.
 
Oozlefinch said:
So then you think we should attack Iran.

You are aware are you not that most of the actual support is not coming from nations, are you not? And we are literally talking about dozens of differing groups and factions, who are generally working together under the ISIS umbrella.

ISIS is not a single monolithic organization, like say the German Army of WWII. It is more like the dozens of various Socialist-Marxist factions fighting in Russia after the fall of the Czars.



Depends, are you talking about a criminal or military action? Because you can not have it both ways.
Click to expand...
I understand the difference between a terrorist organization and a government. What I'm saying, is instead of bombing countries, we should find the major "funders" and kill them.

And the post I was referring to was talking about Navy SEALS killing American civilians. So that would be a military action.
 
DashingAmerican said:
I understand the difference between a terrorist organization and a government. What I'm saying, is instead of bombing countries, we should find the major "funders" and kill them.

And the post I was referring to was talking about Navy SEALS killing American civilians. So that would be a military action.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you are talking about literally tens of thousands of individuals. Who do not live in war zones. So I can only suppose that you are endorsing assassination squads to perform extrajudicial actions?

Sorry, can't support that.

And since our Special Operators only work overseas, anybody found is a combatant. Does not matter then if they are American or not. So the comparison does not apply.
 
Oozlefinch said:
The problem is that you are talking about literally tens of thousands of individuals. Who do not live in war zones. So I can only suppose that you are endorsing assassination squads to perform extrajudicial actions?

Sorry, can't support that.

And since our Special Operators only work overseas, anybody found is a combatant. Does not matter then if they are American or not. So the comparison does not apply.
Click to expand...

So it's ok to keep bombing, but not ok to assassinate the people funding it.

Again, it was a quote stating that he was ok using the SEALs to kill gang members here in America which is why I asked the question in the first place...
 
DashingAmerican said:
As I've said, I have no problem attacking ISIS, but we should call it what it is. If we're bombing ISIS in Afghanistan, we're bombing Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

We wre cwlling it what it is... exactly. Bombing ISIS in Afghanistan.

Cant be any more correct than that.

DashingAmerican said:
So you're ok with the government killing it's own citizens instead of giving them a trial?
Click to expand...

If they are caught red handed and only certain individuals that the govrrnment gets judicial approval from prior to the kill hell yes. Gangsters that are repeat offenders. Murderers. Rapists. Kill em on the spot.

DashingAmerican said:
You said it, Iraq isn't supporting them, we SHOULD be attacking countries that are.
Click to expand...

You want us to invade Iran and Russia? Are you crazy?

DashingAmerican said:
I understand the difference between a terrorist organization and a government. What I'm saying, is instead of bombing countries, we should find the major "funders" and kill them.

And the post I was referring to was talking about Navy SEALS killing American civilians. So that would be a military action.
Click to expand...

Kill the bankers or businessmen where funds are channeled... sometime unknowingly? Kll a taxi driver passing messages but not the terrorist beheading people? Glad you are not running things...

DashingAmerican said:
So it's ok to keep bombing, but not ok to assassinate the people funding it.

Again, it was a quote stating that he was ok using the SEALs to kill gang members here in America which is why I asked the question in the first place...
Click to expand...

Assassinate them too... fine.
 
DashingAmerican said:
So it's ok to keep bombing, but not ok to assassinate the people funding it.

Again, it was a quote stating that he was ok using the SEALs to kill gang members here in America which is why I asked the question in the first place...
Click to expand...

In case you are not aware, President Ford outlawed assassination as a tool of US actions decades ago. I for one want to keep it that way.

As for Special Operators conducting actions on US soil, I am 100% against that. It has been illegal under US law for over a century, and should remain so except under special circumstances (declarations of emergency, Martial Law).

I for one would never want to see Martial Law declared because of gang activity.

Bodhisattva said:
We wre cwlling it what it is... exactly. Bombing ISIS in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We are not bombing indiscriminately, the bombing is targeted as much as possible.

But some refuse to ever see that. Killing a handful of innocents to them is a crime, even if it saves hundreds of innocents.


Bodhisattva said:
Cant be any more correct than that.
Click to expand...

If it is in a war zone and the individuals are under arms, killing them in the course of the fighting is perfectly fine with me. Killing them in an extrajudicial manner though is wrong. If they are to wounded to fight or surrender so be it. Let them have a trial under US military law, then execute them (as any other war criminal) and I have no problem with that.


Bodhisattva said:
If they are caught red handed and only certain individuals that the govrrnment gets judicial approval from prior to the kill hell yes. Gangsters that are repeat offenders. Murderers. Rapists. Kill em on the spot.
Click to expand...

Once again, we are a nation of laws, no reason to stoop to their level.

Capture them, try them, then execute them. But I absolutely never want to see the military enforcing justice inside of the United States.


Bodhisattva said:
You want us to invade Iran and Russia? Are you crazy?
Click to expand...

In this I completely agree. Funny how so many simply refuse to be able to take the logical step to what their words would actually mean.

At this time, there is really only one State Sponsor behind many of the ISIS groups, and that State Sponsor is Iran. Maybe some of them should have thought of that before they applauded the agreements and money transfers of the last President.

Bodhisattva said:
Kill the bankers or businessmen where funds are channeled... sometime unknowingly? Kll a taxi driver passing messages but not the terrorist beheading people? Glad you are not running things...
Click to expand...

Which is one of many reasons why I am against assassination as a tool of statecraft.

Against a top leader, there is a grey area. But against the "common soldiers", never.

I often find it amusing how often people in here have called me a "fascist", and other such names. It only goes to show that they really have no comprehension of either what the term means, or what my actual views really are. They only project what they think I should believe onto me.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Somebody needs to learn their history...
Click to expand...

Some people have not been paying attention to recent historical events, and prefer to be spoon-fed by government writers to know how they shall think and understand. Please Mr. President, how shall I think about this, that, or the other?
 
Bodhisattva said:
I would no more blame the USA than I would a cop in a shootout with cracked out Cripp gang bangers in the house next door.



gangs are not out randomly attacking people... shooting up malls or beheading innocent people. That said i have no problem using the SEALs to attack drug cartels in Mexico or even here in the states. Kill 'em.
Click to expand...

and the collateral damage is OK, just as it is in foreign nations.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and the collateral damage is OK, just as it is in foreign nations.
Click to expand...

Cops occasionally shoot the wrong person or a bystander, so I guess we should not have any cops.

Some people get drunk and drive and kill people, so we should not allow alcohol.

I am not sure where you are going with this, especially since most collateral damage is done because of the use of human shields.

So what do you propose, do nothing?

It is easy to complain and criticize, it is so much more difficult to come up with an alternative.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Cops occasionally shoot the wrong person or a bystander, so I guess we should not have any cops.

Some people get drunk and drive and kill people, so we should not allow alcohol.

I am not sure where you are going with this, especially since most collateral damage is done because of the use of human shields.

So what do you propose, do nothing?

It is easy to complain and criticize, it is so much more difficult to come up with an alternative.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I must not have made myself clear.

If it's OK to blow up a car containing suspected ISIS leaders in the Middle East, then it should be OK to blow up a car containing Crips leaders in the USA. If innocent bystanders in the Middle East are simply acceptable collateral damage, then the same is true of any innocent bystanders in the USA.

Therefore, if we're going to fight ISIS or AlQaeda, or the Taliban, or any such group by using drones and rockets, it should be OK to fight Crips, Bloods, F 14ers, MS 13ers and others of their ilk in the same way.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If it's OK to blow up a car containing suspected ISIS leaders in the Middle East, then it should be OK to blow up a car containing Crips leaders in the USA. If innocent bystanders in the Middle East are simply acceptable collateral damage, then the same is true of any innocent bystanders in the USA.

Therefore, if we're going to fight ISIS or AlQaeda, or the Taliban, or any such group by using drones and rockets, it should be OK to fight Crips, Bloods, F 14ers, MS 13ers and others of their ilk in the same way.
Click to expand...

Nope. Posse Comitatus pure and simple.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Some people have not been paying attention to recent historical events, and prefer to be spoon-fed by government writers to know how they shall think and understand. Please Mr. President, how shall I think about this, that, or the other?
Click to expand...

Yes. Conspiracy. Government propaganda controls us. Anything else Mr. 1984?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom