What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Taliban kill 126 in a Pakistan school. Mostly children (1 Viewer)

The Football Freak said:
timschochet said:
two deep,

First off I never stated that the Taliban is "legitimate". I'm not even sure what that word means. The Taliban is evil. They are murderers. And we should try to understand them better. I don't see any contradiction between these points.

Second, why do you keep referring to them as cowards? I heard the same thing after 9/11, and it surprised me then. They are evil, but not all evil people are cowards. From what I know of the Taliban, they have proven themselves to be very brave. No it is not brave to kill children; nor is it cowardly. It's simply evil. Calling them cowards is not accurate IMO.
Click to expand...
A synonym of bravery is heroism...is that really the word you want to apply here?

I am not even wanting a response, but please read my post at the end of page 2 and think on it a bit.
Click to expand...
I already did read your post and I responded to it.

As per your question: bravery and heroism are often the same, but not necessarily the same. The Taliban has showed themselves over the past 2 decades to be, at times, both brave and heroic. I certainly don't admire them because they are evil. But I don't think they're particularly cowardly either.

 
Two Deep said:
timschochet said:
two deep,

First off I never stated that the Taliban is "legitimate". I'm not even sure what that word means. The Taliban is evil. They are murderers. And we should try to understand them better. I don't see any contradiction between these points.

Second, why do you keep referring to them as cowards? I heard the same thing after 9/11, and it surprised me then. They are evil, but not all evil people are cowards. From what I know of the Taliban, they have proven themselves to be very brave. No it is not brave to kill children; nor is it cowardly. It's simply evil. Calling them cowards is not accurate IMO.
Click to expand...
Tim. I think you would consider a man who smacks a woman around a coward. So I would hope you think the same of a man/woman who would kill defenseless children.
Click to expand...
OK. I think we have a different definition of the term cowardly so I'll just drop the debate and leave it at that.

 
timschochet said:
Two Deep said:
timschochet said:
two deep,

First off I never stated that the Taliban is "legitimate". I'm not even sure what that word means. The Taliban is evil. They are murderers. And we should try to understand them better. I don't see any contradiction between these points.

Second, why do you keep referring to them as cowards? I heard the same thing after 9/11, and it surprised me then. They are evil, but not all evil people are cowards. From what I know of the Taliban, they have proven themselves to be very brave. No it is not brave to kill children; nor is it cowardly. It's simply evil. Calling them cowards is not accurate IMO.
Click to expand...
Tim. I think you would consider a man who smacks a woman around a coward. So I would hope you think the same of a man/woman who would kill defenseless children.
Click to expand...
OK. I think we have a different definition of the term cowardly so I'll just drop the debate and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
why would you fight for this hill?

i understand what you are trying to say, not that i agree I think killing the defenseless is cowardly, but I understand what you are trying to say. The question is wjy would you feel the need to correct him on that point? Do you not understand how some people consider it cowardly? Do you not know how it will sound when you nitpick this? Do you not care? Is that one point relvant to the discussion as a whole?

this is the part of you that perplexes me

 
timschochet said:
The Football Freak said:
IvanKaramazov said:
timschochet said:
Guys, I have been unable to find sources on the internet for what I wrote about Vietnam. I originally got it out of a couple of history books I read on the subject back in college, and the story was repeated in a novel which I read recently so it was in my mind. Take that for what it's worth. There are plenty of very well-documented cases of war crimes we committed in that war, some of which involved the killing of children. There are also been charges that NATO forces used Afghan children to detect mines in Afghanistan, though that has been hotly denied. Here is a source for that claim: http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/01/12/nato-used-afghan-children-to-detect-land-mines-ex-german-soldier.html.
Click to expand...
It's sad that you uncritically believe this.

if NATO troops had really used Afghan children as mine detectors, it would have been all over the news within a matter of hours.
Click to expand...
Exactly right.Tim, I am a longtime lurker here. I post occassionally, but I'm quite sure that no one knows who I am. I do read a lot here, however, and I seem to mostly be reading about you. Your views. Your opinions. Your arguments with everyone else in each thread. People's opinions on you. I cannot possibly block all of this by ignoring you, nor do I want to; however, would you consider reading a little more and engaging in threads a smidge less? It seems every thread I read is through a timschochet prism, and I'd really like to hear opinions and facts other than your arguments, and arguments against you.

I have no issue with you as a person, and it took me years to get here, but you are truly ruining many, many threads by simply taking them over. I apologize for even doing this, but it's worth a try, because, frankly, I want to see more of people like Ivan, and see their views expressed without referring to you or arguing with you. It is simply too much, and you should try to be more aware of others, and what they would like to get out of this forum. I am sorry for the hijak, and I will not be involving myself in any silly back and forth on this. Take it easy.
Click to expand...
Sorry you feel this way. On certain issues I have strong opinions, I state them, other people respond to me. Sometimes we argue, sometimes we discuss. That's why I'm here. It's not my purpose to dominate discussions; sometimes that happens; other times not. I enjoy being involved in these discussions. I take offense to the notion that I somehow "ruin" threads and I deny it. If it annoys you that much, and you don't feel like putting me on ignore for whatever reason, then scroll down until you don't see my name. As far as Ivan goes, I enjoy his posts as well, and I certainly do nothing to stop him from posting. Despite some of my detractors (who can be very vocal at times) I don't feel unwelcome in the FFA. I enjoy being here; I love the open discussion and debate. If I ever feel unwelcome I will leave. Until then, I will continue to post when I want and as often as I want.
Click to expand...
I don't dislike you, and I don't want you to leave. I simply disagree with what you are doing. You dominate most every discussion you enter, both as a debator, and as a subject. You argue every point, and lots of threads turn into your back and forth with everyone else. It is a free country, and you will do as you will. I was just trying to appeal to your manners, or any sense of community you have. You seem like a good guy with a blind spot as to how you are engaging in discussion. Anyway, I did what I sid I wouldn't. I'm sorry if I've hit a nerve, as that was not my intent. I was merely hoping to get through to you a little, but you've been hounded here too much, and I see I won't. It was worth a try. P,ease don't thi k I am a detractor. I see this as more of an intervention for someone that seems like a decent guy. I really will duck out now. Take it easy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Two Deep said:
Mr. Ham said:
timschochet said:
I'm quite sure a leader of the Taliban would argue that it's simply a form of warfare, no less moral or immoral than dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.
Click to expand...
Yeah - well #### that guy.
Click to expand...
Is timschochet a sympathizer? There is no rationale for targeting children for death to further a cause.
Click to expand...
Biggest one you'll ever have the misfortune to have read #### from
 
B-Deep said:
timschochet said:
Two Deep said:
timschochet said:
two deep,

First off I never stated that the Taliban is "legitimate". I'm not even sure what that word means. The Taliban is evil. They are murderers. And we should try to understand them better. I don't see any contradiction between these points.

Second, why do you keep referring to them as cowards? I heard the same thing after 9/11, and it surprised me then. They are evil, but not all evil people are cowards. From what I know of the Taliban, they have proven themselves to be very brave. No it is not brave to kill children; nor is it cowardly. It's simply evil. Calling them cowards is not accurate IMO.
Click to expand...
Tim. I think you would consider a man who smacks a woman around a coward. So I would hope you think the same of a man/woman who would kill defenseless children.
Click to expand...
OK. I think we have a different definition of the term cowardly so I'll just drop the debate and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
why would you fight for this hill?

i understand what you are trying to say, not that i agree I think killing the defenseless is cowardly, but I understand what you are trying to say. The question is wjy would you feel the need to correct him on that point? Do you not understand how some people consider it cowardly? Do you not know how it will sound when you nitpick this? Do you not care? Is that one point relvant to the discussion as a whole?

this is the part of you that perplexes me
Click to expand...
It's not a nitpick. You may recall that Bill Maher got fired from ABC after 9/11 for insisting that the hijackers were not cowards. He was making essentially the same point then that I am now.

I believe that when we call terrorists cowards we are deliberately misunderstanding them. That doesn't bode well for how we can fight them in the future, as we must. Two Deep is against even trying to understand them. I say that we can never defeat these bastards without understanding them in full. And cowardly is not part of that.

 
The Football Freak said:
timschochet said:
The Football Freak said:
IvanKaramazov said:
timschochet said:
Guys, I have been unable to find sources on the internet for what I wrote about Vietnam. I originally got it out of a couple of history books I read on the subject back in college, and the story was repeated in a novel which I read recently so it was in my mind. Take that for what it's worth. There are plenty of very well-documented cases of war crimes we committed in that war, some of which involved the killing of children. There are also been charges that NATO forces used Afghan children to detect mines in Afghanistan, though that has been hotly denied. Here is a source for that claim: http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/01/12/nato-used-afghan-children-to-detect-land-mines-ex-german-soldier.html.
Click to expand...
It's sad that you uncritically believe this.

if NATO troops had really used Afghan children as mine detectors, it would have been all over the news within a matter of hours.
Click to expand...
Exactly right.Tim, I am a longtime lurker here. I post occassionally, but I'm quite sure that no one knows who I am. I do read a lot here, however, and I seem to mostly be reading about you. Your views. Your opinions. Your arguments with everyone else in each thread. People's opinions on you. I cannot possibly block all of this by ignoring you, nor do I want to; however, would you consider reading a little more and engaging in threads a smidge less? It seems every thread I read is through a timschochet prism, and I'd really like to hear opinions and facts other than your arguments, and arguments against you.

I have no issue with you as a person, and it took me years to get here, but you are truly ruining many, many threads by simply taking them over. I apologize for even doing this, but it's worth a try, because, frankly, I want to see more of people like Ivan, and see their views expressed without referring to you or arguing with you. It is simply too much, and you should try to be more aware of others, and what they would like to get out of this forum. I am sorry for the hijak, and I will not be involving myself in any silly back and forth on this. Take it easy.
Click to expand...
Sorry you feel this way. On certain issues I have strong opinions, I state them, other people respond to me. Sometimes we argue, sometimes we discuss. That's why I'm here. It's not my purpose to dominate discussions; sometimes that happens; other times not. I enjoy being involved in these discussions. I take offense to the notion that I somehow "ruin" threads and I deny it. If it annoys you that much, and you don't feel like putting me on ignore for whatever reason, then scroll down until you don't see my name. As far as Ivan goes, I enjoy his posts as well, and I certainly do nothing to stop him from posting. Despite some of my detractors (who can be very vocal at times) I don't feel unwelcome in the FFA. I enjoy being here; I love the open discussion and debate. If I ever feel unwelcome I will leave. Until then, I will continue to post when I want and as often as I want.
Click to expand...
I don't dislike you, and I don't want you to leave. I simply disagree with what you are doing. You dominate most every discussion you enter, both as a debator, and as a subject. You argue every point, and lots of threads turn into your back and forth with everyone else. It is a free country, and you will do as you will. I was just trying to appeal to your manners, or any sense of community you have. You seem like a good guy with a blind spot as to how you are engaging in discussion.Anyway, I did what I sid I wouldn't. I'm sorry if I've hit a nerve, as that was not my intent. I was merely hoping to get through to you a little, but you've been hounded here too much, and I see I won't. It was worth a try. P,ease don't thi k I am a detractor. I see this as more of an intervention for someone that seems like a decent guy. I really will duck out now. Take it easy.
Click to expand...
It's a little difficult for me to accept constructive criticism from someone who asserts that I ruin threads by my presence in them. If you believe that, then well and good, but we have very little to talk about at that point.

 
timschochet said:
The Football Freak said:
timschochet said:
two deep,

First off I never stated that the Taliban is "legitimate". I'm not even sure what that word means. The Taliban is evil. They are murderers. And we should try to understand them better. I don't see any contradiction between these points.

Second, why do you keep referring to them as cowards? I heard the same thing after 9/11, and it surprised me then. They are evil, but not all evil people are cowards. From what I know of the Taliban, they have proven themselves to be very brave. No it is not brave to kill children; nor is it cowardly. It's simply evil. Calling them cowards is not accurate IMO.
Click to expand...
A synonym of bravery is heroism...is that really the word you want to apply here?I am not even wanting a response, but please read my post at the end of page 2 and think on it a bit.
Click to expand...
I already did read your post and I responded to it.As per your question: bravery and heroism are often the same, but not necessarily the same. The Taliban has showed themselves over the past 2 decades to be, at times, both brave and heroic. I certainly don't admire them because they are evil. But I don't think they're particularly cowardly either.
Click to expand...
So per you the Taliban is brave and heroic but not cowardly?What Taliban mission did you partake in and isn't it a little hard to get internet in the cave you hide out in?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B-Deep said:
timschochet said:
Two Deep said:
timschochet said:
two deep,

First off I never stated that the Taliban is "legitimate". I'm not even sure what that word means. The Taliban is evil. They are murderers. And we should try to understand them better. I don't see any contradiction between these points.

Second, why do you keep referring to them as cowards? I heard the same thing after 9/11, and it surprised me then. They are evil, but not all evil people are cowards. From what I know of the Taliban, they have proven themselves to be very brave. No it is not brave to kill children; nor is it cowardly. It's simply evil. Calling them cowards is not accurate IMO.
Click to expand...
Tim. I think you would consider a man who smacks a woman around a coward. So I would hope you think the same of a man/woman who would kill defenseless children.
Click to expand...
OK. I think we have a different definition of the term cowardly so I'll just drop the debate and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
why would you fight for this hill?

i understand what you are trying to say, not that i agree I think killing the defenseless is cowardly, but I understand what you are trying to say. The question is wjy would you feel the need to correct him on that point? Do you not understand how some people consider it cowardly? Do you not know how it will sound when you nitpick this? Do you not care? Is that one point relvant to the discussion as a whole?

this is the part of you that perplexes me
Click to expand...
The thing is I understand what he is saying as well...What they consider a legitimate struggle against the West or western ways I get and yes they rise to the occasion on the battlefield, but when they target defenseless children they crossed a whole new line.

 
The Football Freak said:
timschochet said:
The Football Freak said:
IvanKaramazov said:
timschochet said:
Guys, I have been unable to find sources on the internet for what I wrote about Vietnam. I originally got it out of a couple of history books I read on the subject back in college, and the story was repeated in a novel which I read recently so it was in my mind. Take that for what it's worth. There are plenty of very well-documented cases of war crimes we committed in that war, some of which involved the killing of children. There are also been charges that NATO forces used Afghan children to detect mines in Afghanistan, though that has been hotly denied. Here is a source for that claim: http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/01/12/nato-used-afghan-children-to-detect-land-mines-ex-german-soldier.html.
Click to expand...
It's sad that you uncritically believe this.

if NATO troops had really used Afghan children as mine detectors, it would have been all over the news within a matter of hours.
Click to expand...
Exactly right.Tim, I am a longtime lurker here. I post occassionally, but I'm quite sure that no one knows who I am. I do read a lot here, however, and I seem to mostly be reading about you. Your views. Your opinions. Your arguments with everyone else in each thread. People's opinions on you. I cannot possibly block all of this by ignoring you, nor do I want to; however, would you consider reading a little more and engaging in threads a smidge less? It seems every thread I read is through a timschochet prism, and I'd really like to hear opinions and facts other than your arguments, and arguments against you.

I have no issue with you as a person, and it took me years to get here, but you are truly ruining many, many threads by simply taking them over. I apologize for even doing this, but it's worth a try, because, frankly, I want to see more of people like Ivan, and see their views expressed without referring to you or arguing with you. It is simply too much, and you should try to be more aware of others, and what they would like to get out of this forum. I am sorry for the hijak, and I will not be involving myself in any silly back and forth on this. Take it easy.
Click to expand...
Sorry you feel this way. On certain issues I have strong opinions, I state them, other people respond to me. Sometimes we argue, sometimes we discuss. That's why I'm here. It's not my purpose to dominate discussions; sometimes that happens; other times not. I enjoy being involved in these discussions. I take offense to the notion that I somehow "ruin" threads and I deny it. If it annoys you that much, and you don't feel like putting me on ignore for whatever reason, then scroll down until you don't see my name. As far as Ivan goes, I enjoy his posts as well, and I certainly do nothing to stop him from posting. Despite some of my detractors (who can be very vocal at times) I don't feel unwelcome in the FFA. I enjoy being here; I love the open discussion and debate. If I ever feel unwelcome I will leave. Until then, I will continue to post when I want and as often as I want.
Click to expand...
I don't dislike you, and I don't want you to leave. I simply disagree with what you are doing. You dominate most every discussion you enter, both as a debator, and as a subject. You argue every point, and lots of threads turn into your back and forth with everyone else. It is a free country, and you will do as you will. I was just trying to appeal to your manners, or any sense of community you have. You seem like a good guy with a blind spot as to how you are engaging in discussion.Anyway, I did what I sid I wouldn't. I'm sorry if I've hit a nerve, as that was not my intent. I was merely hoping to get through to you a little, but you've been hounded here too much, and I see I won't. It was worth a try. P,ease don't thi k I am a detractor. I see this as more of an intervention for someone that seems like a decent guy. I really will duck out now. Take it easy.
Click to expand...
Tim is incapable of allowing a little air into a conversation. He says he wants debate, but rather he wants reflection. He is incapable of listening, absorbing, ruminating. He is the guest that will not leave. He overstays his welcome and insists that this is your problem not his. He is the internet. In real life he would alienate, but he revels in this medium because his social awkwardness and offensiveness cannot be addressed directly. He understands that in this medium he can be who he is, which is such a boor that he would have a mud hole stomped into him in the real world, not because he is objectionable, but because he simply will not shut up, ever.

The sad thing is if he could learn the concept of less is more he would really be quite engaging. Many people with social interaction problems are really quite bright, they just don't know when to shut up. Tim is quite bright, he is engaging, but he grates through overexposure.

 
For Tim:

It was the standard practice for American infantry in Vietnam, where boobytraps and minefields threatened unspeakable horrors. Lt. William Diehl still remembers the day as a platoon leader on a jungle patrol.

One of their prisoners, a suspected Viet Cong guerrilla, was brought to the front of the line of soldiers. A rope was placed around the prisoner’s neck and the platoon point man prodded the prisoner to lead the way. They had not gone far when the human mine detector broke a tripwire and set off a buried shell. This time, however, the tactic failed. The blast was so powerful that it killed the point man, ripping his heart from his chest. It also wounded Diehl. Some nights, Diehl can still see the point man’s heart pulsating on the jungle trail. He was certain some Vietnamese children, their mothers and grandparents living nearby were responsible. “We always believed the mines were planted by the villagers,’’ Diehl said.

Diehl’s unit violated U.S. Army training and at least three of the laws of war. Prisoners, whether military POWs or enemy civilians, cannot be forced to serve in military operations, be involved in dangerous work, or be subjected to cruel or inhumane treatments. What Diehl observed in Vietnam was specifically banned by Article 52 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.

Using human mine detectors had become commonplace during the ten-year war. In the My Lai massacre on March 16, 1968, troops of the Americal Division destroyed an entire village and killed more than five hundred old men, women, children, and infants. Only about twenty were spared; “In case we hit the minefield,’’ Lt. William Calley later told an Army court-martial.

The motive for making civilians walk through minefields was survival. Almost a third of the fifty-eight thousand American soldiers who died in Vietnam were killed by a boobytrap or a mine; 40 per cent of the 153,000 wounded fell to a similar weapon. But the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which cover international, and, as in the case of Vietnam, “internationalized” conflicts, leave no doubt it is a war crime to force a captured soldier or civilian to “walk the point.”

“Compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile power” is a grave breach, according to the Third Geneva Convention. Unless he volunteers, employing a POW on unhealthy or dangerous labor is banned. The Third Convention specifies that the “removal of mines or similar devices shall be considered as dangerous labor.” POWs also cannot be forced to do dangerous work or work for which they are physically unsuited; they can only be forced to work in sectors that are not military in nature or purpose.

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, civilians cannot be forced into military service but can be interned and compelled to work under the same conditions as nationals of the occupying party. Internees may volunteer to work for the “needs of the army of occupation” but not its “strategic or tactical requirements” such as digging trenches, or building fortifications and bases. Noninternees may not be compelled to work.

The U.S. Army was well aware of the practice of using enemy POWs and civilians to clear mines during the war and of its criminal nature. By the time of Calley’s trial, the Infantry School at Fort Benning had produced a training film showing an army platoon in a Vietnamese village. The lieutenant tells his sergeant to take some of the villagers and run them through a suspected area. “You want me, Lieutenant, to take the villagers and run them through a minefield?’’ the sergeant asks. Pressed to repeat the order, the officer backs down.
 
Anyone who can target and kill a child is an abomination; whatever cancer ####s out and wants no part of. Strategy, rationale go out the window. If it's you, then you're evil. A scourge. You deserve to be unceremoniously put down, with not a thought or regret because you are an abberation to begin with. It's sorrowful that you existed all. Anyone who sanctioned this, anyone who supports it even remotely - they need to die. There is no other remedy.

 
Last edited:
Sinn Fein said:
For Tim:

It was the standard practice for American infantry in Vietnam, where boobytraps and minefields threatened unspeakable horrors. Lt. William Diehl still remembers the day as a platoon leader on a jungle patrol.

One of their prisoners, a suspected Viet Cong guerrilla, was brought to the front of the line of soldiers. A rope was placed around the prisoner’s neck and the platoon point man prodded the prisoner to lead the way. They had not gone far when the human mine detector broke a tripwire and set off a buried shell. This time, however, the tactic failed. The blast was so powerful that it killed the point man, ripping his heart from his chest. It also wounded Diehl. Some nights, Diehl can still see the point man’s heart pulsating on the jungle trail. He was certain some Vietnamese children, their mothers and grandparents living nearby were responsible. “We always believed the mines were planted by the villagers,’’ Diehl said.

Diehl’s unit violated U.S. Army training and at least three of the laws of war. Prisoners, whether military POWs or enemy civilians, cannot be forced to serve in military operations, be involved in dangerous work, or be subjected to cruel or inhumane treatments. What Diehl observed in Vietnam was specifically banned by Article 52 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.

Using human mine detectors had become commonplace during the ten-year war. In the My Lai massacre on March 16, 1968, troops of the Americal Division destroyed an entire village and killed more than five hundred old men, women, children, and infants. Only about twenty were spared; “In case we hit the minefield,’’ Lt. William Calley later told an Army court-martial.

The motive for making civilians walk through minefields was survival. Almost a third of the fifty-eight thousand American soldiers who died in Vietnam were killed by a boobytrap or a mine; 40 per cent of the 153,000 wounded fell to a similar weapon. But the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which cover international, and, as in the case of Vietnam, “internationalized” conflicts, leave no doubt it is a war crime to force a captured soldier or civilian to “walk the point.”

“Compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile power” is a grave breach, according to the Third Geneva Convention. Unless he volunteers, employing a POW on unhealthy or dangerous labor is banned. The Third Convention specifies that the “removal of mines or similar devices shall be considered as dangerous labor.” POWs also cannot be forced to do dangerous work or work for which they are physically unsuited; they can only be forced to work in sectors that are not military in nature or purpose.

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, civilians cannot be forced into military service but can be interned and compelled to work under the same conditions as nationals of the occupying party. Internees may volunteer to work for the “needs of the army of occupation” but not its “strategic or tactical requirements” such as digging trenches, or building fortifications and bases. Noninternees may not be compelled to work.

The U.S. Army was well aware of the practice of using enemy POWs and civilians to clear mines during the war and of its criminal nature. By the time of Calley’s trial, the Infantry School at Fort Benning had produced a training film showing an army platoon in a Vietnamese village. The lieutenant tells his sergeant to take some of the villagers and run them through a suspected area. “You want me, Lieutenant, to take the villagers and run them through a minefield?’’ the sergeant asks. Pressed to repeat the order, the officer backs down.
Click to expand...
Thanks!

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
The Football Freak said:
timschochet said:
The Football Freak said:
IvanKaramazov said:
timschochet said:
Guys, I have been unable to find sources on the internet for what I wrote about Vietnam. I originally got it out of a couple of history books I read on the subject back in college, and the story was repeated in a novel which I read recently so it was in my mind. Take that for what it's worth. There are plenty of very well-documented cases of war crimes we committed in that war, some of which involved the killing of children. There are also been charges that NATO forces used Afghan children to detect mines in Afghanistan, though that has been hotly denied. Here is a source for that claim: http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/01/12/nato-used-afghan-children-to-detect-land-mines-ex-german-soldier.html.
Click to expand...
It's sad that you uncritically believe this.

if NATO troops had really used Afghan children as mine detectors, it would have been all over the news within a matter of hours.
Click to expand...
Exactly right.Tim, I am a longtime lurker here. I post occassionally, but I'm quite sure that no one knows who I am. I do read a lot here, however, and I seem to mostly be reading about you. Your views. Your opinions. Your arguments with everyone else in each thread. People's opinions on you. I cannot possibly block all of this by ignoring you, nor do I want to; however, would you consider reading a little more and engaging in threads a smidge less? It seems every thread I read is through a timschochet prism, and I'd really like to hear opinions and facts other than your arguments, and arguments against you.

I have no issue with you as a person, and it took me years to get here, but you are truly ruining many, many threads by simply taking them over. I apologize for even doing this, but it's worth a try, because, frankly, I want to see more of people like Ivan, and see their views expressed without referring to you or arguing with you. It is simply too much, and you should try to be more aware of others, and what they would like to get out of this forum. I am sorry for the hijak, and I will not be involving myself in any silly back and forth on this. Take it easy.
Click to expand...
Sorry you feel this way. On certain issues I have strong opinions, I state them, other people respond to me. Sometimes we argue, sometimes we discuss. That's why I'm here. It's not my purpose to dominate discussions; sometimes that happens; other times not. I enjoy being involved in these discussions. I take offense to the notion that I somehow "ruin" threads and I deny it. If it annoys you that much, and you don't feel like putting me on ignore for whatever reason, then scroll down until you don't see my name. As far as Ivan goes, I enjoy his posts as well, and I certainly do nothing to stop him from posting. Despite some of my detractors (who can be very vocal at times) I don't feel unwelcome in the FFA. I enjoy being here; I love the open discussion and debate. If I ever feel unwelcome I will leave. Until then, I will continue to post when I want and as often as I want.
Click to expand...
I don't dislike you, and I don't want you to leave. I simply disagree with what you are doing. You dominate most every discussion you enter, both as a debator, and as a subject. You argue every point, and lots of threads turn into your back and forth with everyone else. It is a free country, and you will do as you will. I was just trying to appeal to your manners, or any sense of community you have. You seem like a good guy with a blind spot as to how you are engaging in discussion.Anyway, I did what I sid I wouldn't. I'm sorry if I've hit a nerve, as that was not my intent. I was merely hoping to get through to you a little, but you've been hounded here too much, and I see I won't. It was worth a try. P,ease don't thi k I am a detractor. I see this as more of an intervention for someone that seems like a decent guy. I really will duck out now. Take it easy.
Click to expand...
Tim is incapable of allowing a little air into a conversation. He says he wants debate, but rather he wants reflection. He is incapable of listening, absorbing, ruminating. He is the guest that will not leave. He overstays his welcome and insists that this is your problem not his. He is the internet. In real life he would alienate, but he revels in this medium because his social awkwardness and offensiveness cannot be addressed directly. He understands that in this medium he can be who he is, which is such a boor that he would have a mud hole stomped into him in the real world, not because he is objectionable, but because he simply will not shut up, ever.

The sad thing is if he could learn the concept of less is more he would really be quite engaging. Many people with social interaction problems are really quite bright, they just don't know when to shut up. Tim is quite bright, he is engaging, but he grates through overexposure.
Click to expand...
So ironic that the guy who writes this is the same one whose arguments changed my mind about gun control...

 
timschochet said:
B-Deep said:
timschochet said:
Two Deep said:
timschochet said:
two deep,

First off I never stated that the Taliban is "legitimate". I'm not even sure what that word means. The Taliban is evil. They are murderers. And we should try to understand them better. I don't see any contradiction between these points.

Second, why do you keep referring to them as cowards? I heard the same thing after 9/11, and it surprised me then. They are evil, but not all evil people are cowards. From what I know of the Taliban, they have proven themselves to be very brave. No it is not brave to kill children; nor is it cowardly. It's simply evil. Calling them cowards is not accurate IMO.
Click to expand...
Tim. I think you would consider a man who smacks a woman around a coward. So I would hope you think the same of a man/woman who would kill defenseless children.
Click to expand...
OK. I think we have a different definition of the term cowardly so I'll just drop the debate and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
why would you fight for this hill?

i understand what you are trying to say, not that i agree I think killing the defenseless is cowardly, but I understand what you are trying to say. The question is wjy would you feel the need to correct him on that point? Do you not understand how some people consider it cowardly? Do you not know how it will sound when you nitpick this? Do you not care? Is that one point relvant to the discussion as a whole?

this is the part of you that perplexes me
Click to expand...
It's not a nitpick. You may recall that Bill Maher got fired from ABC after 9/11 for insisting that the hijackers were not cowards. He was making essentially the same point then that I am now.

I believe that when we call terrorists cowards we are deliberately misunderstanding them. That doesn't bode well for how we can fight them in the future, as we must. Two Deep is against even trying to understand them. I say that we can never defeat these bastards without understanding them in full. And cowardly is not part of that.
Click to expand...
i just think the trying to understand them is a separate issue from cowards

to many people it takes cowardice to fight your battles by killing children.

 
Two Deep said:
B-Deep said:
timschochet said:
Two Deep said:
timschochet said:
two deep,

First off I never stated that the Taliban is "legitimate". I'm not even sure what that word means. The Taliban is evil. They are murderers. And we should try to understand them better. I don't see any contradiction between these points.

Second, why do you keep referring to them as cowards? I heard the same thing after 9/11, and it surprised me then. They are evil, but not all evil people are cowards. From what I know of the Taliban, they have proven themselves to be very brave. No it is not brave to kill children; nor is it cowardly. It's simply evil. Calling them cowards is not accurate IMO.
Click to expand...
Tim. I think you would consider a man who smacks a woman around a coward. So I would hope you think the same of a man/woman who would kill defenseless children.
Click to expand...
OK. I think we have a different definition of the term cowardly so I'll just drop the debate and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
why would you fight for this hill?

i understand what you are trying to say, not that i agree I think killing the defenseless is cowardly, but I understand what you are trying to say. The question is wjy would you feel the need to correct him on that point? Do you not understand how some people consider it cowardly? Do you not know how it will sound when you nitpick this? Do you not care? Is that one point relvant to the discussion as a whole?

this is the part of you that perplexes me
Click to expand...
The thing is I understand what he is saying as well...What they consider a legitimate struggle against the West or western ways I get and yes they rise to the occasion on the battlefield, but when they target defenseless children they crossed a whole new line.
Click to expand...
oh i agree they crossed a line

at the same point, i agree with the point tim is making that just because they crossed a line does not mean we get to push our line even further.

I just think sometimes he gets hung up in the minutia of arguing every tiny detail and his grand picture gets lost.

 
Todem said:
Harry Manback said:
They need to be exterminated.
Click to expand...
Don't torture them for info though. No sir....we have morals here. We can't become animals.

You treat animals....like animals. These extreme Islamic terrorists/groups are animals. I have zero pity or restraint in how we get information to hunt down any islamic jihad groups/cells.

They can all burn in hell for all I care. Do whatever it takes to take down anyone in these groups to try and prevent these type of events from happening.
Click to expand...
see things like this

WHATEVER IT TAKES

that sounds too much like the evil people. Would you blow up a school of children to get a jihad cell? If you really mean WHATEVER it takes you'd say yes. They are doing whatever it takes, I am not willing to.

NOW

I am all for punishing those who did this, but not whatever it takes

 
B-Deep said:
timschochet said:
B-Deep said:
timschochet said:
Two Deep said:
timschochet said:
two deep,

First off I never stated that the Taliban is "legitimate". I'm not even sure what that word means. The Taliban is evil. They are murderers. And we should try to understand them better. I don't see any contradiction between these points.

Second, why do you keep referring to them as cowards? I heard the same thing after 9/11, and it surprised me then. They are evil, but not all evil people are cowards. From what I know of the Taliban, they have proven themselves to be very brave. No it is not brave to kill children; nor is it cowardly. It's simply evil. Calling them cowards is not accurate IMO.
Click to expand...
Tim. I think you would consider a man who smacks a woman around a coward. So I would hope you think the same of a man/woman who would kill defenseless children.
Click to expand...
OK. I think we have a different definition of the term cowardly so I'll just drop the debate and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
why would you fight for this hill?

i understand what you are trying to say, not that i agree I think killing the defenseless is cowardly, but I understand what you are trying to say. The question is wjy would you feel the need to correct him on that point? Do you not understand how some people consider it cowardly? Do you not know how it will sound when you nitpick this? Do you not care? Is that one point relvant to the discussion as a whole?

this is the part of you that perplexes me
Click to expand...
It's not a nitpick. You may recall that Bill Maher got fired from ABC after 9/11 for insisting that the hijackers were not cowards. He was making essentially the same point then that I am now.

I believe that when we call terrorists cowards we are deliberately misunderstanding them. That doesn't bode well for how we can fight them in the future, as we must. Two Deep is against even trying to understand them. I say that we can never defeat these bastards without understanding them in full. And cowardly is not part of that.
Click to expand...
i just think the trying to understand them is a separate issue from cowards

to many people it takes cowardice to fight your battles by killing children.
Click to expand...
Maybe - but the guys who carried out the attack knew they were going to die - not many cowards can do that.

I don't think these guys who carried out the attack, or those that planned it are cowards. This feels like a deliberate strike in retaliation for something - I have no idea what that something is.

If this was just a random act of violence, then I may be more persuaded to the notion that these guys were cowards going after a weak target - but I just have the feeling this target was chosen for reasons other than "its easy".

What most don't want to understand is that the taliban, and others in similar situations, are fighting an asymmetrical war - we want our wars to be cleaner and more sanitary, but they can't afford to fight that type of war, so they fight differently. I can't begin to understand how or why - but I am willing to accept that they see the world differently than I do. The wore the Russians out, the US is fighting in quicksand in Afghanistan, they seem to have a plan that works for them.

 
timschochet said:
Sinn Fein said:
For Tim:

...

One of their prisoners, a suspected Viet Cong guerrilla, was brought to the front of the line of soldiers. A rope was placed around the prisoner’s neck and the platoon point man prodded the prisoner to lead the way. They had not gone far when the human mine detector broke a tripwire and set off a buried shell. ...

Diehl’s unit violated U.S. Army training and at least three of the laws of war. Prisoners, whether military POWs or enemy civilians, cannot be forced to serve in military operations, be involved in dangerous work, or be subjected to cruel or inhumane treatments. What Diehl observed in Vietnam was specifically banned by Article 52 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949.

Using human mine detectors had become commonplace during the ten-year war. ...

The motive for making civilians walk through minefields was survival. Almost a third of the fifty-eight thousand American soldiers who died in Vietnam were killed by a boobytrap or a mine; 40 per cent of the 153,000 wounded fell to a similar weapon. ....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thanks!
Uh, that is not what you claimed to have happened.

Also funny how this part didn't get quoted:

[SIZE=12pt]During the 1991 Gulf War, the lesson was remembered. Norman Schwarzkopf, a lieutenant colonel in Calley’s Americal division in Vietnam, was in command. Confronted by desert belts of Iraqi landmines and aware that thousands of Iraqi prisoners would surrender rather than fight, Schwarzkopf ordered perhaps the most ambitious effort to prevent war crimes ever conducted on a battlefield. Every officer and enlisted soldier was lectured on the rules of land warfare and the proper treatment of prisoners. According to personnel in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) legal division, they were contacted almost daily by members of Schwarzkopf’s staff on the finer points of the laws of war.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
two deep,

First off I never stated that the Taliban is "legitimate". I'm not even sure what that word means. The Taliban is evil. They are murderers. And we should try to understand them better. I don't see any contradiction between these points.

Second, why do you keep referring to them as cowards? I heard the same thing after 9/11, and it surprised me then. They are evil, but not all evil people are cowards. From what I know of the Taliban, they have proven themselves to be very brave. No it is not brave to kill children; nor is it cowardly. It's simply evil. Calling them cowards is not accurate IMO.
Click to expand...
What the Taliban fear the most are educated people. To walk into a school of young children and open fire to destroy young learning minds is a cowardly and evil act. Walking into a Marine Brigade that is fully armed and waiting to do battle would not be a cowardly act. But we don`t see too many of those type of incidents.

 
Da Guru said:
timschochet said:
two deep,

First off I never stated that the Taliban is "legitimate". I'm not even sure what that word means. The Taliban is evil. They are murderers. And we should try to understand them better. I don't see any contradiction between these points.

Second, why do you keep referring to them as cowards? I heard the same thing after 9/11, and it surprised me then. They are evil, but not all evil people are cowards. From what I know of the Taliban, they have proven themselves to be very brave. No it is not brave to kill children; nor is it cowardly. It's simply evil. Calling them cowards is not accurate IMO.
Click to expand...
What the Taliban fear the most are educated people. To walk into a school of young children and open fire to destroy young learning minds is a cowardly and evil act. Walking into a Marine Brigade that is fully armed and waiting to do battle would not be a cowardly act. But we don`t see too many of those type of incidents.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong - but I think they targeted the school not because it was a school - but because it was a school for children of military leaders. I think this was a very deliberate and strategic attack designed to send a message to members of the Pakistani military. It may very well pay military dividends down the road for the Taliban. Unorthodox? Sure. Evil, as Tim puts it. Sure. But I suspect it was part of their war plan - and from a military strategy standpoint - it might have been worth the negative reaction from couch potatoes across America.

For the people who assaulted that school, they went on a suicide mission - they must have believed very strongly in their cause. That is not cowardice.

 
A lot of the Pakistani military members aren't "all in" on this war with the Taliban. Basically Taliban went to the nuclear option here and I think that was a poor decision in a country where many look the other way. No one likes to see children die, not even militant the likes of most Taliban. This is grizzly and unnecessary regardless of conflict.

 
And they [Taliban] said it was revenge for the killing of hundreds of innocent tribesmen and their children during a recent offensive by the Pakistani military.
Click to expand...
:shrug: I don't know if the allegations are true, would not surprise me if they were true, but how would you react if someone came in and killed your children?

 
Sinn Fein said:
B-Deep said:
timschochet said:
B-Deep said:
timschochet said:
Two Deep said:
timschochet said:
two deep,

First off I never stated that the Taliban is "legitimate". I'm not even sure what that word means. The Taliban is evil. They are murderers. And we should try to understand them better. I don't see any contradiction between these points.

Second, why do you keep referring to them as cowards? I heard the same thing after 9/11, and it surprised me then. They are evil, but not all evil people are cowards. From what I know of the Taliban, they have proven themselves to be very brave. No it is not brave to kill children; nor is it cowardly. It's simply evil. Calling them cowards is not accurate IMO.
Click to expand...
Tim. I think you would consider a man who smacks a woman around a coward. So I would hope you think the same of a man/woman who would kill defenseless children.
Click to expand...
OK. I think we have a different definition of the term cowardly so I'll just drop the debate and leave it at that.
Click to expand...
why would you fight for this hill?

i understand what you are trying to say, not that i agree I think killing the defenseless is cowardly, but I understand what you are trying to say. The question is wjy would you feel the need to correct him on that point? Do you not understand how some people consider it cowardly? Do you not know how it will sound when you nitpick this? Do you not care? Is that one point relvant to the discussion as a whole?

this is the part of you that perplexes me
Click to expand...
It's not a nitpick. You may recall that Bill Maher got fired from ABC after 9/11 for insisting that the hijackers were not cowards. He was making essentially the same point then that I am now.

I believe that when we call terrorists cowards we are deliberately misunderstanding them. That doesn't bode well for how we can fight them in the future, as we must. Two Deep is against even trying to understand them. I say that we can never defeat these bastards without understanding them in full. And cowardly is not part of that.
Click to expand...
i just think the trying to understand them is a separate issue from cowards

to many people it takes cowardice to fight your battles by killing children.
Click to expand...
Maybe - but the guys who carried out the attack knew they were going to die - not many cowards can do that.

I don't think these guys who carried out the attack, or those that planned it are cowards. This feels like a deliberate strike in retaliation for something - I have no idea what that something is.

If this was just a random act of violence, then I may be more persuaded to the notion that these guys were cowards going after a weak target - but I just have the feeling this target was chosen for reasons other than "its easy".

What most don't want to understand is that the taliban, and others in similar situations, are fighting an asymmetrical war - we want our wars to be cleaner and more sanitary, but they can't afford to fight that type of war, so they fight differently. I can't begin to understand how or why - but I am willing to accept that they see the world differently than I do. The wore the Russians out, the US is fighting in quicksand in Afghanistan, they seem to have a plan that works for them.
Click to expand...
They fit the "If you are going to be dumb you better be tough. These are ignorant people who spend all of their energy being stupid instead of trying to join the 21st century..They are not far from being an animal and that is how they should be treated until they join the civilized world.

 
Sinn Fein said:
And they [Taliban] said it was revenge for the killing of hundreds of innocent tribesmen and their children during a recent offensive by the Pakistani military.
Click to expand...
:shrug: I don't know if the allegations are true, would not surprise me if they were true, but how would you react if someone came in and killed your children?
Click to expand...
Even if they are there is a big difference from kids dying in war and kids dying because some nuts went into their school, set their teacher on fire, and then were shot like fish in a barrel.

 
Doctor Detroit said:
Sinn Fein said:
And they [Taliban] said it was revenge for the killing of hundreds of innocent tribesmen and their children during a recent offensive by the Pakistani military.
Click to expand...
:shrug: I don't know if the allegations are true, would not surprise me if they were true, but how would you react if someone came in and killed your children?
Click to expand...
Even if they are there is a big difference from kids dying in war and kids dying because some nuts went into their school, set their teacher on fire, and then were shot like fish in a barrel.
Click to expand...
Maybe not from their point of view. Why do you assume the first instance is kids dying in war? I don't even know if its true, but I can imagine a scenario where the Taliban looked at it a bit differently, and would equate one with the other.

Do you think when we blow up civilians with an errant drone strike - they are just civilians dying in war? Because, while I do not think we are intentionally targeting civilians, I could understand why the relatives of the dead might think differently.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Doctor Detroit said:
Sinn Fein said:
And they [Taliban] said it was revenge for the killing of hundreds of innocent tribesmen and their children during a recent offensive by the Pakistani military.
Click to expand...
:shrug: I don't know if the allegations are true, would not surprise me if they were true, but how would you react if someone came in and killed your children?
Click to expand...
Even if they are there is a big difference from kids dying in war and kids dying because some nuts went into their school, set their teacher on fire, and then were shot like fish in a barrel.
Click to expand...
Maybe not from their point of view. Why do you assume the first instance is kids dying in war? I don't even know if its true, but I can imagine a scenario where the Taliban looked at it a bit differently, and would equate one with the other.
Click to expand...
I don't assume anything, North Waziristan is a war zone.

Do you think when we blow up civilians with an errant drone strike - they are just civilians dying in war? Because, while I do not think we are intentionally targeting civilians, I could understand why the relatives of the dead might think differently.
Click to expand...
Sure they might, and most likely do. But again, it doesn't make slaughtering other innocent civilians just retribution.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The concept of mutually-assured-destruction relies on the concept that if you try to kill me and mine, I am going to try to kill you and yours. There is no distinction drawn between civilian or military targets. Death is death. We believe in that concept - the general public would expect us to hit back at any nation that hit at us - damn the consequences or civilian casualties.

This same concept is in play - assuming the Taliban believe that the Pakistani military deliberately targeted civilians, even in a war effort.

 
Sinn Fein said:
The concept of mutually-assured-destruction relies on the concept that if you try to kill me and mine, I am going to try to kill you and yours. There is no distinction drawn between civilian or military targets. Death is death. We believe in that concept - the general public would expect us to hit back at any nation that hit at us - damn the consequences or civilian casualties.

This same concept is in play - assuming the Taliban believe that the Pakistani military deliberately targeted civilians, even in a war effort.
Click to expand...
And again I will tell you that human kind does have a certain set of universal morality rules. One of those rules would be it is not acceptable to enter a school and shoot a bunch of innocent kids to further your cause. This is unacceptable in Sub-Saharan Africa, South America, Mexico, Pakistan and everywhere else.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doctor Detroit said:
Sinn Fein said:
The concept of mutually-assured-destruction relies on the concept that if you try to kill me and mine, I am going to try to kill you and yours. There is no distinction drawn between civilian or military targets. Death is death. We believe in that concept - the general public would expect us to hit back at any nation that hit at us - damn the consequences or civilian casualties.

This same concept is in play - assuming the Taliban believe that the Pakistani military deliberately targeted civilians, even in a war effort.
Click to expand...
And again I will tell you that human kind does have a certain set of universal morality rules. One of those rules would be it is not acceptable to enter a school and shoot a bunch of innocent kids to further your cause. This is unacceptable in Sub-Saharan Africa, South America, Mexico, Pakistan and everywhere else.
Click to expand...
Bull####.

The universal morality, if such a thing existed, would be that you don't kill anyone. Once you start deciding that some killings are acceptable, you open the door to someone believing that all killings can be justified. Thus, there is no "universal" morality with a death code.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Doctor Detroit said:
Sinn Fein said:
The concept of mutually-assured-destruction relies on the concept that if you try to kill me and mine, I am going to try to kill you and yours. There is no distinction drawn between civilian or military targets. Death is death. We believe in that concept - the general public would expect us to hit back at any nation that hit at us - damn the consequences or civilian casualties.

This same concept is in play - assuming the Taliban believe that the Pakistani military deliberately targeted civilians, even in a war effort.
Click to expand...
And again I will tell you that human kind does have a certain set of universal morality rules. One of those rules would be it is not acceptable to enter a school and shoot a bunch of innocent kids to further your cause. This is unacceptable in Sub-Saharan Africa, South America, Mexico, Pakistan and everywhere else.
Click to expand...
Bull####.

The universal morality, if such a thing existed, would be that you don't kill anyone. Once you start deciding that some killings are acceptable, you open the door to someone believing that all killings can be justified. Thus, there is no "universal" morality with a death code.
Click to expand...
You're in the minority finding a way in justifying this, good luck with that.

 
Can somebody explain to me how some of the people posting in this thread saying they understand or want to try and understand how a people can kill innocent children in school (even implying they are brave) are the same people posting in other threads condemning our interrogation tactics.

 
Two Deep said:
Can somebody explain to me how some of the people posting in this thread saying they understand or want to try and understand how a people can kill innocent children in school (even implying they are brave) are the same people posting in other threads condemning our interrogation tactics.
Click to expand...
Liberals?

 
CowboysFromHell said:
Two Deep said:
Can somebody explain to me how some of the people posting in this thread saying they understand or want to try and understand how a people can kill innocent children in school (even implying they are brave) are the same people posting in other threads condemning our interrogation tactics.
Click to expand...
Liberals?
Click to expand...
Way to contribute absolutely nothing in your first-ever FFA post. :thumbup:

 
Doctor Detroit said:
Sinn Fein said:
Doctor Detroit said:
Sinn Fein said:
The concept of mutually-assured-destruction relies on the concept that if you try to kill me and mine, I am going to try to kill you and yours. There is no distinction drawn between civilian or military targets. Death is death. We believe in that concept - the general public would expect us to hit back at any nation that hit at us - damn the consequences or civilian casualties.

This same concept is in play - assuming the Taliban believe that the Pakistani military deliberately targeted civilians, even in a war effort.
Click to expand...
And again I will tell you that human kind does have a certain set of universal morality rules. One of those rules would be it is not acceptable to enter a school and shoot a bunch of innocent kids to further your cause. This is unacceptable in Sub-Saharan Africa, South America, Mexico, Pakistan and everywhere else.
Click to expand...
Bull####.

The universal morality, if such a thing existed, would be that you don't kill anyone. Once you start deciding that some killings are acceptable, you open the door to someone believing that all killings can be justified. Thus, there is no "universal" morality with a death code.
Click to expand...
You're in the minority finding a way in justifying this, good luck with that.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to justify it - but I am ok with having a minority opinion.

 
Sinn Fein said:
The concept of mutually-assured-destruction relies on the concept that if you try to kill me and mine, I am going to try to kill you and yours. There is no distinction drawn between civilian or military targets. Death is death. We believe in that concept - the general public would expect us to hit back at any nation that hit at us - damn the consequences or civilian casualties.

This same concept is in play - assuming the Taliban believe that the Pakistani military deliberately targeted civilians, even in a war effort.
Click to expand...
Mutually Assured Destruction refers to the nuclear detente created by the ability of both sides in the cold war to annihilate the human race, even after a surprise attack.

What you are refering to is an eye for an eye. A bronze age, or older, concept

 
Two Deep said:
Can somebody explain to me how some of the people posting in this thread saying they understand or want to try and understand how a people can kill innocent children in school (even implying they are brave) are the same people posting in other threads condemning our interrogation tactics.
Click to expand...
Sure.

I think the two are separate issues. I condemn what the Taliban did. I also condemn what our government did (though I am NOT equating the two- the acts of torture we committed were awful, but not nearly AS awful as what the Taliban did. So please don't misinterpret me here.)

At the same time I try to understand why the Taliban did what they did, and I try to understand why our government did what they did. You seem to believe that attempts to understand imply forgiveness. I strongly disagree with you. I want to understand so that we can try to prevent it.

 
timschochet said:
Two Deep said:
Can somebody explain to me how some of the people posting in this thread saying they understand or want to try and understand how a people can kill innocent children in school (even implying they are brave) are the same people posting in other threads condemning our interrogation tactics.
Click to expand...
Sure.

I think the two are separate issues. I condemn what the Taliban did. I also condemn what our government did (though I am NOT equating the two- the acts of torture we committed were awful, but not nearly AS awful as what the Taliban did. So please don't misinterpret me here.)

At the same time I try to understand why the Taliban did what they did, and I try to understand why our government did what they did. You seem to believe that attempts to understand imply forgiveness. I strongly disagree with you. I want to understand so that we can try to prevent it.
Click to expand...
I would ask for some sort of translation, but I'm sure Jonessed or Strikes2k will be here any second to get to the bottom of this.

 
timschochet said:
Two Deep said:
Can somebody explain to me how some of the people posting in this thread saying they understand or want to try and understand how a people can kill innocent children in school (even implying they are brave) are the same people posting in other threads condemning our interrogation tactics.
Click to expand...
Sure.

I think the two are separate issues. I condemn what the Taliban did. I also condemn what our government did (though I am NOT equating the two- the acts of torture we committed were awful, but not nearly AS awful as what the Taliban did. So please don't misinterpret me here.)

At the same time I try to understand why the Taliban did what they did, and I try to understand why our government did what they did. You seem to believe that attempts to understand imply forgiveness. I strongly disagree with you. I want to understand so that we can try to prevent it.
Click to expand...
So if hypothetically our interrogation tactics could prevent a massacre like the school massacre from happening again would you be in?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doctor Detroit said:
timschochet said:
Two Deep said:
Can somebody explain to me how some of the people posting in this thread saying they understand or want to try and understand how a people can kill innocent children in school (even implying they are brave) are the same people posting in other threads condemning our interrogation tactics.
Click to expand...
Sure.

I think the two are separate issues. I condemn what the Taliban did. I also condemn what our government did (though I am NOT equating the two- the acts of torture we committed were awful, but not nearly AS awful as what the Taliban did. So please don't misinterpret me here.)

At the same time I try to understand why the Taliban did what they did, and I try to understand why our government did what they did. You seem to believe that attempts to understand imply forgiveness. I strongly disagree with you. I want to understand so that we can try to prevent it.
Click to expand...
I would ask for some sort of translation, but I'm sure Jonessed or Strikes2k will be here any second to get to the bottom of this.
Click to expand...
I didn't think I was being that confusing. Understanding something does not imply moral acceptance. I can try to understand something but still regard it as evil.

 
Two Deep said:
timschochet said:
Two Deep said:
Can somebody explain to me how some of the people posting in this thread saying they understand or want to try and understand how a people can kill innocent children in school (even implying they are brave) are the same people posting in other threads condemning our interrogation tactics.
Click to expand...
Sure.

I think the two are separate issues. I condemn what the Taliban did. I also condemn what our government did (though I am NOT equating the two- the acts of torture we committed were awful, but not nearly AS awful as what the Taliban did. So please don't misinterpret me here.)

At the same time I try to understand why the Taliban did what they did, and I try to understand why our government did what they did. You seem to believe that attempts to understand imply forgiveness. I strongly disagree with you. I want to understand so that we can try to prevent it.
Click to expand...
So if hypothetically our interrogation tactics could prevent a massacre like the school massacre from happening again would you be in?
Click to expand...
Good question. I don't know. I think yes.

 
timschochet said:
Two Deep said:
timschochet said:
Two Deep said:
Can somebody explain to me how some of the people posting in this thread saying they understand or want to try and understand how a people can kill innocent children in school (even implying they are brave) are the same people posting in other threads condemning our interrogation tactics.
Click to expand...
Sure.

I think the two are separate issues. I condemn what the Taliban did. I also condemn what our government did (though I am NOT equating the two- the acts of torture we committed were awful, but not nearly AS awful as what the Taliban did. So please don't misinterpret me here.)

At the same time I try to understand why the Taliban did what they did, and I try to understand why our government did what they did. You seem to believe that attempts to understand imply forgiveness. I strongly disagree with you. I want to understand so that we can try to prevent it.
Click to expand...
So if hypothetically our interrogation tactics could prevent a massacre like the school massacre from happening again would you be in?
Click to expand...
Good question. I don't know. I think yes.
Click to expand...
See we can reach common ground

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #63 (new in 2022)
Replies
1
Views
917
Corporation
Corporation
[icon]
"EMP Could kill US Power Grid" - House Committee Report
2
Replies
88
Views
5K
eoMMan
E
GregR
Greg's Useless Trivia #50 - 100 questions (75 greatest hits, 25 new)
Replies
19
Views
3K
GregR
GregR

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top