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

[msommer]

And some say we don't have the moral high ground over these animals?

I know you don't want to hear this, especially this morning, but it's not an easy answer. Yes I believe we do have the moral high ground, ultimately, but we have killed children ourselves. The U.S. has committed plenty of war crimes, and we have also paid for and supported terrorists who have committed acts equally horrific to the one this morning. Yes we are better than they are but the difference is less wide than you imply.

War is horrible and some of the collateral damage is tragic but we do not target children to murder in cold blood.

My Lai Massacre

Drone strikes

 

[Guest]

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.

Yeah - well #### that guy.

 

[Sinn Fein]

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.

Yeah - well #### that guy.

Who? The pilot of the Enola Gay? Pretty sure he was just following orders.

 

[Guest]

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.

Yeah - well #### that guy.

Who? The pilot of the Enola Gay? Pretty sure he was just following orders.

Truman, of corpse. But I think the entire Taliban should join him for tea.

 

[SoBeDad]

There's actually a more practical way to justify it.

Terrorism is mainly used by those who wish to win a war or military struggle but lack the conventional means to do so. So if you have no superior army to crush your enemy, you crush them mentally instead. You commit such horrific acts that it becomes unpalatable for them to continue. And it's at very little cost: you only need a few idealists willing to die for the cause, rather than a large army.

The typical reaction of your enemy also helps you. Because what they usually do, after recoiling from the horror, is take a hard line response which ends up killing some innocents along the way. This in turn creates animosity for them and strengthens sympathy for you, making you stronger.

Is this ultimately effective? It has been in certain situations. Other times it has failed. But 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.

I'd call it a massacre, but Taliban historians would call it a military victory. I don't think we targeted children, but we killed lots of Indian women and children in the 1800s.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The concept of moral or humane war has always baffled me. Antiseptic war seems war easy to start and easy to continue. It is the horror of war that acts as a deterrent and as impetus to surrender and cease war. We seem to want to throw off the compacts of civilization, but just not all of them. War is savagery. If you are going to embrace it, embrace it in all its horror, anything else is self delusion because those in war will eventually learn and embrace its ultimate truths.

I've heard it asked over time how decent American kids could do this or that in war. The answer is that they over time and exposure embraced the reality of savagery in which they find themselves.

 

[Two Deep]

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.

Yeah - well #### that guy.

Is timschochet a sympathizer? There is no rationale for targeting children for death to further a cause.

 

[timschochet]

There's actually a more practical way to justify it.

Terrorism is mainly used by those who wish to win a war or military struggle but lack the conventional means to do so. So if you have no superior army to crush your enemy, you crush them mentally instead. You commit such horrific acts that it becomes unpalatable for them to continue. And it's at very little cost: you only need a few idealists willing to die for the cause, rather than a large army.

The typical reaction of your enemy also helps you. Because what they usually do, after recoiling from the horror, is take a hard line response which ends up killing some innocents along the way. This in turn creates animosity for them and strengthens sympathy for you, making you stronger.

Is this ultimately effective? It has been in certain situations. Other times it has failed. But 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.

I'd call it a massacre, but Taliban historians would call it a military victory. I don't think we targeted children, but we killed lots of Indian women and children in the 1800s.

We did target kids then/ look up a commander named Chivington. During the Vietnam War American troops captured children, tied their hands behind their backs and sent them forward into the jungle tied to a rope. They were called "mine dogs", and their job was to trigger land mines ahead of the patrol. This was a standard tactic.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There's actually a more practical way to justify it.

Terrorism is mainly used by those who wish to win a war or military struggle but lack the conventional means to do so. So if you have no superior army to crush your enemy, you crush them mentally instead. You commit such horrific acts that it becomes unpalatable for them to continue. And it's at very little cost: you only need a few idealists willing to die for the cause, rather than a large army.

The typical reaction of your enemy also helps you. Because what they usually do, after recoiling from the horror, is take a hard line response which ends up killing some innocents along the way. This in turn creates animosity for them and strengthens sympathy for you, making you stronger.

Is this ultimately effective? It has been in certain situations. Other times it has failed. But 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.

I'd call it a massacre, but Taliban historians would call it a military victory. I don't think we targeted children, but we killed lots of Indian women and children in the 1800s.

We did target kids then/ look up a commander named Chivington.During the Vietnam War American troops captured children, tied their hands behind their backs and sent them forward into the jungle tied to a rope. They were called "mine dogs", and their job was to trigger land mines ahead of the patrol. This was a standard tactic.

Link?

 

[timschochet]

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.

Yeah - well #### that guy.

Is timschochet a sympathizer? There is no rationale for targeting children for death to further a cause.

Have I written anything that would suggest to you that I sympathize with this? I think it's evil. But that doesn't mean I can't try to understand the reasons for it.

 

[Parrothead]

I knew it wouldn't take long for the moral equivalency people to show up.. well done..

 

[timschochet]

I knew it wouldn't take long for the moral equivalency people to show up.. well done..

there isn't any. Evil is evil.

 

[timschochet]

There's actually a more practical way to justify it.

Terrorism is mainly used by those who wish to win a war or military struggle but lack the conventional means to do so. So if you have no superior army to crush your enemy, you crush them mentally instead. You commit such horrific acts that it becomes unpalatable for them to continue. And it's at very little cost: you only need a few idealists willing to die for the cause, rather than a large army.

The typical reaction of your enemy also helps you. Because what they usually do, after recoiling from the horror, is take a hard line response which ends up killing some innocents along the way. This in turn creates animosity for them and strengthens sympathy for you, making you stronger.

Is this ultimately effective? It has been in certain situations. Other times it has failed. But 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.

I'd call it a massacre, but Taliban historians would call it a military victory. I don't think we targeted children, but we killed lots of Indian women and children in the 1800s.

We did target kids then/ look up a commander named Chivington.During the Vietnam War American troops captured children, tied their hands behind their backs and sent them forward into the jungle tied to a rope. They were called "mine dogs", and their job was to trigger land mines ahead of the patrol. This was a standard tactic.

Link?

ive read it in a couple books about Vietnam. One was "A Bright and Shiny Lie" I think. When I get to a laptop I'll see if I can find a link.

 

[Two Deep]

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.

Yeah - well #### that guy.

Is timschochet a sympathizer? There is no rationale for targeting children for death to further a cause.

Have I written anything that would suggest to you that I sympathize with this? I think it's evil. But that doesn't mean I can't try to understand the reasons for it.

Can you understand complete lunacy. These people are sick, sick, ####s. Trying to understand them only validates what they have done.

 

[cstu]

The concept of moral or humane war has always baffled me. Antiseptic war seems war easy to start and easy to continue. It is the horror of war that acts as a deterrent and as impetus to surrender and cease war. We seem to want to throw off the compacts of civilization, but just not all of them. War is savagery. If you are going to embrace it, embrace it in all its horror, anything else is self delusion because those in war will eventually learn and embrace its ultimate truths.

I've heard it asked over time how decent American kids could do this or that in war. The answer is that they over time and exposure embraced the reality of savagery in which they find themselves.

• This quote originates from Sherman's address to the graduating class of the Michigan Military Academy (19 June 1879); but slightly varying accounts of this speech have been published:
• I’ve been where you are now and I know just how you feel. It’s entirely natural that there should beat in the breast of every one of you a hope and desire that some day you can use the skill you have acquired here.
• Suppress it! You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is Hell!
  

 

[Bucky86]

There's actually a more practical way to justify it.

Terrorism is mainly used by those who wish to win a war or military struggle but lack the conventional means to do so. So if you have no superior army to crush your enemy, you crush them mentally instead. You commit such horrific acts that it becomes unpalatable for them to continue. And it's at very little cost: you only need a few idealists willing to die for the cause, rather than a large army.

The typical reaction of your enemy also helps you. Because what they usually do, after recoiling from the horror, is take a hard line response which ends up killing some innocents along the way. This in turn creates animosity for them and strengthens sympathy for you, making you stronger.

Is this ultimately effective? It has been in certain situations. Other times it has failed. But 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.

I'd call it a massacre, but Taliban historians would call it a military victory. I don't think we targeted children, but we killed lots of Indian women and children in the 1800s.

We did target kids then/ look up a commander named Chivington.During the Vietnam War American troops captured children, tied their hands behind their backs and sent them forward into the jungle tied to a rope. They were called "mine dogs", and their job was to trigger land mines ahead of the patrol. This was a standard tactic.

Link?

I've been to Vietnam and went to the War Remnants Museum which is basically a museum that shows every horrific thing (whether true or not) about what the U.S. did over there and even they didn't mention that.

 

[timschochet]

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.

Yeah - well #### that guy.

Is timschochet a sympathizer? There is no rationale for targeting children for death to further a cause.

Have I written anything that would suggest to you that I sympathize with this? I think it's evil. But that doesn't mean I can't try to understand the reasons for it.

Can you understand complete lunacy. These people are sick, sick, ####s. Trying to understand them only validates what they have done.

i strongly disagree. Trying to understand helps us fight them.

 

[El Floppo]

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.

Yeah - well #### that guy.

Is timschochet a sympathizer? There is no rationale for targeting children for death to further a cause.

Have I written anything that would suggest to you that I sympathize with this? I think it's evil. But that doesn't mean I can't try to understand the reasons for it.

Can you understand complete lunacy. These people are sick, sick, ####s. Trying to understand them only validates what they have done.

I will never, ever agree with or understand this viewpoint.

 

[Sinn Fein]

The concept of moral or humane war has always baffled me. Antiseptic war seems war easy to start and easy to continue. It is the horror of war that acts as a deterrent and as impetus to surrender and cease war. We seem to want to throw off the compacts of civilization, but just not all of them. War is savagery. If you are going to embrace it, embrace it in all its horror, anything else is self delusion because those in war will eventually learn and embrace its ultimate truths.

I've heard it asked over time how decent American kids could do this or that in war. The answer is that they over time and exposure embraced the reality of savagery in which they find themselves.

 

[Two Deep]

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.

Yeah - well #### that guy.

Is timschochet a sympathizer? There is no rationale for targeting children for death to further a cause.

Have I written anything that would suggest to you that I sympathize with this? I think it's evil. But that doesn't mean I can't try to understand the reasons for it.

Can you understand complete lunacy. These people are sick, sick, ####s. Trying to understand them only validates what they have done.

I will never, ever agree with or understand this viewpoint.

What is to understand? They are murderers and cowards.

 

[timschochet]

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.

In any event, the US HAS targeted children in the past. We have also given money to terrorists who have targeted children, as well as governments, both in the Middle East and in Latin America.

My purpose for writing this, despite Parrothead's charge, was not to create a moral equivalence. There is none. We can and should condemn what the Taliban does as evil, and since it represents their thinking, we can and should condemn the Taliban itself as evil. When we commit war crimes, we feel guilty about it, we analyze it, and we attempt to prosecute those responsible. This IMO makes us morally superior. But it is shallow thinking to insist that we don't do bad things, and that is what I was responding to.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

There's actually a more practical way to justify it.

Terrorism is mainly used by those who wish to win a war or military struggle but lack the conventional means to do so. So if you have no superior army to crush your enemy, you crush them mentally instead. You commit such horrific acts that it becomes unpalatable for them to continue. And it's at very little cost: you only need a few idealists willing to die for the cause, rather than a large army.

The typical reaction of your enemy also helps you. Because what they usually do, after recoiling from the horror, is take a hard line response which ends up killing some innocents along the way. This in turn creates animosity for them and strengthens sympathy for you, making you stronger.

Is this ultimately effective? It has been in certain situations. Other times it has failed. But 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.

I'd call it a massacre, but Taliban historians would call it a military victory. I don't think we targeted children, but we killed lots of Indian women and children in the 1800s.

We did target kids then/ look up a commander named Chivington.During the Vietnam War American troops captured children, tied their hands behind their backs and sent them forward into the jungle tied to a rope. They were called "mine dogs", and their job was to trigger land mines ahead of the patrol. This was a standard tactic.

Link?

ive read it in a couple books about Vietnam. One was "A Bright and Shiny Lie" I think. When I get to a laptop I'll see if I can find a link.

I've read a couple books about Vietnam too and neither one mentioned "mine dogs". Does that mean I've disproved you?

 

[Limp Ditka]

I read it in a book

- tim

 

[Sinn Fein]

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.

Yeah - well #### that guy.

Is timschochet a sympathizer? There is no rationale for targeting children for death to further a cause.

Have I written anything that would suggest to you that I sympathize with this? I think it's evil. But that doesn't mean I can't try to understand the reasons for it.

Can you understand complete lunacy. These people are sick, sick, ####s. Trying to understand them only validates what they have done.

I will never, ever agree with or understand this viewpoint.

What is to understand? They are murderers and cowards.

Its never that simple.

They have a different perspective on the issue, based on their life experiences, that we cannot, or will not, try to understand.

From your perspective, they are murderers and cowards. From their perspective, they have fought for some greater cause.

The "truth" (as if there is a singular truth) lies somewhere in-between.

 

[Two Deep]

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.

Yeah - well #### that guy.

Is timschochet a sympathizer? There is no rationale for targeting children for death to further a cause.

Have I written anything that would suggest to you that I sympathize with this? I think it's evil. But that doesn't mean I can't try to understand the reasons for it.

Can you understand complete lunacy. These people are sick, sick, ####s. Trying to understand them only validates what they have done.

I will never, ever agree with or understand this viewpoint.

What is to understand? They are murderers and cowards.

Its never that simple.

They have a different perspective on the issue, based on their life experiences, that we cannot, or will not, try to understand.

From your perspective, they are murderers and cowards. From their perspective, they have fought for some greater cause.

The "truth" (as if there is a singular truth) lies somewhere in-between.

I strongly disagree...In most logical peoples viewpoint, they are murderers and cowards.

 

[Todem]

They need to be exterminated.

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.

 

[El Floppo]

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.

Yeah - well #### that guy.

Is timschochet a sympathizer? There is no rationale for targeting children for death to further a cause.

Have I written anything that would suggest to you that I sympathize with this? I think it's evil. But that doesn't mean I can't try to understand the reasons for it.

Can you understand complete lunacy. These people are sick, sick, ####s. Trying to understand them only validates what they have done.

I will never, ever agree with or understand this viewpoint.

What is to understand? They are murderers and cowards.

so in spending that limited time coming to that understanding... their actions are now validated?

 

[Bucky86]

They need to be exterminated.

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.

You want to torture animals too?

 

[Todem]

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.

Yeah - well #### that guy.

Is timschochet a sympathizer? There is no rationale for targeting children for death to further a cause.

Have I written anything that would suggest to you that I sympathize with this? I think it's evil. But that doesn't mean I can't try to understand the reasons for it.

Can you understand complete lunacy. These people are sick, sick, ####s. Trying to understand them only validates what they have done.

I will never, ever agree with or understand this viewpoint.

What is to understand? They are murderers and cowards.

Its never that simple.

They have a different perspective on the issue, based on their life experiences, that we cannot, or will not, try to understand.

From your perspective, they are murderers and cowards. From their perspective, they have fought for some greater cause.

The "truth" (as if there is a singular truth) lies somewhere in-between.

Their perspective is one of murdering animals.

Not human.

Kill all of them. Survival of the fittest. I say kill all of these insane, inhuman murderers. Different perspective? Yeah insane perspective. Absolutely no sympathy to a murderous cause. You think I support the death penalty? Your damn straight I do. You give up your right to "live on our planet card" when you commit unimaginable acts of murder.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

They need to be exterminated.

Don't torture them for info though.

You do realize that the info typically gained from torture isn't really reliable, right?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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.

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.

 

[Todem]

They need to be exterminated.

Don't torture them for info though.

You do realize that the info typically gained from torture isn't really reliable, right?

They found Osama Bin Laden didn't they? Took a while. But it came to fruition.

No sympathy for known terrorists or supporters/enablers of terrorists. None what so ever.

 

[timschochet]

Todem, emotionally I agree with you. The problem is, we can't kill all of the Talban. We've spent the last 13 years trying. And the attempt to do so may have long term negative consequences for this country; we'll have to wait and see. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to tolerate some of these murderers.

There is no man who deserved being killed in the 20th century more than Josef Stalin. In fact, I would argue that there is no greater murderer in history, no more evil man, not even Hitler. But since Hitler was, at the time, the greater threat to us, we were forced to be friendly with Stalin. Our Presidents had to shake his hand, sit next to him, embrace him. I would have been unable to do so. But they had to, for the greater good.

We may have to negotiate with the Taliban for the greater good. Who knows? As evil as they are, there might be worse coming.

 

[timschochet]

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.

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.

I don't believe the Afghan story.

I do believe the Vietnam story, because it fits with all sorts of other stuff I have read about that war. Our troops were made up, mostly, of the most uneducated and poorest among us; those that couldn't escape the draft. They were sent into the jungle with no clear instruction on how to achieve victory. They were unable to distinguish good guys from enemies. They saw their buddies savagely killed on a daily basis. There was heavy use of drugs, especially heroin, among the troops. Is it any wonder they turned savage themselves?

 

[Todem]

Todem, emotionally I agree with you. The problem is, we can't kill all of the Talban. We've spent the last 13 years trying. And the attempt to do so may have long term negative consequences for this country; we'll have to wait and see. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to tolerate some of these murderers.

There is no man who deserved being killed in the 20th century more than Josef Stalin. In fact, I would argue that there is no greater murderer in history, no more evil man, not even Hitler. But since Hitler was, at the time, the greater threat to us, we were forced to be friendly with Stalin. Our Presidents had to shake his hand, sit next to him, embrace him. I would have been unable to do so. But they had to, for the greater good.

We may have to negotiate with the Taliban for the greater good. Who knows? As evil as they are, there might be worse coming.

I am one who if you can keep your enemy close...you do it. Iraq and Iran are perfect examples of this. We have at times aligned with Iraq. We knew Sadam AND AT ONE TIME HELPED HIM IN THEIR WAR!. Better to know your enemy then live in the shadows of the unknown. Black Op's, infiltration, these are things that are needed to bring down terror groups.

Easier said then done.

But I have zero issues with the tactics our CIA and military need to use to fight the war on these animals. We are dealing with the true scum and evil of the earth.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

They need to be exterminated.

Don't torture them for info though.

You do realize that the info typically gained from torture isn't really reliable, right?

They found Osama Bin Laden didn't they? Took a while. But it came to fruition.No sympathy for known terrorists or supporters/enablers of terrorists. None what so ever.

1. That is still being debated.

2. Way to go out on a limb.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

Todem, emotionally I agree with you. The problem is, we can't kill all of the Talban. We've spent the last 13 years trying. And the attempt to do so may have long term negative consequences for this country; we'll have to wait and see. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to tolerate some of these murderers.

There is no man who deserved being killed in the 20th century more than Josef Stalin. In fact, I would argue that there is no greater murderer in history, no more evil man, not even Hitler. But since Hitler was, at the time, the greater threat to us, we were forced to be friendly with Stalin. Our Presidents had to shake his hand, sit next to him, embrace him. I would have been unable to do so. But they had to, for the greater good.

We may have to negotiate with the Taliban for the greater good. Who knows? As evil as they are, there might be worse coming.

I am one who if you can keep your enemy close...you do it. Iraq and Iran are perfect examples of this. We have at times aligned with Iraq. We knew Sadam AND AT ONE TIME HELPED HIM IN THEIR WAR!. Better to know your enemy then live in the shadows of the unknown. Black Op's, infiltration, these are things that are needed to bring down terror groups.Easier said then done.

But I have zero issues with the tactics our CIA and military need to use to fight the war on these animals. We are dealing with the true scum and evil of the earth.

Even if it means the imprisonment and/or torture of innocent people?

 

[Todem]

They need to be exterminated.

Don't torture them for info though.

You do realize that the info typically gained from torture isn't really reliable, right?

They found Osama Bin Laden didn't they? Took a while. But it came to fruition.No sympathy for known terrorists or supporters/enablers of terrorists. None what so ever.

1. That is still being debated.

2. Way to go out on a limb.

It will be debated till the end of time.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

They need to be exterminated.

Don't torture them for info though.

You do realize that the info typically gained from torture isn't really reliable, right?

They found Osama Bin Laden didn't they? Took a while. But it came to fruition.

No sympathy for known terrorists or supporters/enablers of terrorists. None what so ever.

1. That is still being debated.

2. Way to go out on a limb.

It will be debated till the end of time.

Unless Tim reads about it in a book.

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

http://i.imgur.com/RLltZOV.jpg

 

[Short Corner]

I knew it wouldn't take long for the moral equivalency people to show up.. well done..

there isn't any. Evil is evil.

Apparently you are not allowed to point out the hypocrisy.

 

[Two Deep]

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.

Yeah - well #### that guy.

Is timschochet a sympathizer? There is no rationale for targeting children for death to further a cause.

Have I written anything that would suggest to you that I sympathize with this? I think it's evil. But that doesn't mean I can't try to understand the reasons for it.

Can you understand complete lunacy. These people are sick, sick, ####s. Trying to understand them only validates what they have done.

I will never, ever agree with or understand this viewpoint.

What is to understand? They are murderers and cowards.

so in spending that limited time coming to that understanding... their actions are now validated?

Yes they are validated as murderers and cowards. Not some legitimate group that you and timscochet think we should sit down on their rock couch and have tea and try and understand them.

 

[Sinn Fein]

http://i.imgur.com/RLltZOV.jpg

Hillary Clinton?

 

[Todem]

Todem, emotionally I agree with you. The problem is, we can't kill all of the Talban. We've spent the last 13 years trying. And the attempt to do so may have long term negative consequences for this country; we'll have to wait and see. Unfortunately, we have no choice but to tolerate some of these murderers.

There is no man who deserved being killed in the 20th century more than Josef Stalin. In fact, I would argue that there is no greater murderer in history, no more evil man, not even Hitler. But since Hitler was, at the time, the greater threat to us, we were forced to be friendly with Stalin. Our Presidents had to shake his hand, sit next to him, embrace him. I would have been unable to do so. But they had to, for the greater good.

We may have to negotiate with the Taliban for the greater good. Who knows? As evil as they are, there might be worse coming.

I am one who if you can keep your enemy close...you do it. Iraq and Iran are perfect examples of this. We have at times aligned with Iraq. We knew Sadam AND AT ONE TIME HELPED HIM IN THEIR WAR!. Better to know your enemy then live in the shadows of the unknown. Black Op's, infiltration, these are things that are needed to bring down terror groups.Easier said then done.

But I have zero issues with the tactics our CIA and military need to use to fight the war on these animals. We are dealing with the true scum and evil of the earth.

Even if it means the imprisonment and/or torture of innocent people?

In war you have that term "collateral damage". I don't like it. I don't think anyone likes it. And it is even tougher to accept if a loved one becomes collateral damage in any situation. But we are at war with an enemy that lives in our country, uses our schools, books and systems against our own people. We are in a far different world since 9/11/01. We have our own American citizens being recruited into this holy war too.

It is terrible. But we must use whatever resources and methods we have to keep our country safe from future attacks.

 

[El Floppo]

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.

Yeah - well #### that guy.

Is timschochet a sympathizer? There is no rationale for targeting children for death to further a cause.

Have I written anything that would suggest to you that I sympathize with this? I think it's evil. But that doesn't mean I can't try to understand the reasons for it.

Can you understand complete lunacy. These people are sick, sick, ####s. Trying to understand them only validates what they have done.

I will never, ever agree with or understand this viewpoint.

What is to understand? They are murderers and cowards.

so in spending that limited time coming to that understanding... their actions are now validated?

Yes they are validated as murderers and cowards. Not some legitimate group that you and timscochet think we should sit down on their rock couch and have tea and try and understand them.

 

[The Football Freak]

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.

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.

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.

 

[timschochet]

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.

 

[timschochet]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[The Football Freak]

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.

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.

 

[Two Deep]

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.

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.