News The Troops = Bad? (surely killing is wrong)

[Cyrus]

Im curious as to why so many posting here think killing is wrong. I don't. There are many situations in which I'd want another person dead.

 

[drizzle]

Really, do you watch my media to know this, or ..blah blah

if it’s other than [the western media], please link some


FYI: this isn’t posted for you personally, I said ALL

 

[drizzle]

There are many situations in which I'd want another person dead.

 

[Cyrus]

if it’s other than [the western media], please link someFYI: this isn’t posted for you personally, I said ALL

You said he is posting something (nonsense in this case) that 'we' don't hear in our media. Now, show me what exactly we 'don't hear'. I want you to find something written in a non US press that cannot be found in a US paper.

Otherwise, stop talking out of ignorance. (Another one of my pet peeves are baseless idiotic generaliztions about Americans. If you make them, I'm not going to be nice in my posts to you so you probably want to think long and hard before posting such things and make sure you can back them up.)

 

[JaredJames]

Just out of curiosity, does the original poster think Bin Laden should be allowed to live? I mean seriously, if you had family in the WTC on September 11th I very much doubt your reaction would be "bring him to the US and give him a fair trial". If you had family in the London on July 7th I very much doubt your reaction would be "bring him to the UK and give him a fair trial". Unfortunately, our government does that. I think any person who strives to take a life/multiple lives should be hanged.
Was hijacking several civilian aircraft and killing all those people justified? These people are mad (the extremists not the iraqis in general, I'm not that ignorant before someone brings it up). They have taken their religion so seriously, that moving forward has become a 'corruption of their ways' by the western world. And so because of that, they have taken a very 'reasonable stance' that everyone in the west who doesn't support them must die.

The OP seems contradictory, 'we should have military but only as a last resort to defend the country'. Now I don't want to point out the flaming obvious here, but how would you go about defending off an attacking force (attempting to kill your people) without killing them? Set up a nice road block and hope it does the trick? Brick up the Channel Tunnel and hope they don't remember boats? Or failing all else, strap a nice big sign to the cliffs at Dover saying "if you attack, we'll have no choice but to get really, really angry"? Honestly, I would rather see British troops wade across the English channel and take on an attacking force in an already conquered (yep, you can see where this is going) France than let it get to our borders and do even more damage, endangering more innocent lives. The UK/US and most other militaries don't just randomly kill. They only go after the people shooting at them. It is inevitable that some civilians will end up in the firing line, it's just a case of attempting to limit the collateral damage. They provide medical care for the 'bad guys' and 'good guys' unconditionally. That is the difference between our military and groups like the Taliban, who take a stance of just kill the enemy, full stop. The people in the UK military decide to be there, they are not forced into it. That is FACT. They choose to be there, they are trained to do a job. The Taliban's 'freedom fighters' are no more than a bunch of brainwashed idiots who take religion far too seriously. And before anyone says they aren't brainwashed, last time I checked there aren't suicide bombers in the UK military expecting a (somewhat random) number of virgins when they die. And if you still think these people aren't brainwashed, why is it that they never question "why, if it's so honourable to die and you get so much on doing so, don't people like Bin Laden 'sacrifice' themselves (blow themselves up in other words)?".
So as far as killing goes, I take Cyrus' stance of "There are many situations in which I'd want another person dead.".

 

[drizzle]

You said he is posting something (nonsense in this case) that 'we' don't hear in our media. Now, show me what exactly we 'don't hear'. I want you to find something written in a non US press that cannot be found in a US paper...

what is this? sure you’ll get the same news [in your media] but facts will be [twisted] to serve political purposes, I would suggest you watch Alljazerah English channel for the middle east tragedy, and find yourself how it’s different!
my point is you [the westerners] should listen to the others before judging them [as the bad guys] and the best way is to hear directly from them [their media].

 

[JaredJames]

what is this? sure you’ll get the same news [in your media] but facts will be [twisted] to serve political purposes, I would suggest you watch Alljazerah English channel for the middle east tragedy, and find yourself how it’s different!
my point is you [the westerners] should listen to the others before judging them [as the bad guys] and the best way is to hear directly from them [their media].

So our media is corrupted for political purposes, to gain support for our cause, but theirs isn't. Theirs is pure news from an unbiased viewpoint? I don't think so.

Oh come on. They are going to want to make us look worse than we are as much as we want to make us look better than we are.

 

[wajed]

"Take a chill pill. I can hear your screaming all the way from Egypt."
Its not yelling, I`m just stressing on some points.
I hope you have fun in Egypt ;)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

what is this? sure you’ll get the same news [in your media] but facts will be [twisted] to serve political purposes, I would suggest you watch Alljazerah English channel for the middle east tragedy, and find yourself how it’s different!
my point is you [the westerners] should listen to the others before judging them [as the bad guys] and the best way is to hear directly from them [their media].

In the US there are many many news agencies. They all have different perspectives and political slants. Some try rather hard to be impartial. AP is a US based agency with affiliates all over the world. NPR (US National Public Radio) is considered to have a slant to the left, and that's the media funded by our government even. We get the BBC here and agencies here often reprint their stories as well as Reuters. Our news agencies even reprint stories from Alljazerah and many other agencies which are commonly believed to be heavily slanted politically for their audience in other countries. Just because you hear bad things about Fox doesn't mean that all western and american media are like this.

 

[wajed]

"So our media is corrupted for political purposes, to gain support for our cause, but theirs isn't. Theirs is pure news from an unbiased viewpoint.

Oh come on. They are going to want to make us look worse than we are as much as we want to make us look better than we are. "

So, me and you, simply can watch both and determine which would make more sense..
Not that by doing this you can know which is biased and which is not, but you surely can watch Aljazera in stead of CNN every while and so..
Or, if you care to know which shows more facts than biased news, do some random comparisons.. and by time u`ll be able to know which news make more sense.

BTW, if you watch a channel like Alarabiya, you won`t see any real world difference than what you watch on CNN, because its funded by Americans; and many, many, many other channels will be the same... it looks like some american parties are doing something wrong and trying to hide/twist the facts.

 

[drizzle]

So our media is corrupted for political purposes, to gain support for our cause, but theirs isn't. Theirs is pure news from an unbiased viewpoint? I don't think so.

Oh come on. They are going to want to make us look worse than we are as much as we want to make us look better than we are.

I hope this reveals my point, I used to hate Jews by any means, even if I loved a piece of jewel, then knew it was made by some Jew guy I directly get enraged [that’s because the Palestinian people and how they suffer due to Israel’s actions], but I then searched, read, watched and find that Jews have nothing to do with it, and decided not to judge anyone unless I do some effort to find the truth and hear from them.

 

[JaredJames]

"So our media is corrupted for political purposes, to gain support for our cause, but theirs isn't. Theirs is pure news from an unbiased viewpoint.

Oh come on. They are going to want to make us look worse than we are as much as we want to make us look better than we are. "

So, me and you, simply can watch both and determine which would make more sense..
Not that by doing this you can know which is biased and which is not, but you surely can watch Aljazera in stead of CNN every while and so..
Or, if you care to know which shows more facts than biased news, do some random comparisons.. and by time u`ll be able to know which news make more sense.

BTW, if you watch a channel like Alarabiya, you won`t see any real world difference than what you watch on CNN, because its funded by Americans; and many, many, many other channels will be the same... it looks like some american parties are doing something wrong and trying to hide/twist the facts.

Look, everyone is biased (we've been through this on another thread). Which means everyone will put a certain slant on the news they produce. You saying "so you can know which is biased and which is not" is rubbish. Both will have bias, however the one that agrees with yourself will not be seen by you as bias. That DOES NOT make it better than our 'western' news. Yes I hate our media for hyping things up too much. But I can't see how you can claim they are so much better (I'm watching the Aljaera news channel now).

 

[wajed]

Look, everyone is biased (we've been through this on another thread). Which means everyone will put a certain slant on the news they produce.

I didn`t say anything against that.

You saying "so you can know which is biased and which is not" is rubbish. Both will have bias, however the one that agrees with yourself will not be seen by you as bias.

I said this:

Not that by doing this you can know which is biased and which is not,

and also this:

do some random comparisons.. and by time u`ll be able to know which news make more sense..

That DOES NOT make it better than our 'western' news.

I, defintely, didn`t say there is any news better than another; well, I have my opinion concerning this, but I didn`t post/say anything.

Yes I hate our media for hyping things up too much. But I can't see how you can claim they are so much better (I'm watching the Aljaera news channel now).

I`m really sorry, but I didn`t say that.
but as an advice, I`d suggest you do some comparisons between Aljazera and CNN.
another opinion: if some news make more sense to you, it doesn`t mean its the truth, because of the society you are raised in, and because of many other factors.

 

[JaredJames]

I do apologise for the rant on bias Wajed, I misread Not as Note so you can see why I went the wrong way there.

 

[wajed]

O,O
Its ok, lol :)

 

[NBAJam100]

Oh come on... 'serve your country' means to kill the enemy. I mean people on the front line who are given weapons etc...

Ok, so would this make more sense to you:

The next time our country is threatened we won't send those terrible soldiers out to defend us all... let's just let the enemy come in here and take your life along with your other fellow Americans lives. Surely you would let them come in and take your life because to fight back and kill them would be wrong right?

 

[JaredJames]

Ok, so would this make more sense to you:

The next time our country is threatened we won't send those terrible soldiers out to defend us all... let's just let the enemy come in here and take your life along with your other fellow Americans lives. Surely you would let them come in and take your life because to fight back and kill them would be wrong right?

Surely he'd at least try my solutions:

The OP seems contradictory, 'we should have military but only as a last resort to defend the country'. Now I don't want to point out the flaming obvious here, but how would you go about defending off an attacking force (attempting to kill your people) without killing them? Set up a nice road block and hope it does the trick? Brick up the Channel Tunnel and hope they don't remember boats? Or failing all else, strap a nice big sign to the cliffs at Dover saying "if you attack, we'll have no choice but to get really, really angry"? Honestly, I would rather see British troops wade across the English channel and take on an attacking force in an already conquered (yep, you can see where this is going) France than let it get to our borders and do even more damage, endangering more innocent lives.

 

[Astronuc]

Sorry, wrong information.
Taliban is not an international force/movementary. so they have no work outside pakistan-Afgh.
Qaida is.

What wrong information? The Taliban (under direction of Mullah Omar) attacked other groups in Afghanistan, e.g. the Hazaras who lived in the middle of Afghanistan and near Kabul. The Uzbeks, Tadjiks and Hazaras did not attack Kandahar, but rather Taliban and their allies attacked Kabul, Mazar-e sharif, Herat and numerous small towns. As I understand it, in Mazar-e sharif, troops fought against the Taliban, but when the Taliban returned to Mazar-e sharif, the Taliban targeted everyone, including civilians.

Between May and July 1997, the Taliban unsuccessfully attempted to take Mazar, leading to approximately 3,000 Taliban soldiers being massacred by Abdul Malik and his Shia followers. In retaliation for this incident, the Taliban on August 8, 1998, was reported to have returned and led a six-day killing frenzy of Hazaras, a report which was refuted in a report that pointed out that all claims of military deaths were sourced and referenced, but the accounts of civilian massacres were not attributable to any reliable source and were allegedly fabricated by enemies of their rule.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazari_Sharif

While the narrative is from Wikipedia, its content is consistent with other accounts.

I am also aware that Shah Masoud's Tadjik's attack the Hazaras south of Kabul before the Taliban advanced north from Kandahar. And Hikmetyar's forces have fought with Masud's forces and perhaps Rashid Dostum's forces. And all the forces of Hikmetyar, Dostom, Masud, Ismael Khan, and other warlords have engaged in corrupt behavior.

And certainly al-Qaida has decided to strike/attack US and western interests throughout the world: attack on USN Cole in Yemen, the attacks against US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on WTC in NYCity (Sept 11, 2001), . . . .

And don`t only blame these people. Why? because everyone has participated.
Some don`t even bother theirselves to spend some time showing the truth to others.. (which is important, and can help stop the fighting)
The troops DO kill.. and many times for silly reasons.. but anyway let's talk in general..
The Qaida DO kill..and many times because of the US politics...but in general.. yeah they DO kill..
Those who command the troops to go and kill.. SURE, they are the most guilty of these..

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm simply reporting according to my understanding.

I don't agree with US or western methods concerning Iraq and Afghanistan, but then I'm not in a position of make or influence the decisions. In numerous cases, US (and probably UK/Nato) air forces have bombed or strafed innocent civilians because of faulty information, or simply due to reckless conduct.

Kai Eide, chief of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, has called for 'an urgent review' of US operations in Afghanistan. That certainly comes late - well after the US airstrike in Azizabad last August in which 90+ civilians (mostly women and children) were killed by US bombs, and just after the airstrike in the village of Granai in Bala Buluk District of Farah province this past May.

Can you please suggest a scenario of how you`d know the truth?
all you get your information from is "CNN" "YAHOO" "MSN" "NEW YORK TIMES"..
HOW do you know what really happens there?

I don't trust those sources cited. I prefer to get my information for Afghan and Pakistani journalists, and westerners who have lived or worked in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan.

I hope you understand you just sacrifice your life by big amount doing this..
you may get hit by a US shell..
a UK shell..
other forces shell..
Resistence shell..
Terrorists shell..
THATS HOW IRAQI PEOPLE LIVE.

The only way to be sure about events in any part of the world is to witness those events and places in person. Yes it is dangerous.

 

[Gokul43201]

Another point that he hasn't thought through is that if it weren't for the US and UK military that he despises, he'd be writing this in German. Of course, that assumes that he's not Jewish, or Roma, or Eastern European, or... In that case, if he was very, very lucky, he might be a slave laborer or subject of medical experiments somewhere, but more likely he'd be six feet under, his skin used to make lampshades.

Where did the OP indicate that he would rather condone killing than be writing in German, laboring as a slave or being used to make lampshades? Aren't you just making assumptions about a person you don't know?

 

[wajed]

The next time our country is threatened we won't send those terrible soldiers out to defend us all... let's just let the enemy come in here and take your life along with your other fellow Americans lives. Surely you would let them come in and take your life because to fight back and kill them would be wrong right?

how did the Iraqis attack you? (or even the persians..)

 

[JaredJames]

how did the Iraqis attack you? (or even the persians..)

they "threatened" oil supplies

 

[Cyrus]

how did the Iraqis attack you? (or even the persians..)

This comment is woefully ignorant of history. No one ever claimed the Iraqis attacked us. Your entire premise is wrong.

 

[JaredJames]

Wajed, do you understand the concept of pre-emptive action?

 

[russ_watters]

Where did the OP indicate that he would rather condone killing than be writing in German, laboring as a slave or being used to make lampshades? Aren't you just making assumptions about a person you don't know?

No. Using overly simplistic platitudes like "killing is wrong" ignores the realities of history that sometimes make it necessary. Vanadium's point - and he said it explicitly - isn't that the OP condones this thinking, but that s/he didn't think it through. It's what I argued as well: if the OP put a little more effort into thinking about this issue, s/he would probably see the nonsensical logical result of the starting premise.

 

[wajed]

What wrong information? The Taliban (under direction of Mullah Omar) ...

lol, sorry sorry sorry, I read "intentionally" as "internationally", and that`s why I said "not an international force"

Sorry, wrong information.
Taliban is not an international force/movementary. so they have no work outside pakistan-Afgh.
Qaida is.

And certainly al-Qaida has decided to strike/attack US and western interests throughout the world: attack on USN Cole in Yemen, the attacks against US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the attack on WTC in NYCity (Sept 11, 2001), . . . .

Yeah, I thought you said "international", and Taliban, unlike AlQaida, doesn`t do international operations.

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm simply reporting according to my understanding.

I don't agree with US or western methods concerning Iraq and Afghanistan, but then I'm not in a position of make or influence the decisions. In numerous cases, US (and probably UK/Nato) air forces have bombed or strafed innocent civilians because of faulty information, or simply due to reckless conduct.

Just to be sure something is clear: it not like "cases".. they happen more usually than to be called "cases".

just giving more examples of how its like there:
A) we heard of some torturing happened in a prison once or twice..
how could the press agencies get some type of information? the information and pictures were leaked out of the prison..
press can`t show us what really happens there..
So, conclusion: If this is only what we heard of and what could be leaked, then how about the things that no one in this whole Earth can hear of or see but the ones in the prisons? there surely happens alot..

B) some american soldiers video-ing their friends (you know.. why not have some fun) - forget what the video is all about, the important is the clips in the video, here it is (please, anyone young enough, don`t open these):

C) (again, why not have some fun.. let's crash some cars):

Again, not that this is all what happens, I`ve just searched for some videos that I remember, and just trying to show you.
And again, I`m only trying to make something clear, not that I`m opposing you concerning what you said.

Kai Eide, chief of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, has called for 'an urgent review' of US operations in Afghanistan. That certainly comes late - well after the US airstrike in Azizabad last August in which 90+ civilians (mostly women and children) were killed by US bombs, and just after the airstrike in the village of Granai in Bala Buluk District of Farah province this past May.

You know, I don`t even trust Kai, I simply can`t, he is just doing attacks there; they invaded Iraq, planning to invade Iran; Israel is handling issues in Lebanon, Palestine; US has control on Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt; so, all of these guys working together, I`d never trust anything they`d say. The first possibility to come in my mind is: press could have captured some pictures and collected enough information on this speicific occurance, so admitting that it happened would make it look like its that rare big mistake that happened; Second possibility to come in my mind is: to make things look more realistic they have to show some errors. Still, All of this doesn`t mean denying that he simply may have felt of how much disastrous the thing that happened and so he got out to announce what happened.

I don't trust those sources cited. I prefer to get my information for Afghan and Pakistani journalists, and westerners who have lived or worked in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan.

However, we know in some cases, a limited number of US and UK troops have intentionally brutalized and killed innocent people.

Can you please suggest a scenario of how you`d know the truth?
all you get your information from is "CNN" "YAHOO" "MSN" "NEW YORK TIMES"..
HOW do you know what really happens there?

Sorry, whom do you mean of "we"?

The only way to be sure about events in any part of the world is to witness those events and places in person. Yes it is dangerous.

:) sure sometimes we need to sacrifice; just like the American good soldiers that all they can realise is that they are helping in bringing safety to the world in general and their country in particular.

 

[wajed]

they "threatened" oil supplies

This comment is woefully ignorant of history. No one ever claimed the Iraqis attacked us. Your entire premise is wrong.

I have been wrong to use the word "attack"
but can you justify using the word "threatened" when talking about invading a country and be the reason to kill hundreds of thousands and make the other millions lifes` disastrous? (and consuming big amount of your country`s money etc..)

Anyway, they took enough oil from Iraq that if anybody threatened your oil supplies again you wouldn`t really be that mad at him, you will already be having Iraq`s oil supplies in your country!

 

[JaredJames]

Was it the smilley or the quotation marks that made you take my post seriously?

Also, aside from the video in the first link above, everything is fake, the sounds and soldier voices are dubbed. It is made my someone with a presumably muslim name (shown at end) and so would appear to be a propper ganda film at the very least. A bad thing to post given you are defending them.

 

[wajed]

Was it the smilley or the quotation marks that made you take my post seriously?

At first I coudln`t determine wether you were kidding or not, but Cyrus also commented, so I thought its a mistake I really did.

I`m totally sorry

Also, aside from the video in the first link above, everything is fake, the sounds and soldier voices are dubbed. It is made my someone with a presumably muslim name (shown at end) and so would appear to be a propper ganda film at the very least. A bad thing to post given you are defending them.

that sound is not part of the video (for sure!), its someone added the voice trying to make the video more exciting!
Specially, if you see that women teaching kids stuff like that, u may be able to understand that some people may find this exciting, interesting.. or however they feel.

 

[JaredJames]

At first I coudln`t determine wether you were kidding or not, but Cyrus also commented, so I thought its a mistake I really did.
I`m totally sorry

No worries, by my count that's 1-1 now.

that sound is not part of the video (for sure!), its someone added the voice trying to make the video more exciting!
Specially, if you see that women teaching kids stuff like that, u may be able to understand that some people may find this exciting, interesting.. or however they feel.

That's my problem with things like this. You get people doing this sort of thing (adding sound etc.) and before you know it everyone believes it as true. It's why there are so many misconceptions.
Although granted, in this case the video says it all, the sound was unnecassary

 

[wajed]

Wajed, do you understand the concept of pre-emptive action?

"pre-emptive"

Now I do, I`ve just looked it up.

 

[JaredJames]

"pre-emptive"

Now I do, I`ve just looked it up.

Its just that in certain circumstances it is required.

 

[wajed]

"the sound was unnecassary"
By the way; the sound isn`t added by the one who produced the whole video, that is clear, because he needn`t to, and adding such "topping" on the video wouldn`t add ".0001%" of the reality that guy is trying to show.

That was said just in case you think its him :P (I wouldn`t like it to be 1-2 :P)

 

[JaredJames]

think it may just be 1-2.

but just to clarify, does it say he didn't add it?

regardless, the sound does add to the video if you don't realize it's fake.

 

[Cyrus]

Wajed, you make unfounded complaints about American media which are not true and then you post Youtube videos that are cut from various AMERICAN media documentaries taken out of context.

Please get to a valid point quickly. So far, you have yet to make one post of quality and/or substance. You really ought to just stop these types of posts because they are getting to be highly annoying and immature.

 

[wajed]

Its just that in certain circumstances it is required.

I hope that is not how war on Iraq started.

what does justify such a "pre-emptive action"? (I`m asking for facts)

 

[JaredJames]

If country A threatens country B with a nuclear strike, the only option to remove the threat may be a decisive pre-emptive strike by country B.

The current North Korea issue, the Cuban Missile Crisis almost resulted in a pre-emptive strike, however they stopped at pre-emptive action (a blockade of cuba).

 

[wajed]

Wajed, you make unfounded complaints about American media which are not true and then you post Youtube videos that are cut from various AMERICAN media documentaries taken out of context.

Please get to a valid point quickly. So far, you have yet to make one post of quality and/or substance. You really ought to just stop these types of posts because they are getting to be highly annoying and immature.

[senario]
A)Is killing ok?
B)when its needed.
A)Did you need it when you invaded Iraq?
B)Yes.
A)Prove.
[/senario]

Concerning media, its what we can base our talk on, you don`t work in the congress, do you? all you know is from the media, so is it the same with me, and probably everyone here. Anyway, if you just don`t want such talk in this thread, I`d stop talking about it, or you can just neglect what I say about media.


concerning the videos being taken out of context, please I need time to watch them and reply, youtube buffers really slow and then it even stops buffering..so please give me time.

If country A threatens country B with a nuclear strike, the only option to remove the threat may be a decisive pre-emptive strike by country B.

The current North Korea issue, the Cuban Missile Crisis almost resulted in a pre-emptive strike, however they stopped at pre-emptive action (a blockade of cuba).

Please let's be straight forward.. do you mean of "A" & "B" IRAQ and USA?

 

[Cyrus]

[senario]
A)Is killing ok?
B)when its needed.
A)Did you need it when you invaded Iraq?
B)Yes.
A)Prove.
[/senario]

I will give you Donald Rumsfeld's reply to this: "I don't do hypothetical what if's" because arguing speculation serves no point.

Concerning media, its what we can base our talk on, you don`t work in the congress, do you? all you know is from the media, so is it the same with me, and probably everyone here. Anyway, if you just don`t want such talk in this thread, I`d stop talking about it, or you can just neglect what I say about media.

Except I don't watch and post Youtube clips from a guy named AlSaeed (whoever that is) who spliced together stuff from other places and out of context and threw in some background music. I get my information from listening to Congressional hearings and/or government officials: not rehashed information from media outlets, do you?

concerning the videos being taken out of context, please I need time to watch them and reply, youtube buffers really slow and then it even stops buffering..so please give me time.

How about next time you not post Youtube videos made by some kid in Egypt and post something of actual credible value.

 

[Gokul43201]

No. Using overly simplistic platitudes like "killing is wrong" ignores the realities of history that sometimes make it necessary. Vanadium's point - and he said it explicitly - isn't that the OP condones this thinking, but that s/he didn't think it through. It's what I argued as well: if the OP put a little more effort into thinking about this issue, s/he would probably see the nonsensical logical result of the starting premise.

No. The logical result would be, in this case, that the OP would prefer speaking German, laboring as a slave or being turned in lampshades than going to war with the Germans. There is no logical inconsistency.

 

[JaredJames]

[senario]
do you mean of "A" & "B" IRAQ and USA?

certainly not, i gave you a scenario and then two examples.

the usa took pre-emptive ACTION with the cuban missile crisis averting the need for a pre-emptive STRIKE.

north korea has just threatened the world (or UN), 'interfere with our ships and we will attack'.
so this would be a situation where a STRIKE would be considered if it is proven they are doing something dodgy with their nuclear weapons or the threat from them becomes serious. they are already ignoring the UN telling them to stop using/developing them.

although told "iraq has weapons of mass destruction" they never materialised. the official story is it was about the WMD but in reality there were many other factors. Yes, that was a pre-emptive strike, but not a properly/adequately justified one. and so doesn't fit my example.

 

[JaredJames]

I will give you Donald Rumsfeld's reply to this: "I don't do hypothetical what if's" because arguing speculation serves no point.

I like this one. Shall use it more often.

Except I don't watch and post Youtube clips from a guy named AlSaeed (whoever that is) who spliced together stuff from other places and out of context and threw in some background music. I get my information from listening to Congressional hearings and/or government officials: not rehashed information from media outlets, do you? How about next time you not post Youtube videos made by some kid in Egypt and post something of actual credible value.

Wajed you spend most of your time here having a go at media outlets in the western world for being false and giving wrong information, then you go an post a video like this. Where it has blatantly been edited and spliced in such a way that it is extremely biased. You have lost credibility there my friend.

No. The logical result would be, in this case, that the OP would prefer speaking German, laboring as a slave or being turned in lampshades than going to war with the Germans. There is no logical inconsistency.

Based on sheer logic I have to agree. This person does not under any circumstances advocate killing. A fact stated by himself. So he would clearly rather be speaking German or a labourer.

 

[kyleb]

but just to clarify, does it say he didn't add it?

regardless, the sound does add to the video if you don't realize it's fake.

I don't know for sure either way, but I'd wager the sound is straight from the camera mic, and the video has been around well before that video Schism was created. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkXu1UVTSzU", it's easier to judge the sound there as it doesn't have any music overlayed.

Wajed, you make unfounded complaints about American media which are not true...

Are you claiming our media doesn't whitewash the actions of our troops? One notable examples is the "Barny Song" torture our mainstream media played off as a humorous story, conveniently excluding the fact that it was being blasted at young men in cargo containers while flashing them with a strobe light for upwards of a day at a time if not more, see http://books.google.com/books?id=2h...over&dq=The+men+who+stare+at+goats#PPA121,M1".

...and then you post Youtube videos that are cut from various AMERICAN media documentaries taken out of context.

The latter part about the militant Christian camp was from an American documentary, but Wajed's point was in regard to the previous section anyway. And of course documentary footage was out of context, as the video points out explains why it was done directly after showing it.

If country A threatens country B with a nuclear strike, the only option to remove the threat may be a decisive pre-emptive strike by country B.

His point being that isn't even close to what happened with Iraq.

Anyway, to address the topic directly; some troops are bad, others are good, you can't rightly judge the whole by the part either way. Many of our troops are dedicated to protecting Iraqis and helping rebuild, others are less selfless and some outright malicious. Some still firmly believe that Iraq was about defending our country from non-existent WMDs, and others are simply trying to make the best of a bad situation.

By the way, as an Army brat who's father served as an officer in the First Gulf War, and as a Marine Sergent in Vietnam before I was born, I some of the statements about our military here come off as heavily romanticised. For instance, if you want to kill people for a living; go talk to a recruiter, they've got programs specifically dedicated to training and deploying such people. On a more general note; while notions like "the few few soldiers who kill innocent people in wars" sound very civilised, how many of our solders were involved in killing innocent people during shock Shock & Awe alone? I can't say I have a reliable figure, but "few few" seems rather a stretch.

 

[Cyrus]

Are you claiming our media doesn't whitewash the actions of our troops? One notable examples is the "Barny Song" torture our mainstream media played off as a humorous story, conveniently excluding the fact that it was being blasted at young men in cargo containers while flashing them with a strobe light for upwards of a day at a time if not more, see http://books.google.com/books?id=2h...over&dq=The+men+who+stare+at+goats#PPA121,M1".

Did you not hear about Abu-Ghraib? Guantanamo? The media has a responsiblity to report the news but also not jeopardize the safety of the troops. For the most part, if you watch good sources of news they do report the facts.

The latter part about the militant Christian camp was from an American documentary, but Wajed's point was in regard to the previous section anyway. And of course documentary footage was out of context, as the video points out explains why it was done directly after showing it.

Here we have stuff from an American documentary with ridiculous background music added to it. Wajed said that we don't get the real story in our American media while posting something from an American source. This is hypocritical.

As for the video being taken out of context: (1) It's dishonest and (2) I really don't want to hear excuses for why it was done. It was done, and it was wrong.

On a more general note; while notions like "the few few soldiers who kill innocent people in wars" sound very civilised, how many of our solders were involved in killing innocent people during shock Shock & Awe alone? I can't say I have a reliable figure, but "few few" seems rather a stretch.

This is a blanket statement with no context, nor proof. You make it sound as if the innocent civilians were killed on purpose by the military. For example, why did you fail to mention the fact that the terrorists fight US forces while hiding among civilians to maximize casualties to make the US forces look like 'innocent baby killers'? If you don't have a figure then you shouldn't say anything. When you do have a figure, put it into proper context.

 

[JaredJames]

Right Wajeb's original statement:
"Please let's be straight forward.. do you mean of "A" & "B" IRAQ and USA? "

You replied with:

His point being that isn't even close to what happened with Iraq.

After I said that is not what I meant at all.

Now you tell me, where in his original statement above does it give 'his point' or does it give enough detail to extract 'his point'? Does he comment on it? NO. He simply questions do I mean Iraq and USA. Given that I gave two examples to follow my example of when pre-emptive strikes are relevant, it should have been clear I did not mean Iraq USA otherwise I would have used them for simplicity instead of bringing up the other two. But, he did not understand and the fact he asked for clarification before responding is quite responsible (avoiding situations such our past rants over mis-interpretations).

 

[kyleb]

Did you not hear about Abu-Ghraib? Guantanamo?

Sure, but most of the rigorous investigative reporting on those cases I've seen has been from well outside our mainstream media.

The media has a responsiblity to report the news but also not jeopardize the safety of the troops.

And how does turning the Barney Song torture into a comedy routine fall into that job?

Here we have stuff from an American documentary with ridiculous background music added to it. Wajed said that we don't get the real story in our American media while posting something from an American source. This is hypocritical, dishonest, and nonsense.

Again, Wajed wasn't referencing the part of the video which was taken from the documentry, but rather the part before it.

As for the video being taken out of context: (1) It's dishonest and (2) I really don't want to hear excuses for why it was done. It was done, and it was wrong.

I think it serves its intended purpose as a response to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kce...B81ABE96&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3" quite well, and you certainly haven't made a convincing argument to the contrary.

This is a blanket statement with no context, nor proof.

It was a question, along with my opinion, and plainly stated as much. Are you not comfortable addressing that question?

You make it sound as if the innocent civilians were killed on purpose by the military.

You read that in yourself, but since you mention it, it's not like our troops expected all the bombs to magically miss the innocent civilians.

For example, why did you fail to mention the fact that the terrorists fight US forces while hiding among civilians to maximize casualties to make the US forces look like 'innocent baby killers'? If you don't have a figure then you shouldn't say anything. When you do have a figure, put it into proper context.

You are conflating, my comment was in regard to the Shock & Awe campaign when we were toppling Saddam's regime, not hunting terrorists.

Also, I did you come up with the characterization of "innocent baby killers" on your own? I know I didn't say anything of the sort. As for figures, I haven't seen any dedicated to specifically to babies, but http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/reference/press-releases/12/" .

 

[kyleb]

After I said that is not what I meant at all.

Sure, you replied as I was completing my post, but the point remains that that other examples are abstractions from the topic at hand. Preemptive war is a notable argument against the the absolutist claim that "killing=bad", but doesn't rightly apply in the context of Iraq.

 

[JaredJames]

Again, Wajed wasn't referencing the part of the video which was taken from the documentry, but rather the part before it.

What? The point myself and Cyrus has made is that Wajeb is complaining about western media twisting facts. And then for him to submit a piece for us to view which, a) is about as twisted as the creator could make it and b) is FROM western media, destroys his argument as he is relying on that which he dislikes and slanders as evidence to back up one of his statements, albeit on another subject, you cannot submit to us a piece of so called 'evidence' from a source you have just had a go at for being biased and twisting.

 

[JaredJames]

Sure, you replied as I was completing my post, but the point remains that that other examples are abstractions from the topic at hand. Preemptive war is a notable argument against the the absolutist claim that "killing=bad", but doesn't rightly apply in the context of Iraq.

No, it doesn't. I agree with you there. BUT WHERE DID I SAY IT DID? I'm trying to stay on topic here with the OP. But the discussion got to pre-emptive war, in relation to 'killing=bad', and I was asked where it applies and was asked for an example for which I provided two. At NO POINT did I related it to the USA or Iraq, Wajeb did, and then when Wajeb asked is that what I meant I said no and explained why it does not fit the context, despite being classed as a pre-emptive war by Bush.

http://www.alternativeinsight.com/Pre-emptive_strike.html - I know it has nothing to do with the debate, but it outlines what Bush did as 'pre-emptive war action'.

This thread isn't about the Iraq - USA conflict. So not all posts need to relate to it.

 

[kyleb]

What? The point myself and Cyrus has made is that Wajeb is complaining about western media twisting facts. And then for him to submit a piece for us to view which, a) is about as twisted as the creator could make it and b) is FROM western media, destroys his argument as he is relying on that which he dislikes and slanders as evidence to back up one of his statements, albeit on another subject, you cannot submit to us a piece of so called 'evidence' from a source you have just had a go at for being biased and twisting.

Where was http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkXu1UVTSzU", which is the video Wajeb was referencing included in the video he posted, shown on Western media? And again, I don't see any reason to support your claim that the voice-over is fake, it sounds legit to me.

 

[JaredJames]

I believe he linked this video which is what we are talking about: