The American Way?
POSTED BY: Magonsdaughter
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 22:35
VIEWED: 5447
PAGE 2 of 4
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Terrorism is the aim of making ordinary non-combatants afraid, in order to meet some political
Do people who condone/ commit terrorism also disgust you?
correct.
Quote:
or military goal.
Incorrect. Terrorism of non-combatants is not a military goal, just as targeting of non-combatants is not a military goal. Maybe you think some countries do, but not for those countries who spend their blood and treasure freeing other nations and liberating their subjects.
Quote:
Instilling in the population a sense of surprise and dread ... otherwise known as "shock and awe". The USA practices terrorism from 30,000 feet.
Incorrect. You are confusing non-combatant "population" with combatant "population" definitions. Demoralizing armed military enemy combatants en mass prior to execution of military combat operations IS a military practice, and practically no army in the history of the world has passed at the opportunity to exercise this advantage. Trying to claim that any military combat operation against armed enemy combatants is newspeak "terrorism" merely makes you sound like a radical anti-war zealot, begging for the Huns to come rape and pillage you and your family and communities.
Quote:
The only difference between what we've done and what "they" do is the size of the weapon
It would help us understand if you would explain if you are just being antagonistic and playing Devil's Advocate, or if you really are just totally clueless.
Quote:
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
Exposing your weakness of anti-gun delusions is not helping your case.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Do people who condone/ commit terrorism also disgust you?
Because it sounds as if you have a bigger problem with those who try to defeat terrorists than the terrorists themselves.
i don't condone ANY violence, you low life piece of scum
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Do people who condone/ commit terrorism also disgust you?
Because it sounds as if you have a bigger problem with those who try to defeat terrorists than the terrorists themselves.
i don't condone ANY violence, you low life piece of scum
Whadi miss?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Do people who condone/ commit terrorism also disgust you?
Because it sounds as if you have a bigger problem with those who try to defeat terrorists than the terrorists themselves.
i don't condone ANY violence, you low life piece of scum
Not even in defense of the helpless ?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here's a thought, the world aint like a western and John Wayne isn't going to ride over the horizon.
Violence begets violence. self defence, or defence is too often used as an excuse, particularly accordinly to US laws.
Hopefully countries can learn to choose a more enlightened approach to conflict.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Here's a thought, the world aint like a western and John Wayne isn't going to ride over the horizon.
Violence begets violence. self defence, or defence is too often used as an excuse, particularly accordinly to US laws.
Hopefully countries can learn to choose a more enlightened approach to conflict.
Only it was like a John Wayne Western, and that's exactly what the US did, during WW2. Riding in from the West, to save the day and beat back NAZI Germany ( and then Japan ) with violence that ended violence.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah..... right. I can hear the Star Spangled Banner playing on your heart strings from here.
Did you know that the biggest battles of WW2 were fought on the Eastern Front, with far greater casualities suffered by Soviets, which dwarfed even German casualties. The ferocity and horrific nature of Eastern front battles and civilian deaths makes the western front, where the US was involved, look like a kid's playground stoush. And in fact, the outcome of the Eastern front battles determined the outcome of the war and it's unlikely that the US involvement would have determined a different outcome if not for what happened between the Soviets and the Nazis, and definitely not if they had still been allied.
People, especially Americans, always use WW2 as a good example of military action, and I suppose if you lived in some parts of the world, it was a tremendous outcome. Probably not so great for those living in the Eastern bloc, or the Middle East and North Africa, which continued in turmoil and military conflict, some places to this day.
The reality throughout history of military force is that it leaves countries and civilians in turmoil and despair, while being very advantageous for the victors, especially economically.
If you look at 20th century history, it's probably wiser to think of the two 'great wars' as one war with a hiatus, because if there had been no WW1, a stupid senseless conflict and no Treaty of Versailles, a punative, wicked treaty, there would have been no nazis, no hitler in power and no ww2.
War is usually stupid and avoidable. It's just that people, stupid people, think of violence as a solution, when it rarely is.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
War is hell, and there's no denying that.
But far better to win ( yes, actually achieve victory ) than to suffer defeat to the likes of the NAZIS or Islamic Jihadists.
If only my govt would agree to actually do the latter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You have a gnats' view of the world. Try stepping outside of your tiny reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Military action sometimes resolves one conflict, while simultaneously creating another, or another series.
The US has had pretty shitty results with military interventions in recent years. To what purpose would a military intervention achieve? What has it achieved - try to find another example of it going well (other than ww2)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME