Double Standards? Civilians and Operatives

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Ok Orion I’ll bite at the apple here, what federal government agencies do you think they were targeting on 9/11?[/quote]

I do not care, that was not my point.

I was just trying to show that OBL could use the exact same logic the US uses to justify his barbarism.

He warned his opponents - did not work.

He attacked military installations - did not work.

When they helped Israel to lay cities to waste and bombed Muslim countries themselves he decided to take the war to them.

Not only has he shown more restraint than the US, or maybe it was just for lack of resources, but he targeted buildings like the Pentagon, the WTC, probably the White House that “harbored” his enemies.

If we put the same spin on it the US does, how do his actions differ from that of the government of the US, and if it is acceptable to have lots of collateral damages in war, why does that change when he takes the war to you and the collateral damage is American?

[/quote]

When our military is attacked, it doesn’t retreat into civilian areas hoping to use human shields.

I agree that the Pentagon and White House were legitimate military targets. The Taliban however, still doesn’t hesitate to kill Afghan citizens who receive humanitarian aid from the US.
[/quote]

I think these are basically two points.

First, the military installation and headquarters were put there by the Sowjets because they were vulnerable in the countryside.

Much like the US the Sowjets only controlled the bigger cities, so naturally the more critical installations were somewhere were they could be defended.

The Taliban simply used what was already there, much in the same way that the US government rented office space in the towers.

Then, to interpret the Taliban sitting in the cities as “hiding behind civilians” means putting a spin in things that can as easily applied to the WTC and its federal occupants.

On a related note, if we accept that the US is “at war” with “terrorism” the Pentagon and the White House were perfectly legitimate targets.
[/quote]

Then find me a tennant list that shows a Federal (not state) agency listed as being in WTC 1 or 2? Because the ones I have seen do not show them there, in the surrounding buildings yes but not in the towers.

62

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Looks like Orion really, really needs some attention.

[/quote]

Hold me!

63

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Ok Orion I’ll bite at the apple here, what federal government agencies do you think they were targeting on 9/11?[/quote]

I do not care, that was not my point.

I was just trying to show that OBL could use the exact same logic the US uses to justify his barbarism.

He warned his opponents - did not work.

He attacked military installations - did not work.

When they helped Israel to lay cities to waste and bombed Muslim countries themselves he decided to take the war to them.

Not only has he shown more restraint than the US, or maybe it was just for lack of resources, but he targeted buildings like the Pentagon, the WTC, probably the White House that “harbored” his enemies.

If we put the same spin on it the US does, how do his actions differ from that of the government of the US, and if it is acceptable to have lots of collateral damages in war, why does that change when he takes the war to you and the collateral damage is American?

[/quote]

When our military is attacked, it doesn’t retreat into civilian areas hoping to use human shields.

I agree that the Pentagon and White House were legitimate military targets. The Taliban however, still doesn’t hesitate to kill Afghan citizens who receive humanitarian aid from the US.
[/quote]

I think these are basically two points.

First, the military installation and headquarters were put there by the Sowjets because they were vulnerable in the countryside.

Much like the US the Sowjets only controlled the bigger cities, so naturally the more critical installations were somewhere were they could be defended.

The Taliban simply used what was already there, much in the same way that the US government rented office space in the towers.

Then, to interpret the Taliban sitting in the cities as “hiding behind civilians” means putting a spin in things that can as easily applied to the WTC and its federal occupants.

On a related note, if we accept that the US is “at war” with “terrorism” the Pentagon and the White House were perfectly legitimate targets.
[/quote]

Then find me a tennant list that shows a Federal (not state) agency listed as being in WTC 1 or 2? Because the ones I have seen do not show them there, in the surrounding buildings yes but not in the towers.

[/quote]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/05/archive/main316911.shtml

How do you know?

Its hard to find a complete tenant list and the government wont tell.

64

And this explains mosque, train, airliner, hotel/resort, nightclub, and market, bombings exactly how? Stop acting stupid.

They’re hiding behind civilians isn’t spin. Which is why fighting/hiding in hospitals and mosques, lack of uniforms, plain-clothesed suicide bombers in marketplaces, are standard tactics. Nobody has had to spin this. It’s 2009 and you still have no idea how these people operate? How is that even possible? They don’t mention anything about these practices at Lew’s site? Or, do even they admit this, but you filter it out in order to maintain the freedom fighters vs. empire fantasy you’ve built up in your head?

65

http://www.rawa.org/zarmeena.htm

Maybe she looked too long in a man’s direction. I don’t know.

66

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Ok Orion I’ll bite at the apple here, what federal government agencies do you think they were targeting on 9/11?[/quote]

I do not care, that was not my point.

I was just trying to show that OBL could use the exact same logic the US uses to justify his barbarism.

He warned his opponents - did not work.

He attacked military installations - did not work.

When they helped Israel to lay cities to waste and bombed Muslim countries themselves he decided to take the war to them.

Not only has he shown more restraint than the US, or maybe it was just for lack of resources, but he targeted buildings like the Pentagon, the WTC, probably the White House that “harbored” his enemies.

If we put the same spin on it the US does, how do his actions differ from that of the government of the US, and if it is acceptable to have lots of collateral damages in war, why does that change when he takes the war to you and the collateral damage is American?

[/quote]

When our military is attacked, it doesn’t retreat into civilian areas hoping to use human shields.

I agree that the Pentagon and White House were legitimate military targets. The Taliban however, still doesn’t hesitate to kill Afghan citizens who receive humanitarian aid from the US.
[/quote]

I think these are basically two points.

First, the military installation and headquarters were put there by the Sowjets because they were vulnerable in the countryside.

Much like the US the Sowjets only controlled the bigger cities, so naturally the more critical installations were somewhere were they could be defended.

The Taliban simply used what was already there, much in the same way that the US government rented office space in the towers.

Then, to interpret the Taliban sitting in the cities as “hiding behind civilians” means putting a spin in things that can as easily applied to the WTC and its federal occupants.

On a related note, if we accept that the US is “at war” with “terrorism” the Pentagon and the White House were perfectly legitimate targets.
[/quote]

Then find me a tennant list that shows a Federal (not state) agency listed as being in WTC 1 or 2? Because the ones I have seen do not show them there, in the surrounding buildings yes but not in the towers.

[/quote]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/05/archive/main316911.shtml

How do you know?

Its hard to find a complete tenant list and the government wont tell.

[/quote]

Did you read the article?

“The undercover station was in 7 World Trade Center, a smaller office tower that fell several hours after the collapse of the twin towers on Sept. 11, a U.S. government official said.”

Here is a link for you to research feel free 1 WTC (North) Tenants by Floor - WTC Info - WorldTradeAftermath.com

67

Wow, I think you meant to say. Pika Pika!

Agreed. Saudis also piss me off more than Iraqis. I’ve never had an Iraqi or Afghani really fuck with me, well an Afghani maybe once. But while young men from our nation are off dying in some sand dunes Saudi oil brats are here screeching American cars, date raping American women, and flunking most of their classes…we pay for it all too whenever we go to the pump…fucked up ain’t it? I say we make Saudi the parking lot, becuz their civilian population deserves a nice genocide. We’ll just bomb them back into the stone age, and then carpet bomb the country with blacks, latinos and hoosiers ie the us army, and leave them there to establish ‘New America.’ I think this is something Russia might actually agree with on too, but they’d probably be apprehensive about the ‘New America,’ name.

69

I’m going to apologize to you, Orion. I don’t, and won’t, regret views I expressed about the kind of crud found at Rockwell’s site. Nor will I respect the point you tried to make here. But you personally…well, I regret the name calling. I thought it outrageous, your argument, and it fired me up. But, I can’t recall you ever attacking me personally. Therefore, I should return in kind.

70

[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:

Wow, I think you meant to say. Pika Pika!

No I mean what I said. To say or imply that America “deserved” terrorist attacks on civilian targets is beyond retarded. Intentions count for a lot more than people are willing to admit in these discussions.

71

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:

Wow, I think you meant to say. Pika Pika!

No I mean what I said. To say or imply that America “deserved” terrorist attacks on civilian targets is beyond retarded. Intentions count for a lot more than people are willing to admit in these discussions.[/quote]

I did not post that “America” deserved anything.

The point I did try to make was that the very same justifications that are used on this board regularily can also be applied to attacks on Americans.

No, the civilians in these buildings did not deserve anything, but neither did the 500000 Iraqi children whose death was “worth it” according to Albright deserve to die.

The mere notion that “collateral” damage is acceptable seems to evoke quite powerful emotions in some people and now imagine that an Army descends on your country like the four apocalyptic riders to free the shit out of you.

72

Hey, even Bin Laden’s jihadist son said he was a dumb ass for attacking America.

73

Problem is, Orion, the US is involved in wars in 2 countries. Bin Laden’s Jihad Organization is killing civilians in 50 countries around the globe.

They’re not killing people in Thailand and Algeria because America sent Marine peacekeepers to stop the carnage in Lebanon over 20 years ago.

74

“Bin Laden didn’t blow up the projects, it was you nigga, tell the truth nigga, Bush took down da towerz, Bush took down the towerz.”

75

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Problem is, Orion, the US is involved in wars in 2 countries. Bin Laden’s Jihad Organization is killing civilians in 50 countries around the globe.

They’re not killing people in Thailand and Algeria because America sent Marine peacekeepers to stop the carnage in Lebanon over 20 years ago.[/quote]

There are Islamist fundamentalists in every Muslim country, they are fad like the communist terrorists in Europe in the 70s.

Usually all they want is establish a califate and sharia law.

That is bad, but rarely a problem outside the specific countries borders.

Insofar the attack on the WTC was unique.

76

the only thing that article would justify is a soldier shooting an afghani and just happening to hit a terrorist standing behind the civilian.

our soldiers are held beyond accountable for civilian casualties. i guess you’ve chosen to ignore that fact. SEALs are being investigated for PUNCHING a known upper level terrorist.

now the question is… why do you think war is fair? people die on both sides. get over it. you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time, civilian or soldier, you’re dead. in a bus, on the train, in a building.