Study: Fox News Viewers are the Most Misinformed

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:LOL…But you telling me to fuck off, makes me laugh.

Dead insurgents absolutely mean nothing to me, without question. Has our military made mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, absolutely. The idea that innocent people have died in this conflict does not sit well with me and does actually make me sad.[/quote]

You think my distaste for the military has to do with this conflict? Iraq and Afghanistan are simply icing on the US military’s terrorist cake.

Uh, newsflash, moron. You’re EXACTLY like the insurgents. You’re the type of person they recruit. Someone who’s very emotional in their public devotion to their country and not too bright. The US government HAS killed millions of innocents for their cause, far more than a bunch of ragtag insurgents ever will. Hell, the US government put the Taliban in power to begin with. Maybe you ought to rethink your blind devotion.[/quote]

Well, the CIA did actually funnel training, equipment, and money to Afghan tribes who, although had a history of fighting each other, had joined forces to fight the Russians. The CIA and the US government was using the now aligned tribes to help fight their enemy, Russia. Of course, after the Soviets picked up and withdrew, the back assward tribes returned to fighting each other and ensuring that their country would be less than awesome.

Here’s where Mohammad Omar comes in. He promises a return to “order” , by establishing a very strict Islamic theocracy and standing up to the warlords. The Taliban was able to establish control in a smattering of small villages, but lacked the resources to take control of the larger cities like Kabul.

Here’s where Pakistan comes in; they establish the “Afghan Trade Development Cell”, which was to promote trade routes to Central Asia, but also as a back door for funneling money to the struggling Taliban. Pakistan bankrolled Taliban operations, trained its fighters, allowed its religious schools and organizations to openly recruit troops for the Taliban, facilitated the shipment of arms and fuel through the port of Karachi, and provided the military and intelligence personnel to direct Taliban military operations against opposition forces still controlling Kabul and most major cities in the country.

Here’s where Bin Ladin comes in; UBL rolls in with a fat bankroll and fresh off being exiled from Sudan for his terrorist activities. UBL throws his money and military advisers in with what Pakistan was already assisting with, and suddenly the Taliban has a tight posse that eventually rolls large right up into the grill of Kabul and Jalalabad, taking control of the cities and the government.

So, it’s a little more complicated than simply saying “the US put the Taliban in power in the first place”. That wasn’t exactly the case, and is amazingly simplistic. But hey, if it serves your argument…

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
So yes, I absolutely and without reservation, value the lives of American GI’s over the lives of terrorists. The question here is, do you hold the same beliefs? I think probably not, but this is your chance to prove me wrong.
[/quote]

No. They’re both terrorists, so there’s no preference there, but I generally think it’s better for no one to die who doesn’t have to. This war didn’t have to happen.[/quote]

You’re right, it didn’t have to happen, but it did. You and I can’t go back and change the pre war BS that led up to Iraq/Afghanistan. The US fighting men and women who sign up don’t get to pick and choose where they fight, nor do they get the liberty to evaluate the morality of their mission. Is it inconceivable to support the troops while lobbying for their return and voting for non interventionist candidates like Ron Paul? At the end of the day, I will always value the lives of US fighting men and women over that of the enemy.

122

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:LOL…But you telling me to fuck off, makes me laugh.

Dead insurgents absolutely mean nothing to me, without question. Has our military made mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes, absolutely. The idea that innocent people have died in this conflict does not sit well with me and does actually make me sad.[/quote]

You think my distaste for the military has to do with this conflict? Iraq and Afghanistan are simply icing on the US military’s terrorist cake.

Uh, newsflash, moron. You’re EXACTLY like the insurgents. You’re the type of person they recruit. Someone who’s very emotional in their public devotion to their country and not too bright. The US government HAS killed millions of innocents for their cause, far more than a bunch of ragtag insurgents ever will. Hell, the US government put the Taliban in power to begin with. Maybe you ought to rethink your blind devotion.[/quote]

Well, the CIA did actually funnel training, equipment, and money to Afghan tribes who, although had a history of fighting each other, had joined forces to fight the Russians. The CIA and the US government was using the now aligned tribes to help fight their enemy, Russia. Of course, after the Soviets picked up and withdrew, the back assward tribes returned to fighting each other and ensuring that their country would be less than awesome.

Here’s where Mohammad Omar comes in. He promises a return to “order” , by establishing a very strict Islamic theocracy and standing up to the warlords. The Taliban was able to establish control in a smattering of small villages, but lacked the resources to take control of the larger cities like Kabul.

Here’s where Pakistan comes in; they establish the “Afghan Trade Development Cell”, which was to promote trade routes to Central Asia, but also as a back door for funneling money to the struggling Taliban. Pakistan bankrolled Taliban operations, trained its fighters, allowed its religious schools and organizations to openly recruit troops for the Taliban, facilitated the shipment of arms and fuel through the port of Karachi, and provided the military and intelligence personnel to direct Taliban military operations against opposition forces still controlling Kabul and most major cities in the country.

Here’s where Bin Ladin comes in; UBL rolls in with a fat bankroll and fresh off being exiled from Sudan for his terrorist activities. UBL throws his money and military advisers in with what Pakistan was already assisting with, and suddenly the Taliban has a tight posse that eventually rolls large right up into the grill of Kabul and Jalalabad, taking control of the cities and the government.

So, it’s a little more complicated than simply saying “the US put the Taliban in power in the first place”. That wasn’t exactly the case, and is amazingly simplistic. But hey, if it serves your argument…

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
So yes, I absolutely and without reservation, value the lives of American GI’s over the lives of terrorists. The question here is, do you hold the same beliefs? I think probably not, but this is your chance to prove me wrong.
[/quote]

No. They’re both terrorists, so there’s no preference there, but I generally think it’s better for no one to die who doesn’t have to. This war didn’t have to happen.[/quote]

You’re right, it didn’t have to happen, but it did. You and I can’t go back and change the pre war BS that led up to Iraq/Afghanistan. The US fighting men and women who sign up don’t get to pick and choose where they fight, nor do they get the liberty to evaluate the morality of their mission. Is it inconceivable to support the troops while lobbying for their return and voting for non interventionist candidates like Ron Paul? At the end of the day, I will always value the lives of US fighting men and women over that of the enemy.

123

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
US helicopter guns down 12 civilians in Baghdad:

US drone bombs Afghan wedding party, killing at least 20:

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-07-01/world/afghanistan.bombing_1_civilian-casualties-aircraft-errant-bomb?_s=PM:asiapcf

US soldiers accused of murdering 3 Afghan civilians:

Assault force kills family in raid, at least 10 dead:

This is just the tip of the iceberg, by the way.[/quote]

I’ve never denied that ugly shit was committed intentionally and unintentionally by US personnel. But do you think the above was carried out as an intended, strategic command from the military? Were these acts carried out as part of an overall strategy on behalf of the United States? The answer is no.

You’d be closer to correct in saying that the above instances are the unforeseen ugly consequences of interventionism. What you provided hardly qualifies the US as a “terrorist organization”.

124

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Orion, he does not even understand that you are making fun of him.[/quote]

Yea, I got the sarcastic attempt to establish a corollary between The US military and terrorism w/r/t collateral damage. Since he was obviously not attempting to dive into a protracted discussion, and was more than happy to leave it at casual sarcasm, I elected not to respond.

LOL @ your reach.

125

I’m going to jump in here (sorry if these points have already been made) and say that there have been a number of studies over a number of years that confirm these findings: Fox is simply a bad source of for news.

I think part of why Fox News viewers tend to be less informed is because they have a higher % of ‘captive viewers’, viewers who only get their news from Fox. That is to say, if you only watch prime-time MSNBC, you’re probably not going to be much better off than Fox, but Fox does a great job of marketing themselves as both “Fair and Balanced” and “The only source of truth when compared to the otherwise liberal media.” leading to many Fox-only viewers.

I don’t think any other news media has that kind of lock on where their audience gets their information.

Fox is very polarizing, I know personally very few people who can stand to watch Fox who get their news from other media, and very few people who watch Fox who don’t think most other media is part of a the vast left-wing conspiracy.

Fox is great at marketing itself; poor at informing people.

126

[quote]Spartiates wrote:
I’m going to jump in here (sorry if these points have already been made) and say that there have been a number of studies over a number of years that confirm these findings: Fox is simply a bad source of for news.

I think part of why Fox News viewers tend to be less informed is because they have a higher % of ‘captive viewers’, viewers who only get their news from Fox. That is to say, if you only watch prime-time MSNBC, you’re probably not going to be much better off than Fox, but Fox does a great job of marketing themselves as both “Fair and Balanced” and “The only source of truth when compared to the otherwise liberal media.” leading to many Fox-only viewers.

I don’t think any other news media has that kind of lock on where their audience gets their information.

Fox is very polarizing, I know personally very few people who can stand to watch Fox who get their news from other media, and very few people who watch Fox who don’t think most other media is part of a the vast left-wing conspiracy.

Fox is great at marketing itself; poor at informing people.[/quote]

Yes and no, I read and watch fox, as well as other sources.

Too me it seems to fill the gaps. That if you look at coverage from most other sources and then follow up the same story with fox it gives way of actually getting the whole story.

I think it isn’t fox that is necessarily polarizing. It is that many people had received news from more mainstream sources for so long and it always seemed like there was a twist or something missing, then fox comes along provides another perspective that makes it a little more clear.

The other sources are pushing some people to only go to fox because they never truly capture the other side in anyway.

And sorry if you don’t see that most other sources are liberal/progressive leaning. then you aren’t looking.

127

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

And sorry if you don’t see that most other sources are liberal/progressive leaning. then you aren’t looking.
[/quote]

That’s a very Fox News thing to say. They’ve done a very good job of segregating the market through that line of marketing, and in many ways it’s been Fox’s approach that has pushed MSNBC to the left, since it turned the “news” buisness into a finding-you-ideological-nitch buisness.

I get most of my news in print: paper and online, and I read the full spectrum from MoveOn.org and HuffPost to American.com and Current Events: I think I have a pretty well calibrated political compass.

Fox News also fixates on social issues, and social conservatism, not real, political conservatism. Social conservatism is out of the mainstream. Most networks have a free-market/conservative economic bias, and but are liberal in their presentation of social issues: that’s pretty mainstream.

128

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

And sorry if you don’t see that most other sources are liberal/progressive leaning. then you aren’t looking.
[/quote]

That’s a very Fox News thing to say. They’ve done a very good job of segregating the market through that line of marketing, and in many ways it’s been Fox’s approach that has pushed MSNBC to the left, since it turned the “news” buisness into a finding-you-ideological-nitch buisness.

I get most of my news in print: paper and online, and I read the full spectrum from MoveOn.org and HuffPost to American.com and Current Events: I think I have a pretty well calibrated political compass.

Fox News also fixates on social issues, and social conservatism, not real, political conservatism. Social conservatism is out of the mainstream. Most networks have a free-market/conservative economic bias, and but are liberal in their presentation of social issues: that’s pretty mainstream.[/quote]

Ok, where I live the main newspaper. Very liberal writers, most stories are really more like opinion pieces. Not so much facts.

Same for the local news of the area. But unless you are friends with alot of the cops or people actually involved it may be hard to pick this up.

Most people eat it up, until it comes out from an original source what was left out.

It is not a fox news thing it is a reality thing, people just didn’t realize it until it was brought to lite.

129

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
1846: US military attacks Mexican troops, starting the Mexican-American War in which the US stole land from Mexico, killing ~16,000 Mexicans.

1898: the US begins its drive toward imperialism with the Spanish-American war; ~4,000 Spanish troops dead

1899: US military denied Filipinos the rights claimed for all by the Declaration of Independence; as many as 1,000,000 Filipino civilians killed, ~16,000 Filipino soldiers killed;

Ã?¢??Filipino villagers were forced into concentration camps called reconcentrados which were surrounded by free-fire zones, or in other words Ã?¢??dead zones.Ã?¢?? Furthermore, these camps were overcrowded and filled with disease, causing the death rate to be extremely high. Conditions in these Ã?¢??reconcentradosÃ?¢?? were inhumane. Between January and April 1902, 8,350 prisoners of approximately 298,000 died. Some camps incurred death rates as high as 20 percent. "One camp was two miles by one mile (3.2 by 1.6 km) in area and ‘home’ to some 8,000 Filipinos. Men were rounded up for questioning, tortured, and summarily executed.Ã?¢??

“The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog…”

–quoted from Zinn, Ã?¢??A PeopleÃ?¢??s History of the United States.Ã?¢??

1945: US military uses atomic weapons against the civilian population of Japan, resulting in ~200,000 deaths.

1964: Vietnam War, US military is back at it, denying developing countries their freedom; 2,000,000 Vietnamese civilians dead , ~250,000 Cambodian civilians dead, between 20,000 and 200,000 Laotian civilians dead, 1,000,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers dead, more than half a million wounded

And of course the ongoing Iraq conflict, in which over 100,000 civilians have died. This is only a partial list of well-known events directly involving American forces, and doesn�¢??t even begin to address the dozens and dozens of illegal covert coups, assassinations, and proxy conflicts since WWII that America has perpetrated.

So yes, I consider the military and our intelligence agencies the largest terrorist force in the history of the world, and by far the greatest threat to world peace today, as does any observer with a brain.
[/quote]

Silly Ryan, you forgot to include the Native Americans in your nut jobery. Bad Ryan…

130

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
1846: US military attacks Mexican troops, starting the Mexican-American War in which the US stole land from Mexico, killing ~16,000 Mexicans.

1898: the US begins its drive toward imperialism with the Spanish-American war; ~4,000 Spanish troops dead

1899: US military denied Filipinos the rights claimed for all by the Declaration of Independence; as many as 1,000,000 Filipino civilians killed, ~16,000 Filipino soldiers killed;

Ã?¢??Filipino villagers were forced into concentration camps called reconcentrados which were surrounded by free-fire zones, or in other words Ã?¢??dead zones.Ã?¢?? Furthermore, these camps were overcrowded and filled with disease, causing the death rate to be extremely high. Conditions in these Ã?¢??reconcentradosÃ?¢?? were inhumane. Between January and April 1902, 8,350 prisoners of approximately 298,000 died. Some camps incurred death rates as high as 20 percent. "One camp was two miles by one mile (3.2 by 1.6 km) in area and ‘home’ to some 8,000 Filipinos. Men were rounded up for questioning, tortured, and summarily executed.Ã?¢??

“The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog…”

–quoted from Zinn, Ã?¢??A PeopleÃ?¢??s History of the United States.Ã?¢??

1945: US military uses atomic weapons against the civilian population of Japan, resulting in ~200,000 deaths.

1964: Vietnam War, US military is back at it, denying developing countries their freedom; 2,000,000 Vietnamese civilians dead , ~250,000 Cambodian civilians dead, between 20,000 and 200,000 Laotian civilians dead, 1,000,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers dead, more than half a million wounded

And of course the ongoing Iraq conflict, in which over 100,000 civilians have died. This is only a partial list of well-known events directly involving American forces, and doesn�¢??t even begin to address the dozens and dozens of illegal covert coups, assassinations, and proxy conflicts since WWII that America has perpetrated.

So yes, I consider the military and our intelligence agencies the largest terrorist force in the history of the world, and by far the greatest threat to world peace today, as does any observer with a brain.
[/quote]

Terrorism?

How dare you!

American troops never terrorized anyone!

I think the correct term is [b] shock and awe [b].

131

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
1846: US military attacks Mexican troops, starting the Mexican-American War in which the US stole land from Mexico, killing ~16,000 Mexicans.

1898: the US begins its drive toward imperialism with the Spanish-American war; ~4,000 Spanish troops dead

1899: US military denied Filipinos the rights claimed for all by the Declaration of Independence; as many as 1,000,000 Filipino civilians killed, ~16,000 Filipino soldiers killed;

Ã??Ã?¢??Filipino villagers were forced into concentration camps called reconcentrados which were surrounded by free-fire zones, or in other words Ã??Ã?¢??dead zones.Ã??Ã?¢?? Furthermore, these camps were overcrowded and filled with disease, causing the death rate to be extremely high. Conditions in these Ã??Ã?¢??reconcentradosÃ??Ã?¢?? were inhumane. Between January and April 1902, 8,350 prisoners of approximately 298,000 died. Some camps incurred death rates as high as 20 percent. "One camp was two miles by one mile (3.2 by 1.6 km) in area and ‘home’ to some 8,000 Filipinos. Men were rounded up for questioning, tortured, and summarily executed.Ã??Ã?¢??

“The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog…”

–quoted from Zinn, Ã??Ã?¢??A PeopleÃ??Ã?¢??s History of the United States.Ã??Ã?¢??

1945: US military uses atomic weapons against the civilian population of Japan, resulting in ~200,000 deaths.

1964: Vietnam War, US military is back at it, denying developing countries their freedom; 2,000,000 Vietnamese civilians dead , ~250,000 Cambodian civilians dead, between 20,000 and 200,000 Laotian civilians dead, 1,000,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers dead, more than half a million wounded

And of course the ongoing Iraq conflict, in which over 100,000 civilians have died. This is only a partial list of well-known events directly involving American forces, and doesn�?�¢??t even begin to address the dozens and dozens of illegal covert coups, assassinations, and proxy conflicts since WWII that America has perpetrated.

So yes, I consider the military and our intelligence agencies the largest terrorist force in the history of the world, and by far the greatest threat to world peace today, as does any observer with a brain.
[/quote]

Terrorism?

How dare you!

American troops never terrorized anyone!

I think the correct term is [b] shock and awe [b].[/quote]

:slight_smile:

132

The US funneled money and weapons to various Afghan tribes and trained some of them via the CIA. Of course it goes through various channels along the way, but the US put him in power. The CIA even shipped sniper rifles directly to Bin Laden:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a89sniperrifles

So to say it “serves my argument” is merely an attempt to distract.

That’s totally illogical, but fine, it’s your opinion.

But NO, it’s absolutely not acceptable to ask people to “just support the troops, since they’re over there no matter how you feel about it.” That’s the classic argument that warmongers have been using for decades to deflect any criticism of military actions.

133

Are you asking if I think the drone attacks that almost always kill civilians along with their intended targets are part of an intentional, strategic command from the military? You’re damn right I do. Anyone with a brain can see that these commanders, including Obama, are perfectly willing to accept a certain number of civilian casualties to accomplish their objectives, which is the EXACT same thing you are maligning the insurgents for. I don’t disagree, but I think you should be fair and even-handed in your judgements.

Bullshit, and you know it. To stay with the drone attack example, when you have a tactic that YOU KNOW for certain is very likely to kill innocent bystanders, but you use it anyway, there’s no honest way you can call that an unforseen consequence of anything, You KNEW it was going to happen.

You’re bending over backwards to exonerate the military for the same EXACT things you condemn the insurgents for.

134

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
1846: US military attacks Mexican troops, starting the Mexican-American War in which the US stole land from Mexico, killing ~16,000 Mexicans.

1898: the US begins its drive toward imperialism with the Spanish-American war; ~4,000 Spanish troops dead

1899: US military denied Filipinos the rights claimed for all by the Declaration of Independence; as many as 1,000,000 Filipino civilians killed, ~16,000 Filipino soldiers killed;

Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??Filipino villagers were forced into concentration camps called reconcentrados which were surrounded by free-fire zones, or in other words Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??dead zones.Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? Furthermore, these camps were overcrowded and filled with disease, causing the death rate to be extremely high. Conditions in these Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??reconcentradosÃ???Ã??Ã?¢?? were inhumane. Between January and April 1902, 8,350 prisoners of approximately 298,000 died. Some camps incurred death rates as high as 20 percent. "One camp was two miles by one mile (3.2 by 1.6 km) in area and ‘home’ to some 8,000 Filipinos. Men were rounded up for questioning, tortured, and summarily executed.Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??

“The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog…”

–quoted from Zinn, Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??A PeopleÃ???Ã??Ã?¢??s History of the United States.Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??

1945: US military uses atomic weapons against the civilian population of Japan, resulting in ~200,000 deaths.

1964: Vietnam War, US military is back at it, denying developing countries their freedom; 2,000,000 Vietnamese civilians dead , ~250,000 Cambodian civilians dead, between 20,000 and 200,000 Laotian civilians dead, 1,000,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers dead, more than half a million wounded

And of course the ongoing Iraq conflict, in which over 100,000 civilians have died. This is only a partial list of well-known events directly involving American forces, and doesn�??�?�¢??t even begin to address the dozens and dozens of illegal covert coups, assassinations, and proxy conflicts since WWII that America has perpetrated.

So yes, I consider the military and our intelligence agencies the largest terrorist force in the history of the world, and by far the greatest threat to world peace today, as does any observer with a brain.
[/quote]

Silly Ryan, you forgot to include the Native Americans in your nut jobery. Bad Ryan…[/quote]

If you read the whole post, you’ll see why I didn’t include them.

But I’m glad to see that you’re admitting your double standard. It’s the first honest thing I’ve ever seen you post.

But seriously, please explain to me why I should give a shit about a few beheaded people when you appear to be OK with the slaughter of literally millions?

135

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Are you asking if I think the drone attacks that almost always kill civilians along with their intended targets are part of an intentional, strategic command from the military? You’re damn right I do. Anyone with a brain can see that these commanders, including Obama, are perfectly willing to accept a certain number of civilian casualties to accomplish their objectives, which is the EXACT same thing you are maligning the insurgents for. I don’t disagree, but I think you should be fair and even-handed in your judgements.

Bullshit, and you know it. To stay with the drone attack example, when you have a tactic that YOU KNOW for certain is very likely to kill innocent bystanders, but you use it anyway, there’s no honest way you can call that an unforseen consequence of anything, You KNEW it was going to happen.

You’re bending over backwards to exonerate the military for the same EXACT things you condemn the insurgents for.
[/quote]

Again, how dare you?

Obama cares about civilian casualities, at least once more than 50 are likely.

Below that number he cannot concern himself with sweating the details but I am sure he is devastated at least 2 a day just because another Iraqui or Afghani civilian died again.

But, you are missing the most important detail:

You can kill an unlimited number of civilians if you do not really mean to, but if you kill 10-20% of that number on purpose to spread someone elses ideology that is absolutely, 100%, unforgivable.

Because, after all, freedom and democracy is the way and the truth and the light, whereas those Allah loving savages just believe in superstitions.

136

Whoops, I forgot: in Christendom, it’s what you say that counts, not what you do.

137

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Are you asking if I think the drone attacks that almost always kill civilians along with their intended targets are part of an intentional, strategic command from the military? You’re damn right I do. Anyone with a brain can see that these commanders, including Obama, are perfectly willing to accept a certain number of civilian casualties to accomplish their objectives, which is the EXACT same thing you are maligning the insurgents for. I don’t disagree, but I think you should be fair and even-handed in your judgements.

Bullshit, and you know it. To stay with the drone attack example, when you have a tactic that YOU KNOW for certain is very likely to kill innocent bystanders, but you use it anyway, there’s no honest way you can call that an unforseen consequence of anything, You KNEW it was going to happen.

You’re bending over backwards to exonerate the military for the same EXACT things you condemn the insurgents for.[/quote]

Equivocation, pure and simple.

Here it is: military operations are conducted with the intention of minimizing the death of innocents, while terror organizations conduct their operations with the intent of maximizing the death of innocents.

Also, the military has a Uniform Code of Military Justice, which holds the members of the military to military law. Perpetrators of war crimes and atrocities get weeded out and held to that law. This is a big difference between legitimate terror organizations and the US military. But you knew this.

138

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But seriously, please explain to me why I should give a shit about a few beheaded people when you appear to be OK with the slaughter of literally millions? [/quote]

When did I say that I’m OK with the slaughter of innocents?

139

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

The US funneled money and weapons to various Afghan tribes and trained some of them via the CIA. Of course it goes through various channels along the way, but the US put him in power. The CIA even shipped sniper rifles directly to Bin Laden:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a89sniperrifles

So to say it “serves my argument” is merely an attempt to distract.[/quote]

Attempt to distract? hardly. You talk of the Talibans rise to power, and the United States role in that, while ignoring the other international factors and nations that also contributed as much or more. Doing so was a blatant attempt to serve your argument with intellectuall dishonesty.

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

That’s totally illogical, but fine, it’s your opinion.

But NO, it’s absolutely not acceptable to ask people to “just support the troops, since they’re over there no matter how you feel about it.” That’s the classic argument that warmongers have been using for decades to deflect any criticism of military actions.[/quote]

So you think the idividual soldier, marine, etc., should be held accountable and ostracized for the political decisions of their elected leaders?

140

[quote]orion wrote:
You can kill an unlimited number of civilians if you do not really mean to, but if you kill 10-20% of that number on purpose to spread someone elses ideology that is absolutely, 100%, unforgivable.

[/quote]

This is without a doubt the single most honest thing I have ever heard about what people think when it comes to our foreign policy. People will hide behind that belief by saying we are spreading freedom so it is ok.