[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
I didn’t see anyone else provide a solution for the hypothetical dilemma.
[/quote]
That’s the problem. The hypothetical was retarded to begin with. Neither group should have to die.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
I didn’t see anyone else provide a solution for the hypothetical dilemma.
[/quote]
That’s the problem. The hypothetical was retarded to begin with. Neither group should have to die.[/quote]
Realistically and inevitably, one group DOES have to die when the antagonists commit acts of war and then entrench themselves among the innocent as part of their defense. [/quote]
Exactly, Dustin is correct in thinking that neither group should have to die, but sadly that pattern of thinking ignores reality…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
I didn’t see anyone else provide a solution for the hypothetical dilemma.
[/quote]
That’s the problem. The hypothetical was retarded to begin with. Neither group should have to die.[/quote]
Realistically and inevitably, one group DOES have to die when the antagonists commit acts of war and then entrench themselves among the innocent as part of their defense. [/quote]
There is also the possibility that the US military shouldn’t be there to begin with and that no group has to die.
It would make just as much since (i.e. none at all) for the U.S. military to have invaded Saudi Arabia because the majority of the 9-11 hijackers were from there.
But I digress…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
I didn’t see anyone else provide a solution for the hypothetical dilemma.
[/quote]
That’s the problem. The hypothetical was retarded to begin with. Neither group should have to die.[/quote]
Realistically and inevitably, one group DOES have to die when the antagonists commit acts of war and then entrench themselves among the innocent as part of their defense. [/quote]
You mean when the US government waging an illegal war kill children and civilian as part of it’s war strategy.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
I didn’t see anyone else provide a solution for the hypothetical dilemma.
[/quote]
That’s the problem. The hypothetical was retarded to begin with. Neither group should have to die.[/quote]
Realistically and inevitably, one group DOES have to die when the antagonists commit acts of war and then entrench themselves among the innocent as part of their defense. [/quote]
You mean when the US government waging an illegal war kill children and civilian as part of it’s war strategy. [/quote]
First of all it’s not an “illegal war.” Secondly, killing children and civilians is not “part of its war strategy,” it’s an inevitable consequence. And it’s an inevitable consequence of EVERY SINGLE WAR SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME.
It was certainly an inevitable consequence that children and civilians would be killed when the Towers fell, the Pentagon was hit and United Fl. 93 went down in Pennsylvania although in that case killing children and civilians (why did you type “children and civilians”, btw? Is there such thing as children in the military? I guess so when speaking of the Afghanis) WAS part of its (Al qaeda) war strategy.[/quote]
It is an illegal war, waging war is illegal. Killing civilian is part of the war strategy. The US just doesn’t care about civilian dying. If you shoot at random on everything that moves then sure it must be an inevitable consequence that civilians will die.
I wrote children and civilian to emphasize the fact that even killing children doesn’t bother the US military. IN fact even killing their own soldier doesn’t bother them.
That Al qaeda killed civilians is not a reason for the US to also kill civilians. Killing civilian is a war crime.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
I didn’t see anyone else provide a solution for the hypothetical dilemma.
[/quote]
That’s the problem. The hypothetical was retarded to begin with. Neither group should have to die.[/quote]
Realistically and inevitably, one group DOES have to die when the antagonists commit acts of war and then entrench themselves among the innocent as part of their defense. [/quote]
There is also the possibility that the US military shouldn’t be there to begin with and that no group has to die.
It would make just as much since (i.e. none at all) for the U.S. military to have invaded Saudi Arabia because the majority of the 9-11 hijackers were from there.
But I digress…[/quote]
The direct threat, the clear and present danger, was NOT in Saudi.[/quote]
It was in the White house.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
I didn’t see anyone else provide a solution for the hypothetical dilemma.
[/quote]
That’s the problem. The hypothetical was retarded to begin with. Neither group should have to die.[/quote]
Realistically and inevitably, one group DOES have to die when the antagonists commit acts of war and then entrench themselves among the innocent as part of their defense. [/quote]
You mean when the US government waging an illegal war kill children and civilian as part of it’s war strategy. [/quote]
First of all it’s not an “illegal war.” Secondly, killing children and civilians is not “part of its war strategy,” it’s an inevitable consequence. And it’s an inevitable consequence of EVERY SINGLE WAR SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME.
It was certainly an inevitable consequence that children and civilians would be killed when the Towers fell, the Pentagon was hit and United Fl. 93 went down in Pennsylvania although in that case killing children and civilians (why did you type “children and civilians”, btw? Is there such thing as children in the military? I guess so when speaking of the Afghanis) WAS part of its (Al qaeda) war strategy.[/quote]
It is an illegal war, waging war is illegal. Killing civilian is part of the war strategy. The US just doesn’t care about civilian dying. If you shoot at random on everything that moves then sure it must be an inevitable consequence that civilians will die.
I wrote children and civilian to emphasize the fact that even killing children doesn’t bother the US military. IN fact even killing their own soldier doesn’t bother them.
That Al qaeda killed civilians is not a reason for the US to also kill civilians. Killing civilian is a war crime.
[/quote]
You have some serious anger issues. You might want to have that checked out. What happened to you to hate America so much? There has to be more than just we wage war.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
I didn’t see anyone else provide a solution for the hypothetical dilemma.
[/quote]
That’s the problem. The hypothetical was retarded to begin with. Neither group should have to die.[/quote]
Realistically and inevitably, one group DOES have to die when the antagonists commit acts of war and then entrench themselves among the innocent as part of their defense. [/quote]
You mean when the US government waging an illegal war kill children and civilian as part of it’s war strategy. [/quote]
First of all it’s not an “illegal war.” Secondly, killing children and civilians is not “part of its war strategy,” it’s an inevitable consequence. And it’s an inevitable consequence of EVERY SINGLE WAR SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME.
It was certainly an inevitable consequence that children and civilians would be killed when the Towers fell, the Pentagon was hit and United Fl. 93 went down in Pennsylvania although in that case killing children and civilians (why did you type “children and civilians”, btw? Is there such thing as children in the military? I guess so when speaking of the Afghanis) WAS part of its (Al qaeda) war strategy.[/quote]
It is an illegal war, waging war is illegal. Killing civilian is part of the war strategy. The US just doesn’t care about civilian dying. If you shoot at random on everything that moves then sure it must be an inevitable consequence that civilians will die.
I wrote children and civilian to emphasize the fact that even killing children doesn’t bother the US military. IN fact even killing their own soldier doesn’t bother them.
That Al qaeda killed civilians is not a reason for the US to also kill civilians. Killing civilian is a war crime.
[/quote]
You have some serious anger issues. You might want to have that checked out. What happened to you to hate America so much? There has to be more than just we wage war.[/quote]
I don’t hate America. But feel free to disprove my points if you can.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
I don’t hate America. But feel free to disprove my points if you can.[/quote]
Joey, your “points,” if we can even begin to call them that, are so asinine they bear no obligation of response.
Vaya con Dios, O addled one. Your “work” here is done.
Or since thou mightest prefer that in Francois like any good Quebecois would, "Allez avec Dieu, votre travail ici est fait, l’homme fou.[/quote]
Ton francais est pas terrible. Pis comme d’habitude t’es pas capable de fournir de reponses intelligentes a quoi que ce soit. Asteur amuse toi a traduire ca.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]joebassin wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
I didn’t see anyone else provide a solution for the hypothetical dilemma.
[/quote]
That’s the problem. The hypothetical was retarded to begin with. Neither group should have to die.[/quote]
Realistically and inevitably, one group DOES have to die when the antagonists commit acts of war and then entrench themselves among the innocent as part of their defense. [/quote]
You mean when the US government waging an illegal war kill children and civilian as part of it’s war strategy. [/quote]
First of all it’s not an “illegal war.” Secondly, killing children and civilians is not “part of its war strategy,” it’s an inevitable consequence. And it’s an inevitable consequence of EVERY SINGLE WAR SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME.
It was certainly an inevitable consequence that children and civilians would be killed when the Towers fell, the Pentagon was hit and United Fl. 93 went down in Pennsylvania although in that case killing children and civilians (why did you type “children and civilians”, btw? Is there such thing as children in the military? I guess so when speaking of the Afghanis) WAS part of its (Al qaeda) war strategy.[/quote]
…waging war is illegal. [/quote]
A true testament to your intelligence,and to the breadth and depth of your knowledge.[/quote]
This is what happens without a T-Cell PWI.[/quote]
“The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and thus part of US law. Under the charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves. Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan. The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11. Nineteen men - 15 from Saudi Arabia - did, and there was no imminent threat that Afghanistan would attack the US or another UN member country. The council did not authorize the United States or any other country to use military force against Afghanistan. The US war in Afghanistan is illegal.” â??
â?? Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001â??present)
oh did you forget to include the UNSC resolution agreeing with the Afghanistan invasion?
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/555/55/PDF/N0355555.pdf?OpenElement
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/708/55/PDF/N0170855.pdf?OpenElement
FACTS TRUMP IDEOLOGY AGAIN!
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
oh did you forget to include the UNSC resolution agreeing with the Afghanistan invasion?
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/555/55/PDF/N0355555.pdf?OpenElement
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/708/55/PDF/N0170855.pdf?OpenElement
FACTS TRUMP IDEOLOGY AGAIN![/quote]
Broken links trump all 