I dont mind someone challenging my response, as long as it's kept in within the logical flow of the discussion. Your post wasn't. It was a random outburst concerning something I wasn't even thinking about and neither were the lads I replied to.
No point in answering again on this.
Well, I really think we should not involve ourselves in the middle east and let them sort it out, then decide what to do with the winner.
The point is, the Western society used to be like this in the past as well. We just developed faster than the Middle Eastern societies did. Give them 200-300 years, and who knows, they will be like we are today. Of course, by that point we will likely see even our present society as extremely bigoted and outdated...
It's a war you dummy. Casualties are an inevitable cause of war. No country that has ever existed has successfully waged a war without having some civilian casualties.
"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. "
- General Jack D. Ripper.
People really misrepresent civilian deaths in drone strikes and military engagements as 'accidental' and 'unfortunate collateral damage'. It's really a disingenuous way of looking at it. In a lot, if not most cases, drone operators, and their supervisors are making a deliberate decision to kill everyone in a given marketplace or neighborhood in order to kill one guy who might be a terrorist. They're not accidental deaths, people are deciding to kill them.
You seem to have an equivalency meter that only has one setting. What you quoted is quite rational and not particularly defensive.
- - - Updated - - -
Well, when said society has laws that are bigoted, everyone gets lumped in. To recap, you are saying that the exercise of free speech that most find completely disgusting, means that we are morally equivalent, on this issue, to a society that kills people for being gay? Surely you don't really mean that....
Are you? Yeah, we were worse than we we are now. Much of the Middle East is worse now than then they used to be. That's a historical fact. I never said we were innocent and I wasn't even the one that brought up Westboro. What I was pushing back on, was the notion that because we have hateful people who are allowed to speak, that we somehow can't criticize societies with systemic and legal bigotry.
It's also worth mentioning that Christianity in less developed parts of the world is often MUCH less benign than it is here. Spousal murder was legal up into the 90s in much of Central/South America. Full on terrorism, pogroms and other lord of the flies style mayhem is going on in the name of Christianity in sub-Saharan Africa and eastern India. It's not the religion, it's the situation.
Here, I cannot embed the video, but please watch this .https://twitter.com/TheBucketShop/st...01573466644480
This is the ideology I'm talking about. There is no such thing as "radical" islam anymore. It is just Islam in general. These ideas are being preached nationwide, and globally. Moderate muslims do not exist, and if they do, they're either slaughtered by their neighbor in their own country for crimes against the prophet, or don't do a damn thing to stop it from happening in the first place. This is the ideology that want's you dead for being you. They don't care if you feel bad for their civilians, because if a drone strike didn't kill one, they would do it themselves. They firmly believe this is not "radical" and completely rational under their religion, which is completely obvious in the video above.
War comes with collateral damage, and we are in a war. If 3% of muslims accept homosexuality, but 97% will hunt you for being gay, and a drone strike kills 10 of those 97% who are actively trying to kill others, but 1 of those 3% gets killed as well, then the greater good has prevailed, because those 10 of the 97% would of killed much more.
Using Christianity as a comparison is also unbelievably flawed. The Crusades (by far the worst thing perpetrated by Christians in history) were in DIRECT RESPONSE to muslim aggression in the region. It was also ONE THOUSAND YEARS AGO you fucking nitwit. We live in modern times, where EVERY OTHER RELIGION does not believe in their fucking dark age beliefs anymore except Islam.
A liberal apologist is someone who believes they have unearned moral superiority because they say the obvious statements of "killing is bad", but fail to accept the reality that if we do not kill, they will kill us first, and our killing is in direct response to that.
Or.. If the CIA didn't foster and create the Taliban and their offshoots (ISIS) there would be no drone attacks on weddings and funerals, or red cross or humanitarian aid convoys.
Source: http://www.voltairenet.org/article165889.html Zbigniew Brzezinski former National Security Advisor.Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs that the American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. Is this period, you were the national securty advisor to President Carter. You therefore played a key role in this affair. Is this correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahiddin began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention [emphasis added throughout].
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into the war and looked for a way to provoke it?
B: It wasn’t quite like that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q : When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret US involvement in Afghanistan , nobody believed them . However, there was an element of truth in this. You don’t regret any of this today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war." Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime , a conflict that bought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported Islamic fundamentalism, which has given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B : What is more important in world history? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some agitated Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q : “Some agitated Moslems”? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today...
B: Nonsense! It is said that the West has a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid: There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner, without demagoguery or emotionalism. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is t here in common among fundamentalist Saudi Arabia , moderate Morocco, militarist Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt, or secularist Central Asia? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries...
English Transcript: http://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview (original from 1998 interview to Le Nouvel Observateur 1950-)
If you want to be angry at someone be angry at your rulers.
Waging war on the world at some point the war will come to your home.
No one is even mentioningWho is G4S you say?G4S has an unfathomably broad reach. The largest in its industry, it operates across six continents and in hundreds of countries. Mateen was a low-level employee at G4S, but his company has lucrative contracts with countless clients, including the Department of Homeland Security.
U.K.-based security firm G4S said Mateen “was subject to detailed company screening when he was recruited in 2007 and re-screened in 2013 with no adverse findings.”
“He was also subject to checks by a U.S. law enforcement agency (FBI) with no findings reported to G4S,” the company said in a statement. “G4S is providing its full support to all law enforcement authorities in the USA as they conduct their investigations.”
What about those links to the industrial-military complex, training, arming him, trusting him?
Last edited by Roadblock; 2016-06-14 at 08:47 PM.