# Blast in Russian airport kills 31



## Chickenhawk (Jan 24, 2011)

Suicide bomber kills 31 at Russia's biggest airport | Reuters



Just woke up, still trying to gather details.

I'll post more when I find more out.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 24, 2011)

Color me a cynic but I'm a little surprised it's taken terrorists this long to figure out that a crowded airport makes for a better target than trying to wrestle control of an airplane. 

Couple more of these jobs and you won't be able to get within 1/4 mile of an airport without you, your belongings, your car, etc being completely "screened".


----------



## espman (Jan 25, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Color me a cynic but I'm a little surprised it's taken terrorists this long to figure out that a crowded airport makes for a better target than trying to wrestle control of an airplane.
> 
> Couple more of these jobs and you won't be able to get within 1/4 mile of an airport without you, your belongings, your car, etc being completely "screened".


 
Then they'll target that line, it isn't going to make any difference whether people are a 1/4 mile away, or inside the airport. Terrorists are going to go were the people are, so moving away from one location is just going to make another avaliable untl we can't even leave our houses without being screened.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 25, 2011)

I've got some pretty extreme measures that I believe would help this problem. But, they're shunned for being extreme.

Whatever works without instating martial law, and stripping everybody of their basic freedoms and civil liberties. 

I'm all for treating someone charged with terrorism or mass murder like they attempted to terrorize or murder people. Torture that person without mercy. Then release the video. Then again, I'm an avid supporter of a 'total war' concept, which the world seems to treat like the plague now. 

See that country? They aren't trying to rid themselves of terrorist organizations? Then that entire country is the enemy. See that other country? They 'lost' 5 truck loads of weapons, but magically have $5 million more than the did before they 'lost' that shit? The terrorists then use those same weapons against other nations? Fuck them, they're the enemy too.

And by 'enemy', I don't mean tip toe around their country, and try to 'rebuild' their government...I mean kill every last one of them. Without mercy. They'll get the hint pretty quick, and start ratting out their own people.

Hell, look at WWII....

But, I digress. My opinion is 'extreme', and based on tactics used in the 40's, which is archaic, immoral and inhumane now . We can't go to war with an entire country anymore, regardless of the blinding truth of them harboring organizations hellbent on destroying anything 'Westernized' (which is any modern/non-Muslim country). No, we have to support that entire country on our shoulders, while feeding those today who fed themselves yesterday, and at night bite the hand that feeds them.

/rant

*Prepares for neg-rep*


----------



## cwhitey2 (Jan 25, 2011)

Infinity Complex said:


> Whatever works without instating martial law, and stripping everybody of their basic freedoms and civil liberties.
> 
> I'm all for treating someone charged with terrorism or mass murder like they attempted to terrorize or murder people. Torture that person without mercy. Then release the video. Then again, I'm an avid supporter of a 'total war' concept, which the world seems to treat like the plague now.
> 
> ...


----------



## orb451 (Jan 25, 2011)

espman said:


> Then they'll target that line, it isn't going to make any difference whether people are a 1/4 mile away, or inside the airport. Terrorists are going to go were the people are, so moving away from one location is just going to make another avaliable untl we can't even leave our houses without being screened.



Which is kind of my point, though I didn't state it. That is, we need to accept the fact that terrorists *will* unfortunately, be successful if they keep on trying to attack. In my mind it's better to prepare as much as we can and have a solid plan of action in the aftermath, but just accept that we can never *truly* be secure, until we do like you suggest, stay in inside 24/7 which I think is silly.

Effective? Yeah.

But feasible? No. So until everyone stays indoors for the rest of their lives, we should just accept reality and deal with it. 

That and I like Infinity's ideas, but agree that they are unlikely to happen.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jan 25, 2011)

Suddenly "No Russian" from MW2 doesn't seem like such a good idea to Infinity Ward...


----------



## AySay (Jan 25, 2011)

Scar Symmetry said:


> Suddenly "No Russian" from MW2 doesn't seem like such a good idea to Infinity Ward...






On the "stances against terrorism" issue, I think a more feasible solution that antagonizing/attacking other countries, is to see what terrorists are motivated by and solve the root problem.

Why did this attack happen? 
Most likely Chechnya.
The people there want want independence from Russia, and they're willing to KILL for it. If you give it to them, Their motive to attack Russia will be gone.

Same with Afghanistan.
Why are they fighting? 
Foreign forces went to THEIR homeland and started killing them.
Leave, and they'll stop fighting.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 25, 2011)

AySay said:


> On the "stances against terrorism" issue, I think a more feasible solution that antagonizing/attacking other countries, is to see what terrorists are motivated by and solve the root problem.
> 
> Why did this attack happen?
> Most likely Chechnya.
> ...



Right. If we just left them alone, those pesky terrorists would live in peace and tranquility.


----------



## AySay (Jan 25, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Right. If we just left them alone, those pesky terrorists would live in peace and tranquility.



Maybe not, but they definitely wouldn't be going out of their way to attack civilians in other countries.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 25, 2011)

Infinity Complex said:


> Then again, I'm an avid supporter of a 'total war' concept, which the world seems to treat like the plague now.



I got this far and I must say you summed up everything I would say right there.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 25, 2011)

Fuck it I'm at home sick and I feel like a good rant:


Total war is a beautiful thing really. Clear cut, Black and white, Do it or don't.

There is no "oh we'll be gone in a bit". There is no "oh hello world we think there might be something here but we are telling you before finding it" bullshit. 

I'm of the opinion if you want to kill a couple people in a country, then you should make your point with a few warnings to the innocents and then proceed to kill everyone until you get results. Too harsh? 

Nope. Back in the day before Humans got too smart for their own good, things got done. There were no unions or special interest groups to please. If you weren't getting the results you NEEDED, somebody died. This is the what the Terrorist do, however on a smaller and dirtier scale.

If I was representing a country (lets say America) and there was an attack on my soil against my people by any group, that group deserves death. They knew what they were doing and I respect their courage to do something that grand, but unfortunately every action has a punishment.

This punishment is NOT sending a few troops every month until half the country's children speak English with American accents. This punishment is NOT a local search for containers of anything. YOU DON'T NEED ANY MORE REASONS. Bomb them until they retreat/surrender. You show your might and you do not pull any punches until the ones who are left understand that they need you more than they need their beliefs or whatever.

In the end, its about Eye for an eye. This is not something that is looked kindly upon by the liberal-minded of our nation, and unfortunately they are the ones calling the shots.

Ugh my head hurts I'm done


----------



## orb451 (Jan 25, 2011)

AySay said:


> Maybe not, but they definitely wouldn't be going out of their way to attack civilians in other countries.



No they'd be attacking civilians in their own countries instead. Or they'd find a reason to hate someone, somewhere, across one of their borders and you'd end up with the same outcome that I think you're talking about; innocent people dying.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 25, 2011)

AySay said:


> On the "stances against terrorism" issue, I think a more feasible solution that antagonizing/attacking other countries, is to see what terrorists are motivated by and solve the root problem.
> 
> Why did this attack happen?
> Most likely Chechnya.
> ...



So, what was the reason we were attacked on 9/11?

And how should we solve that, at the root? 


It's not a simple answer for either one. In order to 'solve' the issue at the 'root', one of use would have to change, fundamentally. They are extremists that think America (or the West, or modern/non-muslim, pick your poison) is the cancer that is killing the world. We would have to stop...well, being America, and I'll be goddamned if that's going to happen. OR, they will have to turn their back to the religious beliefs that they have...and I'll assure you, they'll be goddamned to ignore Islam (or extremist Islam...however).

They picked a fight...and we need to bring it to them. Just like we did in WWII. We didn't give a shit that Hitler wanted to take over the world...until Japan got spooked and spilled our beer. Then we realized just what was happening in the world, and that if Hitler continued, we, eventually, would be on his list. 

Japan wanted a fight...we brought them a fucking fight, and split an atom in their country...twice.

Hitler wanted a fight...we brought him a fucking fight, and hunted down every Nazi supporter we could find, and murdered them.

Saddam wanted a fight (and yes, he did, but that's another subject entirely, which we shouldn't get into in this thread...)...we destroyed his country, and made his own people kill him.

Bin Laden wanted a fight...we gave his people fucking skittles...

Could this have been avoided in the beginning? Possibly. But a few things needed to happen, first and foremost, the offended parties need to come forward and express their concerns. They didn't do that.

WAS it avoided in the beginning? Fuck no. What happened? They wanted a fight. We (America, I refuse to put the blame on anybody but us), should have immediately destroyed their entire country, and killed every living soul BEFORE he was able to flee to Pakistan. If he got into Pakistan before we killed him, we should have gave Pakistan a very short warning to remove him, or let us use their forces to find him. If they don't cooperate, we kill them too. Aiding in terrorist plots...thats a crime, and people should be punished.

AySay - I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, ignore my delivery. Just focus on the content of my posts. This is a subject that hits very close to home for me (considering my brother and I have both deployed to Iraq, and I lost some very close, personal friends over there), so I tend to come across a little (very) brash.

My opinion stays the same, though. Regardless of my personal experiences. My bias only broadens my view on 'acceptable' vocabulary when discussing this (read: I cuss a lot more, but say the same thing, )


----------



## AySay (Jan 25, 2011)

^
No worries bro. 

However, I think your deplorably violent attitude towards the matter is a little unsettling. 


I mean, this statement...



Infinity Complex said:


> immediately destroyed their entire country, and killed every living soul



is unacceptable. Statements like these, do nothing to help the situation. It's easy to say stuff like this on the internet, but the VAST majority of Afghanistan, Japan, Iraq, Germany, etc. are normal people like you and me with hopes and dreams, and the desire for a good life. Saying their death is justifiable is flat out wrong. America already committed the mistake(crime) of killing 2 cities worth of civilians in retaliation to a precise attack on a military target among MANY others. These incidents only lead to more vilification of the US.

I hope this post is just your frustration speaking but still...


----------



## groph (Jan 25, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> I'm of the opinion if you want to kill a couple people in a country, then you should make your point with a few warnings to the innocents and then proceed to kill everyone until you get results. Too harsh?



This is terrorism.

According to Wikipedia, 40 to 52 million civilians died as a result of WWII. What you and Infinity Complex seem to be supporting is the United States (or any country) going into Iraq (or any other country) and indiscriminately bombing the country into submission, not caring about how many civilians are killed. I hope to God I'm wrong, and I'm not going to neg-rep either of you because A) this is a guitar forum and reputation should be based on what kind of help you can give to other people regarding guitar and B) it's generally pointless anyway, oh a red bar, what a punishment!

There are a wide body of people who believe that Japan was defeated LONG before the atom bombs were dropped and the whole "they ended the war sooner and saved countless of American lives" is just pure rhetorical bullshit. I mean it had that impact anyway since the war did end and the US didn't "need" to invade but the Japanese people were mercilessly firebombed, which killed far more than the atomic bombs did. Personally, I don't support the bombings, but I realize that the Japanese military had some civilians so scared of the US troops that they would take extreme measures to avoid being taken prisoner, and it really does seem that the Japanese were a truly fanatical opponent, somebody you'd never want to fight. The Allies did the same to Dresden, a German city, and wiped it off the map along with 25,000 people as well as Hamburg which got 46,000 civilians. Pretty much what I'm saying is that neither side of the war was heroic, horrific atrocities were carried out by the "good guys" too. Bombing a city so it's people submit is the kind of primitive, brutish violence that the human race needs to get past. Civilians caught in the middle always see the worst of war. Imagine being the Italian civilians coming back to Messina after Patton's little glory trip, seeing your homes shattered from artillery shells and carpet bombings, let alone being a civilian under Stalin getting starved to death, or a Japanese civilian on Tarawa slitting your child's throat before tossing him and yourself off of a cliff because the Japanese military has you convinced that the US troops are going to rape and murder your entire family.

I guess I'm just a naive idealist.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 25, 2011)

I still agree with Infinity complex. You are a representative of your country wether you like it or not. If you murder thousands and decide to flee to your home base, expect everyone there to be punished with you.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 25, 2011)

groph said:


> This is terrorism.



Kind of. 

Terrorism is the act of killing to get attention or cause change.
War is an armed conflict against an enemy. 

They are similar but different. For example, in war, you should not kill your own, and the goal is to be efficient in solving the conflict. However in terrorism you just need to kill anybody. Preferably somebody in cold blood.

EDIT: I believe I phrased my original post poorly. There are two subjects in the post you quoted.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 25, 2011)

groph said:


> This is terrorism.



I would have to agree with that.

How many people do you think are actually "terrorists" in these countries? What percentage of the country do you think is actually 'against" you?

I mean, alright, so "the country" isn't doing anything (or as much as you'd like) to stop what's happening. Why is that? Some politicians can't or don't want to get it together... that doesn't automatically mean you have the right to bomb the entire country out of existence...

For fuck's sake, people, some common sense and decency would be appreciated..


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 25, 2011)

Demoniac said:


> I would have to agree with that.
> 
> How many people do you think are actually "terrorists" in these countries? What percentage of the country do you think is actually 'against" you?
> 
> ...



I'm just curious as what would have happened in WWII if America had the government we do now....


----------



## AySay (Jan 25, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> I still agree with Infinity complex. You are a representative of your country wether you like it or not. If you murder thousands and decide to flee to your home base, expect everyone there to be punished with you.



Why though? If you come here and kill my family does it mean that when I come for you, your neighbors 6 year old daughter needs to die too?


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 25, 2011)

AySay said:


> Why though? If you come here and kill my family does it mean that when I come for you, your neighbors 6 year old daughter needs to die too?



That depends on the sophistication of your weapons and the quality of your intel.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 25, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> I'm just curious as what would have happened in WWII if America had the government we do now....



 They wouldn't have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Japan would have surrendered like they were already planning to do because Germany was losing the war...


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 25, 2011)

AySay said:


> ^
> No worries bro.
> 
> However, I think your deplorably violent attitude towards the matter is a little unsettling.
> ...



* - America already committed the mistake(crime) of killing 2 cities worth of civilians in retaliation to a precise attack on a military target among MANY others*. - EDIT: What exactly cities, and what exact 'precise attack'?

So, what about the _precise and premeditated_ attack on the World Trade towers? Those people weren't Military, but they were representatives of America. EVERY SINGLE American is a representative of America. And that is what they targeted; America. Not our Military, not our Government, and not a business/corporation, but America as a whole. America as an idea. 

You know who extremist Islam is? Young, innocent Muslim children being raised in an impoverished country, and fed anti-American propaganda. They grow up to hate anybody that isn't them. 

Same theory as backwoods, ignorant, racist bigots the world over. Difference is these people set out to destroy what differs from them. No better than the National Socialist Party, so why are we treating them differently?

I'm not saying we need to invade Pakistan, kick down every door and put a bullet in EVERYONES heads. Just anybody that doesn't cooperate. Single out the target demographic: Young males, aged 14-35. If they don't immediately surrender to a search and questioning, treat them as a combative, because in a few hours, it VERY WELL could be that same guy launching mortars at the nearest Coalition base. And that happens. All. The. Fucking. Time. 

They don't wear uniforms, so how can we say that this random guy, that has a gun in his house (which is acceptable in their culture/allowed by law), isn't going to use that gun against Americans tomorrow? He isn't pointing it at a terrorist, so assume he will point it at us.

The Nazi's were easier to fight. They wore uniforms. We could sent a patrol down the street, and tell the difference between non-combatants (civilians), and the enemy. We don't have that luxury in this situation. Assume everybody is the enemy, and inform them through force that we are not to be fucked with.

I don't see how mercy is a viable option here, honestly. We've been too kind already...


* - It's easy to say stuff like this on the internet, but the VAST majority of Afghanistan, Japan, Iraq, Germany, etc. are normal people like you and me with hopes and dreams, and the desire for a good life. Saying their death is justifiable is flat out wrong. - 
*

I don't just say this on the internet. I will share my opinion on the matter to anybody that asks, and readily do, as people are always asking me about it.

I understand the vast majority of these countries are normal people, and want nothing to do with this war. Trust me, I know this more personally than you do. They also 'say' they don't want terrorists in their country. But they do absolutely NOTHING to assist. Nothing. Also, the VAST MAJORITY of the ones willing to 'cooperate' are two-faced. They will 'assist' during the day, and go home at night and build bombs. Plain and simple fact. That has been proven a hundred times. They have not shown us indisputable proof that they stand behind what they 'say' (ridding their country of terrorists).

Here's a little example of what I'm talking about:

DISCLAIMER: I do not personally know this man. I have never, and will never be apart of his unit. I have simply encountered very similar interactions.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 25, 2011)

Demoniac said:


> They wouldn't have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Japan would have surrendered like they were already planning to do because Germany was losing the war...



Your guess is as good as mine. I do know that because of the events that occurred, America and the Allies are not controlled by the Nazi Regime. To be honest, no matter how many lives are lost, I feel that is more important.

I also feel its more important for people to live without fear of being killed on an airplane than say, a huge swatch of blast zone encompassing terrorist harboring countries.


----------



## groph (Jan 25, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> I still agree with Infinity complex. You are a representative of your country wether you like it or not. If you murder thousands and decide to flee to your home base, expect everyone there to be punished with you.



Really, clarify this. I hope I'm getting you wrong here.

Consider this hypothetical situation. You're the President/Prime Minister of a Western superpower. Somebody from a Middle Eastern country attacks some building in your country for no apparent reason, killing x amount of civilians. That somebody who committed this crime then flees back to their country of origin. You get super pissed off and go to war with this country and indiscriminately kill people because they, by logical extension, support the actions of whoever it was who committed the crime against you.

I know this sounds strangely like what happened 10 years ago but I mean it to be completely hypothetical, I just don't want to come up with an entirely new political dynamic for the sake of a simple example.

Also it appears that Infinity was/is actually in the military so I don't want to say something disrespectful to someone whose life was on the line so I'll just put that out there now.

But Custom, WHY this opinion?


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 25, 2011)

groph said:


> This is terrorism.
> 
> According to Wikipedia, 40 to 52 million civilians died as a result of WWII. What you and Infinity Complex seem to be supporting is the United States (or any country) going into Iraq (or any other country) and indiscriminately bombing the country into submission, not caring about how many civilians are killed. I hope to God I'm wrong, and I'm not going to neg-rep either of you because A) this is a guitar forum and reputation should be based on what kind of help you can give to other people regarding guitar and B) it's generally pointless anyway, oh a red bar, what a punishment!
> 
> ...




I'm not going to comment on the majority of your post, except for this:

*. Bombing a city so it's people submit is the kind of primitive, brutish violence that the human race needs to get past.*


Seriously? How do you suggest we defend ourselves against an organization that stoops low enough to kill their own people, and murder THOUSANDS of innocent civilians in other countries? Should we sit down with them and come to a treaty? Not possible. These people have no interest in coming to an agreement. They are ruthless, brutal people that have one sole purpose: to destroy everything that isn't in perfect harmony with them. There are three ways to dismantle this:

1) Scare them shitless. Convince them through force that they cannot continue what they are doing without dying, and making no difference whatsoever.

2) Kill them all.

3) Convince their followers/minions/cannon fodder that what they are doing is wrong. Make them believe their 'leader' is truthfully powerless. But that won't work, since they don't believe Bin Laden has any 'power' over them, they simply agree with his message.

So that rules out number three, by definition. That leaves us with 1 and 2...both of them involve lots of death. Big whoop, welcome to war. The sad part about war; people die. 

If you know a way to win a war (read: War, not the disagreement before the war, it's too late for that now) without any bloodshed, please enlighten me. I'd like to think I'm pretty versed in the art of war, but I've yet to see a way to win without killing SOMEBODY...wish I did though.



I wish, every night, that we weren't in this situation. I wish we weren't at war. But we are. End of story. It's time to treat it as such, and fight a war. Not tip toe around, as to not offend anybody. They killed thousands of innocent Americans...that alone should be enough of a reason to destroy them.

"Well, I'm not American, I'm British..."

They attacked a subway in London. THAT ALONE should be enough to destroy them.

"Well, blah blah blah"

They've attacked counties all over the world. Their hatred isn't directed at only America. Anything that doesn't fall into their 'canon' of 'acceptable' belief is the enemy to them, and they attack it. Why isn't that enough, in your mind?

People seem to forget how many innocent people have been killed by these terrorist organizations. And people forget that harboring terrorists is a crime...






groph said:


> Also it appears that Infinity was/is actually in the military so I don't want to say something disrespectful to someone whose life was on the line so I'll just put that out there now.



Offend me, I don't care. Nothing happens when you get offended. "I went to the comedy show, and the comedian said something about the Lord, and...and I was offended...and when I woke up, I had leprosy." - Steve Hughes.

Doesn't work that way...I understand the nature of this topic, and just how sensitive it really is. I also don't give a rats ass if I offend anybody, and hope that they feel the same way about me. It's damned near impossible to truly express your belief, if you have to walk on eggshells the whole time. Fuck that, let 'er rip.

And for the record, I was in the Army. If anybody wants my resume, just ask. I was medically discharged for an injury sustained before my deployment, and severely aggravated because of a few choice events in theater. I'm also 50% disabled by the VA (will be increasing to 75% soon) for multiple traumatic brain injuries, PTSD, exposure, and undiagnosable neuromuscular issues.


----------



## AySay (Jan 25, 2011)

^
The more and more you type...


People seem to forget America has killed millions of innocent people. People also seem to forget Illegal wars are crimes too. 

It's amazing to think you believe that the only solution to war is killing more. With an attitude like that you're bound to repeat Vietnam, and Afghanistan over and over, and lose a lot more of your friends in vain...


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 25, 2011)

groph said:


> But Custom, WHY this opinion?




imply put, Headroom. 

What we have done in THIS instance is.... not much. We sent troops over in small numbers, watched them die, threw more troops out there, watched them die, and again and again the cycle repeated. We still don't have the man who confessed to orchestrating the act. 

What should have occured (In my opinion of course) is started a plan of warning and escalated attack. It would go something like this...

US: "Where is the douche that spoke on your network saying he killed thousand of innocent Americans?"

Them: " No clue bro. He's not with us."

US: "well thats odd becasue he used your country's funds to train your civilians to kill thousands of our civilians"

"Them: "yeah dude i dunno. we haven't really looked to be honest. We thought youd like to do it"

*this is where the change should occur*
ESCALATION

US: "Give us that dude within 48 hours and we wont bomb you" DECLARATION OF WAR

If they still do not give him up, proceed to bomb and threaten until the remaining leaders have the balls to give up their fuckface terrorist.

However if they do not give him up, then you must use them as an example. Again I am speaking horrors but i feel this must be done in order to continue my way of life that I cherish and love.

Make sure whatever you do, you MAKE SURE that NOBODY would ever THINK about attacking you again. Actually there is a very good example of this concept in Orson Scott Card's, "Ender's Game".


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 25, 2011)

AySay said:


> ^
> The more and more you type...
> 
> 
> ...



Millions of innocent people huh? I sure hope we're talking about every conflict since WWII...

If you're just talking about OIF/OEF, then it's apparent you've fallen victim to the sensationalist far-left media bullshit. 

Remember people, the news you see on TV is biased, and more often than not, blatantly wrong. They are fighting for ratings, so they say what gets attention.




EDIT:

Before anybody else says Ed (custom) or myself are just wrong in our opinion, please, for the sake of fucking christ, don't just say "you're wrong"

Explain to me what YOU want to do...and not just "we can handle this better." HOW? Your opinion is moot if you don't have a counter argument. Don't just try to dismantle what I say, bring something to the table.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Jan 25, 2011)

The best thing to do is to shut up when they do something. Us putting it in the news, and talking about it is what those bastards want. Kinda like the little 5 year old who keeps causing trouble because he knows people will talk about his "awesome" deed. If you ignore the kid and not talk about him he won't cause trouble because he won't be getting attention. Same idea for the terrorists. Just my two cents, but not putting their attacks in the news would be a start... as I said that's what they want.


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jan 25, 2011)

Infinity Complex said:


> Millions of innocent people huh? I sure hope we're talking about every conflict since WWII...
> 
> If you're just talking about OIF/OEF, then it's apparent you've fallen victim to the sensationalist far-left media bullshit.
> 
> Remember people, the news you see on TV is biased, and more often than not, blatantly wrong. They are fighting for ratings, so they say what gets attention.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 25, 2011)

AySay said:


> ^
> The more and more you type...
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sure many many beautiful, loving, and important innocent people have been killed at the hands of my country. The same could be said of any country really.

The point I am trying to make is that I will do anything to stop the enemies from controlling my way of life. Simple as that.


----------



## groph (Jan 25, 2011)

Infinity Complex said:


> Infinity's post



You disagree with my admittedly dramatic opinion/value judgment, fair enough. For the record, I'm not one of these flag burning sorts. I'm not patriotic at all, but that doesn't mean nobody can be because I'm not. People who demonize the entire West make me want to vomit. There are assholes all over the world. I personally believe that when humans resort to violence, it constitutes a failure somewhere in the chain of reasoning, it's always an overreaction by at least one party (IE a country defending itself against an attack out of nowhere is not morally "in the wrong") to something.

The issue I'm taking here is: Who is/are "they?" Yes, of course I agree that any members of any terrorist organization whose identities can be proven should be round up and shot into a mass grave, that particular brand of violence isn't really one to negotiate with. But by "they" do you mean said terrorist organization, or all members of a country? If it was indeed Bin Laden who was behind 9/11, then yeah, he should be suitably punished for his actions. Some Afghan man who lives across the street from Bin Laden who had no involvement however, deserves to be left the hell alone.

Yeah, this kind of thing is never so easy, and I believe that, in the case of Iraq, the US is doing what it can to not kill civilians. It probably is inevitable that they screw up sometimes and they look REALLY bad when they do, but I'm not going to dismiss the whole war as America being a bunch of ruthless killers. I've heard enough stuff on both sides of the argument, enough that I can't sort through the ideologies, rhetoric, and hidden agendas to form an opinion that I'm comfortable with.

tl;dr: who do you mean when you say "they," "them," "their," etc.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 25, 2011)

groph said:


> tl;dr: who do you mean when you say "they," "them," "their," etc.



Every terrorist organization. But to simplify things: Al Queda. 

The entire country is just as guilty, since they will readily admit to having knowledge of Bin Laden in their country...but they refuse to assist us in capturing him. 

If you knew your roommate murdered somebody, told the cops you knew, but then said "no, you can't come in...no, I won't help you", then YOU are an accessory, and will be tried for aiding in murder. End of story. 

Same thing aplies, even if this is a much larger scale. The Afghan government said they knew Al Queda was in their country, but were hesitant to help us. We said "help us or you are the enemy", so they are now half-ass helping (watch the Dalton Fury video to get an idea).

Pakistan has admitted to having knowledge of Al Queda recruiting and training members in their country. But they blatantly refuse to help us. How does that NOT make them our enemy?

A friend of my enemy is not a friend of mine. (I think I just made that up, sweet).

It has been proven that Pakistan and Yemen (and a few other countries, including Saudi, Afghan and Iraq, but that's a can of worms) have given money and supplies to Al Queda. How does that NOT make them our enemy?

They are helping our enemy. That, by default, makes them our enemy. Treat them as such.


----------



## AySay (Jan 25, 2011)

Infinity Complex said:


> Millions of innocent people huh? I sure hope we're talking about every conflict since WWII...
> 
> If you're just talking about OIF/OEF, then it's apparent you've fallen victim to the sensationalist far-left media bullshit.
> 
> ...




I was talking about since WWII. 

I'm not going to sit here and say I have wonderful theories on solving world conflicts. However, I'm also not going to sit around and when people make violent, offensive comments calling for murder of innocent people either. 

The bottom line is America far too often gets itself involved in unnecessary, incredibly one-sided wars, and then gets angry when the people of the invaded country don't take the abuse quietly. 

If you have a problem with Bin Laden, take out BIN LADEN. It's the USA's own fault that they couldn't get him the numerous times they had the chance too. Israel also goes after foreign terrorists. However instead of criminally invading a country and cause massive unnecessary civilian deaths, and generations of hostility, they send in a couple of hit men and deal with the target individually.



Customisbetter said:


> I'm sure many many beautiful, loving, and important innocent people have been killed at the hands of my country. The same could be said of any country really.
> 
> The point I am trying to make is that I will do anything to stop the enemies from controlling my way of life. Simple as that.



The same couldn't be said for any country. At least not in the same scale.

The "enemies" are only reactions to your actions.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 25, 2011)

I'm sorry, but what you're describing is just disgusting.

Alright, so you kill every man, woman and child who's not "helping" you and you leave the country a blasted wasteland for all to see.

There are a few outcomes of this;

1) You leave someone alive who didn't agree with you're decision and you have a whole new wave of people who hate and despise every ounce of your being, will do exactly what hte current lot are doing (though out of personal hatred and vengeance rather than religious extremism and, honestly, rightly so) and you fail in what you set out to do.

2) You successfully kill everyone. Congratulations, you've just committed genocide and are no better than the Nazis or the Spanish Conquistadors before them.

3) Even _if_ you are successful, what you are talking about is creating a state of fear so no-one would dare attack you which is quite frankly despicable. That kind of mass murder (which it is) is just disgusting, and is what actually separates us from them at the moment (though barely in some cases...), and if you take that away that would make "us" worse than them seeing as how we don't even have religious zealotry to hide behind.

Add all that to the fact that while the other countries may "fear" you enough to not attack you at first, they will *all* hate you, and one day they will *all* turn on you. It's what happens.


----------



## groph (Jan 25, 2011)

Infinity Complex said:


> Every terrorist organization. But to simplify things: Al Queda.
> 
> The entire country is just as guilty, since they will readily admit to having knowledge of Bin Laden in their country...but they refuse to assist us in capturing him.
> 
> ...



Ok, so the powers that be in enemy countries are our enemies, not every last citizen, who have absolutely zero say in foreign relations.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 25, 2011)

AySay said:


> I'm not going to sit here and say I have wonderful theories on solving world conflicts. However, I'm also not going to sit around and when people make violent, offensive comments calling for murder of innocent people either.



So, you'll readily say that someone is wrong, but have no viable option yourself? Beautiful. You can't argue how a war is handled, if you're only going to attempt to disassemble what you don't agree with, but offer no solutions. That's exactly what's wrong in Congress right now. People saying "no, you're wrong, but I don't know what to do". 

And I won't comment on the 'hit man' thing, since you don't seem to realize the hypocrisy you walked yourself into.



Demoniac said:


> Mischa's post



Mischa, I flat out said earlier that I did not intend to say we should kick down every door and kill everybody indiscriminately.




groph said:


> Ok, so the powers that be in enemy countries are our enemies, not every last citizen, who have absolutely zero say in foreign relations.



That's what I've said. A couple times now. 

But...

fuck, nevermind. Wouldn't matter anyways.




Gentleman, I am going to exit this thread now. It seems like I'm repeating myself, and I'd rather not. If this thread is still active tomorrow, I might chime in.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 25, 2011)

^ You'll notice point 1 applies to that scenario.

EDIT: Not killing everyone, that is.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 25, 2011)

groph said:


> Ok, so the powers that be in enemy countries are our enemies, not every last citizen, who have absolutely zero say in foreign relations.



The exact same thing applies to Americans. We're often lumped in with the powers at the top at any given moment like we have much, if any, say in what our government does, who it invades, who it decides to aid, etc.

It's never stopped the world over from hating America in general because of aggressive or meddlesome foreign policy. Again, most of which has zero to do with average Joe on the ground.

And if WWII were to happen these days, you can count on guys like Obama to write sternly worded letters, admonishing Germany, et al, for their actions...

Lastly, for those that think of the "poor" Japanese getting nuked after Pearl Harbor, go look up Unit 731 or the atrocities committed en mass by Japanese soldiers on innocent Chinese civilians. The nuke was as much about ending a war as it was about sending a message.

I think Japan (and the rest of the world) for a time, got the message loud and clear.


----------



## groph (Jan 25, 2011)

Infinity Complex said:


> So, you'll readily say that someone is wrong, but have no viable option yourself? Beautiful. You can't argue how a war is handled, if you're only going to attempt to disassemble what you don't agree with, but offer no solutions. That's exactly what's wrong in Congress right now. People saying "no, you're wrong, but I don't know what to do".
> 
> That's what I've said. A couple times now. *(in response to what I, groph, said)*
> 
> ...



So you're going back to the logic of "I am right because nobody has a better idea" then, meaning criticism is pointless? Nobody on this entire board, at least noone that I know of, has any idea how to solve the clusterfuck in the Middle East and how to win the "war on terror." Even if they did, it wouldn't matter because they don't have much in the way of power.

I didn't get the idea that you were saying what you say you were, as you weren't being specific about the group of people you were talking about. This led me to think that you had no qualms about killing civilians in Whereverthefuckstan for the purpose of sending a message across. If you were going to say something different, then I'd like to hear it.


----------



## groph (Jan 25, 2011)

orb451 said:


> *1)* The exact same thing applies to Americans. We're often lumped in with the powers at the top at any given moment like we have much, if any, say in what our government does, who it invades, who it decides to aid, etc.
> 
> *2) *It's never stopped the world over from hating America in general because of aggressive or meddlesome foreign policy. Again, most of which has zero to do with average Joe on the ground.
> 
> ...



I took the liberty and divided your post into numbers for ease of response.

1) Agreed.

2) Agreed. People could at least be more specific and say "The American Government sucks total ass!" or "Whoever holds the reins of the world's power dynamics is a complete tyrant and sucks total ass!"

3) Probably. That's kind of interesting though, there wouldn't be the hindsight we have now after having used atomic weapons twice and the U.N. presumably wouldn't have been formed, either. 

4) Again, what I've been saying the entire time. Civilians are not to blame for the atrocities committed by their "superiors" (the military, government, etc.) I'd be willing to bet that if Japan didn't surrender and ended up winning the war for the Axis powers, the US and possibly Britain would be put up for war crimes because of their extensive bombing of civilian targets, or if the targets were military ones (IE oil refineries in Ploesti and ball-bearing plants in Schweinfurt) in cities, the resulting collateral damage would justify said accusations of war crimes. I guess history is written by the victors, but it still seems that Japan and Germany committed worse atrocities during the war. Neither side were saints. 

I agree that the rest of the world got a message, but maybe not "the" message, IE that you don't fuck with the United States. There was that period of tension known as the Cold War where the US and the USSR had a Wild West style standoff, threatening each other with nuclear annihilation for decades. I kind of think that now that we have the power to end life on Earth, we probably should abstain from doing that.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 25, 2011)

groph said:


> 4) Again, what I've been saying the entire time. Civilians are not to blame for the atrocities committed by their "superiors" (the military, government, etc.



In general, I agree, that civilians cannot and should not be held accountable for what their leaders do. However, with terrorists and the people in the Afghanistan and Iraq, as Chris pointed out, the civilian population has shown it's support for us is wavering at best. They're clearly trying to play both sides in the hopes of ending up on whatever "side" is victorious.

Do I blame them? Not really. But, you can't trust them - the civilian population in Afghanistan & Iraq. That leaves us in a quagmire. So much of the Liberal Leftist rhetoric relies heavily on a crystalline form of hindsight. Such that if *they* were the ones calling the shots way back when, *they* would *never* have made such brash decisions. They would have chosen a higher path. Simply put, they never would have gone to war in the first place.

Such is the luxury for academia. Viewing the world through rose tinted glasses is a gift they have no intention of squandering. Thus, all conflicts can be resolved without taking up arms. Unfortunately, their high intellect and superior knowledge has yet to allow them to concede that, simply, "shit ain't like that". The fucking world doesn't work that way. They ignore that fact and then call others ignorant. It would be hilarious if it weren't so vomit inducing.

You cannot, nor will not, ever, ever, win a war, if one of your operating parameters is the "Winning of Hearts and Minds". You can *try* win people over, but in the end, you're a foreign power carrying out a military campaign in hostile territory. Our hands were tied the moment we gave in and even *tried* to win hearts and minds. History, specifically WWII, shows clearly, how you win a war. Vietnam, and to a great extent the current Iraq/Afghanistan shit sandwich, show demonstrably how to lose a war, by focusing on "winning hearts and minds".




groph said:


> I agree that the rest of the world got a message, but maybe not "the" message, IE that you don't fuck with the United States. There was that period of tension known as the Cold War where the US and the USSR had a Wild West style standoff, threatening each other with nuclear annihilation for decades. I kind of think that now that we have the power to end life on Earth, we probably should abstain from doing that.



I agree, but in nuking Japan, we learned a hard lesson. And because of that atrocity, or rather through it, we learned about Mutually Assured Destruction. Thus, for all the posturing between the US and Russia for the duration of the Cold War, neither one was willing to "end it all" because of the consequences. I believe that lesson was learned on both sides. We may have come very close several times, to pulling the proverbial trigger, but neither side ever went "all in" and bet the farm. 

The *only* time you'll see nukes used again, is if a rogue state or nation, group or what have you, gets their hands on one or develops one. Look at Pakistan and India. Both have nukes right? Both more or less hate each other over Kashmir right? And yet with all that, they don't nuke each other off the map. Why? Because of the lessons learned in WWII.

Doesn't North Korea have nukes or nuke capabilities? Even if short range or not perfected, I was under the impression they had them. Why not use them? Again, because they know, it's game over if they do.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 25, 2011)

Demoniac said:


> I'm sorry, but what you're describing is just disgusting.
> 
> Alright, so you kill every man, woman and child who's not "helping" you and you leave the country a blasted wasteland for all to see.
> 
> ...




1 and 3 are most likely but lets break it down...

With the result of 1, you still have 3. Those assholes that still scream and rave and shoot AK47s into the air will either be ignored, or smothered. Even if they did gain power again, history shows that it will take a looooong time at which point we can argue all over again.

With result numero tres, its all in the execution. I don't remember Switzerland and all the other "nuetral" countries condemming the Actions of the US when we nuked Japan. In fact it seemed everyone sat back and said,

"Woah... Shit just got real."

War is not about instilling hate. In fact that is the fuel for terrorism.
War is the final and last resort resolution to a problem. I can't comment on the climate of any foreign wars, but in my opinion, you should be earning respect. Fear is only for the guilty.

Here is a metaphorical example...
=================================

I decide to walk to my local liquor store (just to make it fun lets say I'm wearing a turban) and rob the cashier. The cashier pulls out a shotgun and tells me to fuck off. Instead of retreating i raise my (likely) small weapon and continue to make demands. At this point the cashier will shoot the living fuck out of me. And yes, he did the right thing in my opinion.

Now, for the people in the store that witnessed this incident. What will be their reaction? Will they hate the cashier? Will they not understand his anger at the shooter. Will they FEAR the cashier?

My best guess is that they will not. Also I believe few of the people that witnessed that incident will attempt to rob that store themselves.
========================

Hope that made sense.


----------



## Miek (Jan 25, 2011)

groph said:


> So you're going back to the logic of "I am right because nobody has a better idea" then, meaning criticism is pointless?* Nobody on this entire board, at least noone that I know of, has any idea how to solve the clusterfuck in the Middle East and how to win the "war on terror."* Even if they did, it wouldn't matter because they don't have much in the way of power.
> 
> I didn't get the idea that you were saying what you say you were, as you weren't being specific about the group of people you were talking about. This led me to think that you had no qualms about killing civilians in Whereverthefuckstan for the purpose of sending a message across. If you were going to say something different, then I'd like to hear it.



There is no way to win it. It's not something you can even go to war with. Let alone the fact that foreign intervention will just creat more terrorists. 
I'm not involving myself in this debate, I just want to reinforce the fact that the war on terror is a farce, it is not something that can be warred against, it is not something you can win against, doing so just makes it worse.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 25, 2011)

^So your plan is to learn to enjoy your anal fisting every time you need to fly someplace?


----------



## Miek (Jan 25, 2011)

...What?


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 25, 2011)

Its only a matter of time. Maybe we'll get lucky and the government will determine flying as to dangerous whatsoever and just ban commercial air travel in the US before they get that handsy.


----------



## Miek (Jan 25, 2011)

I don't understand, are you thinking that I think the TSA is a good thing? To clarify, I don't. At all.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 25, 2011)

I was exaggerating a bit. My real question is; What do you plan to do as the world changes around you based on the actions of terrorists?


----------



## Miek (Jan 25, 2011)

What do _I_ plan to do? I don't plan on changing anything. I'm not afraid of being blown up or having my plane taken over.

*Afraid as in, not worried it will happen. I think I'd be a little scared if there was a bomb near me.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 25, 2011)

My brain hurts from reading the bullshit in this thread. I don't think I've ever seen such a hateful, sociopathic, psychopathic and utterly warped view of foreign relations on this site. I could expect it on Stormfront but not on my SS.org.

I cannot begin to explain how utterly ignorant and close minded your opinions are on world views but by (your) god I will try.

First of all, you seem to think that people within countries are guilty by association, regardless of age; creed; nationality; etc.

To take for example: Afghanistan. You seem to think that everyone who isn't actively hunting a certain Saudi-Arabian gentleman with an enviably impressive beard, dialysis machine and who has been reported dead by HIS OWN BUDDIES on several occasions has somehow forfeited their lives. Never mind the fact that Afghanistan is a massive country of around TWENTY unassociated and unconnected nations full of people who have enough problems with sorting out their own lives (where the next meal is coming from and whether or not an American drone is going to bomb tomorrow's wedding, etc...) and dealing with fundamentalist fuckwits than to look for a man who is probably already dead or at least no longer in the country. In fact, I'd be pretty much certain that Osama isn't in Pakistan, either.

Also, "Al Qaida" is not some overarching terrorist mastermind group that is terrorising the globe. It's just some fundamentalist psychopaths who are pissed off with (perceived or real) American aggression and imperialistic tendencies and go blow themselves up. I'd be immensely surprised if the Southern Iraqi branch of "Al Quaida" knows what the Northern Iraqi branch of their "organisation" is doing, let alone what the Pakistani elements are doing. To call them an "organisation" is giving them too much credit and making you look ill-informed.

For instance, this terrorist attack in Moscow may be claimed by "Al Qaida" as their handywork but those of us who know what the fuck is up will know that it is 99% likely to do with Chechnyan separatists and nothing to do with any "Down With The West" ideology.

I would like to expand on what the most righteous Demoniac said above and say that Hatred Begets Hatred. You kill my brother then I will (probably) try to kill you. Look at what is happening in Iraq right now. I'd say most of the people engaged in guerilla warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan are ordinary people and not fundamentalist spastics. The phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is not unsuitable (but it is inaccurate since guerilla warfare is a perfectly legitimate method of warfare and totally separate to terrorism in form, function and goals. Mr Guevara had some very negative views on terrorism).

If you are pants-on-head-retarded enough to attack a country not for control (like in Afghanistan and Iraq) but for murder for the sake of it, I would expect terrorist attacks to INCREASE. Especially when a situation arises where the majority of a population backs the fundamentalist psychopaths because they're ALL sick of your shit and the fundis say they'll fix your wagon. That is a far worse deal than you've got now. Every time you bomb a village full of innocent people in Afghanistan off the map you are throwing petrol on a burning fire.

It never ceases to blow my mind how people can't seem to make simple logical and rational connections with these issues...

But of course, these wars were never about stopping terrorism in the first place...

America has never been about doing the "right thing" for anyone: the rest of the world, its own citizens, its allies. It only cares about power. Now, this isn't some pinko-lefty-communist bullshit. This is just RATIONALISM. If it gave a shit about you on the ground working your 9-5 you would have socialised healthcare like most of the developed world and your soldiers wouldn't be stuck in unresolvable conflicts only to return to "re-integrate" with society.

Finally, on a note about America "winning" WW2, if America didn't show up (although we're glad they did) the Soviet Union would have EASILY beaten Nazi Germany. We owe the Soviets for beating the Nazis and we owe the Americans for making sure the Soviets stopped with Germany and Poland... 




Customisbetter said:


> imply put, Headroom.
> 
> What we have done in THIS instance is.... not much. We sent troops over in small numbers, watched them die, threw more troops out there, watched them die, and again and again the cycle repeated. We still don't have the man who confessed to orchestrating the act.
> 
> ...



1: Then it must become clear to you at some stage that the war you are sending your troops to fight is not over one man or a group of men but over something else, non?
1(a): You also assume that the Afghan government had any idea where the hell ONE MAN might be in their country at 2001. Have you SEEN AFGHANISTAN? FFS, dude...

2: Funny, your country also trained terrorists. Perhaps you should be invading yourself? Either way, you are reaping what you sowed on the fields of Afghanistan.

3: There is a lot of evidence and conjecture that says that the September the 11th attacks were an inside job. About as much as says it was done by Osama. I would assume that the American public would have liked to have definitive facts put before them before backing any activity that involves sending their citizens to die.

4: Never become a diplomat. Ever. Only a fool would speak in absolutes and especially on such a complex issue.
"i feel this must be done in order to continue my way of life that I cherish and love..." By taking away that of others...?



orb451 said:


> In general, I agree, that civilians cannot and should not be held accountable for what their leaders do. However, with terrorists and the people in the Afghanistan and Iraq, as Chris pointed out, the civilian population has shown it's support for us is wavering at best. They're clearly trying to play both sides in the hopes of ending up on whatever "side" is victorious.
> 
> Do I blame them? Not really. But, you can't trust them - the civilian population in Afghanistan & Iraq. That leaves us in a quagmire. So much of the Liberal Leftist rhetoric relies heavily on a crystalline form of hindsight. Such that if *they* were the ones calling the shots way back when, *they* would *never* have made such brash decisions. They would have chosen a higher path. Simply put, they never would have gone to war in the first place.
> 
> ...



Your "opinion" on the allegiance of the civilian population of Iraq and Afghanistan would be laughable if it wasn't so contemptuous. Support for your military is wavering due to its gratuitous and terrorist attacks on _the civilian population_. You can't kill huge number of civilians and then get pissed off when they don't like it. In a telling interview I saw recently on Russia Today an Afghan gentleman said "at least the Soviets built things".

I'd love to hear your explanation on how _anyone_ "won" WW2. Many people lost it but as far as I can tell, no one won...


EDIT:


Miek said:


> There is no way to win it. It's not something you can even go to war with. Let alone the fact that foreign intervention will just creat more terrorists.
> I'm not involving myself in this debate, I just want to reinforce the fact that the war on terror is a farce, it is not something that can be warred against, it is not something you can win against, doing so just makes it worse.



Ramen!

Now, I really should be off to bed. Apologies if that seemed rambling in any way; I am tired and angry.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 25, 2011)

ZeroSignal said:


> 4: Never become a diplomat. Ever. Only a fool would speak in absolutes and especially on such a complex issue.
> "i feel this must be done in order to continue my way of life that I cherish and love..." By taking away that of others...?



There is a reason Americans (I'm sure others as well) HATE politicians. That reason is that they do not deal with absolutes. If they do, then they are lying.

But at the end of the day, we agree to disagree.


----------



## Miek (Jan 25, 2011)

I'm with you all the way ZeroSignal.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 26, 2011)

ZeroSignal said:


> Your "opinion" on the allegiance of the civilian population of Iraq and Afghanistan would be laughable if it wasn't so contemptuous. Support for your military is wavering due to its gratuitous and terrorist attacks on _the civilian population_. You can't kill huge number of civilians and then get pissed off when they don't like it. In a telling interview I saw recently on Russia Today an Afghan gentleman said "at least the Soviets built things".
> 
> I'd love to hear your explanation on how _anyone_ "won" WW2. Many people lost it but as far as I can tell, no one won...



Laugh all you want, their alliances are questionable at best. You know it, we know it. And contemptuous? Absolutely. What would you expect me to say? Awww, poor Iraqis, we deposed your dictator and you can't get your shit together, form a government and start taking control of your own country? And I trust friends that have been there on the ground, not even including our own Infinity/Chris for information on the locals. If you think I'm trusting *your* opinion on whether or not the Iraqi's actually give a shit about their own country enough to do something about it, you're mistaken.

So no one *won* WWII eh? What happened then with the Japanese surrendering? Does that not constitute a win? Oh, let me guess, it's a war, so therefore by definition, no one can ever *win* right? You have some hippie definition of love and war? I ask in earnest because I don't see how you can view the US ending of the war as anything *but* a win. Did millions die? Fuck yeah. Was it worth it? Absolutely. 

Gimme a break man. Don't sell me another load of BS about how wars are bad, the US is the great Satan, etc. I've heard it all before. 

EDIT: I had glossed over that part about 9/11 conspiracy theories... sorry but you lost all credibility bringing that up.


----------



## Miek (Jan 26, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Laugh all you want, their alliances are questionable at best. You know it, we know it. And contemptuous? Absolutely. What would you expect me to say? Awww, poor Iraqis, we deposed your dictator and you can't get your shit together, form a government and start taking control of your own country? And I trust friends that have been there on the ground, not even including our own Infinity/Chris for information on the locals. If you think I'm trusting *your* opinion on whether or not the Iraqi's actually give a shit about their own country enough to do something about it, you're mistaken.
> 
> So no one *won* WWII eh? What happened then with the Japanese surrendering? Does that not constitute a win? Oh, let me guess, it's a war, so therefore by definition, no one can ever *win* right? You have some hippie definition of love and war? I ask in earnest because I don't see how you can view the US ending of the war as anything *but* a win. Did millions die? Fuck yeah. Was it worth it? Absolutely.
> 
> ...



While I agree with you that thinking the government _intentionally_ did/caused 9/11 is a ridiculous notion, you're engaging in a logically fallacy, an ad hominem, in trying to destruct his points like that.

As far as the government and 9/11... The government is certainly partly responsible, through imperialistic actions in the middle east, giving weapons and training to insurgents, and in federal ineptitude (the attacks may have been able to have been averted had inter-agency communication not been so slow). But that's not the point - I merely hope that ZeroSignal meant something more along these lines than suggesting a paranoid conspiracy theory.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 26, 2011)

Miek said:


> While I agree with you that thinking the government _intentionally_ did/caused 9/11 is a ridiculous notion, you're engaging in a logically fallacy, an ad hominem, in trying to destruct his points like that.
> 
> As far as the government and 9/11... The government is certainly partly responsible, through imperialistic actions in the middle east, giving weapons and training to insurgents, and in federal ineptitude (the attacks may have been able to have been averted had inter-agency communication not been so slow). But that's not the point - I merely hope that ZeroSignal meant something more along these lines than suggesting a paranoid conspiracy theory.



And whether or not America's foreign policy was tied into the attacks on 9/11 is a subject of *much* debate. However, I don't think ZeroSignal was alluding to our foreign policy as a cause. If I am mistaken, then I am mistaken and misread what he said, for that I apologize. I read that as more conspiracy-theory nonsense, which as I said, at least for me anyway, does not lend him or anyone using it, credibility.


----------



## renzoip (Jan 26, 2011)

Miek said:


> I'm with you all the way ZeroSignal.



Same here. 

I would elaborate on this topic but i think my thoughts have already been expressed.


----------



## Miek (Jan 26, 2011)

orb451 said:


> And whether or not America's foreign policy was tied into the attacks on 9/11 is a subject of *much* debate. However, I don't think ZeroSignal was alluding to our foreign policy as a cause. If I am mistaken, then I am mistaken and misread what he said, for that I apologize. I read that as more conspiracy-theory nonsense, which as I said, at least for me anyway, does not lend him or anyone using it, credibility.



Disregarding foreign policy, I believe we can agree that poor inter-agency communication was an issue prior to the attacks.


----------



## groph (Jan 26, 2011)

clusterfuck thread is a clusterfuck


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 26, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Laugh all you want, their alliances are questionable at best. You know it, we know it. And contemptuous? Absolutely. What would you expect me to say? Awww, poor Iraqis, we deposed your dictator and you can't get your shit together, form a government and start taking control of your own country? And I trust friends that have been there on the ground, not even including our own Infinity/Chris for information on the locals. If you think I'm trusting *your* opinion on whether or not the Iraqi's actually give a shit about their own country enough to do something about it, you're mistaken.
> 
> So no one *won* WWII eh? What happened then with the Japanese surrendering? Does that not constitute a win? Oh, let me guess, it's a war, so therefore by definition, no one can ever *win* right? You have some hippie definition of love and war? I ask in earnest because I don't see how you can view the US ending of the war as anything *but* a win. Did millions die? Fuck yeah. Was it worth it? Absolutely.
> 
> ...



I listen to my mother and father who both lived in Iraq and knew (and still stay in touch with) many locals. I also watch interviews and read articles by experts from around the globe on the issue, not just watch Faux News (thank god you can't even watch that bullshit over here). You sound like a colonialist Englishman with a psychopathic version of white-man's-burden.

The Iraqis have been beaten down by Saddam and now beaten further by the Coalition of The Willing (100,000 dead and millions homeless/displaced). They are now fighting a civil war between the various factions and nations the British cobbled together when they created the state of "Iraq" (although the Americans and the British won't bring themselves to admit it) so I will forgive them if they've got bigger shit to fry than make a government to watch over that clown-car of horror that the Americans and British have unleashed on the poor Iraqis.

Your self-righteous contempt clouds my words. WW2 lead directly on to the Cold War. I even alluded to that in another paragraph. That war isn't over yet. START hasn't been signed (properly) and Russia and China are getting rather friendly.

I mention the "conspiracy" theory because there IS enough evidence to support it as there is to say an American funded Saudi-Arabian terrorist organised the acts. Regardless of your view on whodunit, there are a ridiculous number of unanswered questions, such as how 3 modern steel buildings collapsed due to fire damage making them _the first in history to do so_ and how news broadcasters were stating that the buildings collapsed before they did so.

I never mentioned that the US is the "great satan" - those are your hyperbolic terms, not mine. Don't put words in my mouth, buddy.



groph said:


> clusterfuck thread is a clusterfuck



Agreed.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jan 26, 2011)

Sorry but who created/supported Hizbullah, Taliban, Bin Laden against Iran and Soviet Russia?
Who created the "Green Belt" against Soviets? Who devastated democracies and put dictators ( Like in Iran) ? Who re-formed Turkey since 48 to become more islamic, and still does support the only Islamic Party?
That is U.S.A . After so strong attempts to make middle-east islamic and impossible to convert to Communism, it's only normal that it hits back in time.

Same for Russia. After so many years of Abuse, it's only natural that people get angry and show no mercy.

I am against any kind of Terrorism and war, but if you push a cat to the wall, be prepared to be attacked ! If you wouldn't mess with the cat in the first place, you still would have your both eyes.
Now trying to kill all the cats in the world for revenge is barbaric, inhuman, and weak.

It's like Ron Paul says. If America would mind his own business and get well with the naighbours and off-shore countries, nobody would fly airplanes and crash in!


----------



## Loomer (Jan 26, 2011)

*sigh*

Can't we just... Throw the towel in the ring, destroy humanity and give the planet back to the chimps? They're obviously more civilised than us, looking at the big picture.


----------



## orb451 (Jan 26, 2011)

ZeroSignal said:


> I listen to my mother and father who both lived in Iraq and knew (and still stay in touch with) many locals. I also watch interviews and read articles by experts from around the globe on the issue, not just watch Faux News (thank god you can't even watch that bullshit over here). You sound like a colonialist Englishman with a psychopathic version of white-man's-burden.



Is that supposed to be some kind of insult? I don't care where you're getting your news or how many like minded new outlets you use to back up what you've already got in your own head. Personally I don't watch "Faux News" but that's a very witty pun.

So tell us, from your parents' experience with locals living there, are they angry and becoming militant as a result of the occupation? Are they taking up arms to fight the US for even being there in the first place? Are they *pretending* to be American allies, but in actuality hold little or no regard for democracy or freedom?

Or are they just trying to survive?

Like I said, I don't blame them for trying to survive what is a nightmarish scenario, but, I do blame them if they're not interested in taking over the reins of their own damned country. It's their country, they need to (sooner, rather than later) take over security. This next idea may run contrary to what you think a "Faux News" watcher or "Sociopath" might think, but in all honesty, speaking for me, I don't want our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan any longer. I would rather cut and run, than sit there ad infinitum in some kind of stalemate with an enemy too cowardly to show his face and fight. I don't want a continued military presense in Iraq or Afghanistan. Again, they are sovereign nations, let them do as they will as far as getting their act together is concerned. And if or when some *new* dictator is elected, appointed or self-made, and he hates the US, so be it. I couldn't care less who likes or hates us on the world stage. 

But, should that new dictator or government start threatening the US, then yes, I believe we should get involved. Short of that, no, I'd just assumed let them be. Same with every other country. I won't minimal US intervention in the goings on of other nations. Provided they're not threatening us directly or our allies.




ZeroSignal said:


> Your self-righteous contempt clouds my words. WW2 lead directly on to the Cold War. I even alluded to that in another paragraph. That war isn't over yet. START hasn't been signed (properly) and Russia and China are getting rather friendly.



I don't know what my contempt has to do with your ability to express yourself. You weren't arguing about the Cold War and how it started, you were arguing that there were no winners in WWII. Why, because you *think* it hasn't ended? It did end. WWII is over. It's been over since what, 1945? Done. Finished. The Cold War, which you're talking about ended in 1991 with the dissolution of the former Soviet Union. It wasn't WWII revision2. It wasn't even a war. It was a Mexican standoff between two nuclear powers. One of which went through a huge political paradigm shift. It was by no means a conventional "war". And again, it's been over for about 20 years now. If you want to tie in anything Nuclear related (START, etc) into the Cold War umbrella you're free to do so, but you'd be mistaken.



ZeroSignal said:


> I mention the "conspiracy" theory because there IS enough evidence to support it as there is to say an American funded Saudi-Arabian terrorist organised the acts. Regardless of your view on whodunit, there are a ridiculous number of unanswered questions, such as how 3 modern steel buildings collapsed due to fire damage making them _the first in history to do so_ and how news broadcasters were stating that the buildings collapsed before they did so.



So where's all this evidence suggesting an American funded Saudi terrorist organization exists, or was responsible for the attacks on 9/11? By American funded, I assume you mean the government *paid* money in USD to some foreign terror organization with the goal of attacking innocent Americans? I'd love to read the evidence that suggests that's the case. That's hilarious.

Ridiculous number of unanswered questions? Really? Ridiculous number must be a lot. What are all these questions? You cited two. Once again, if you're hinting at controlled demolition in any way, shape or form, I suggest you read up on physics. You can read about thermite and get a good understanding of how it *really* works, not how conspiracy nutters *think* it works. Here's a good site with a lot of information on 9/11:

Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage

I know it must be somehow funded by, or tied into "Faux News" or zionist pigs or some other blame worthy group.  The information stands on its own, as it should in direct opposition to those that think 9/11 was an inside job.


----------



## Customisbetter (Jan 26, 2011)

If I were a Terrorist, I would live for the day when I can attack a country in cold blood, admit to it, and then watch the citizens of that country blame each other.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 26, 2011)

ZeroSignal said:


> Your self-righteous contempt clouds my words.



Pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Sonar8 (Jan 26, 2011)

+ 1 for the views of CustomisBetter and Infinity Complex. If a country is going to war, hold nothing back and do what it must to bring peace for itself. Fight for all it believes or die trying.


An all or nothing approach is the way to go.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jan 26, 2011)

Sonar8 said:


> + 1 for the views of CustomisBetter and Infinity Complex. If a country is going to war, hold nothing back and do what it must to bring peace for itself. Fight for all it believes or die trying.
> 
> 
> An all or nothing approach is the way to go.



Since when someone begins a war for PEACE? How you get that by killing and destroying?
U.S.A never had any foreign attack on it's land till 9/11. and the only reason for that was it's own actions on foreign lands.


----------



## groph (Jan 26, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Since when someone begins a war for PEACE? How you get that by killing and destroying?
> U.S.A never had any foreign attack on it's land till 9/11. and the only reason for that was it's own actions on foreign lands.



Pearl Harbor

/nitpicker


----------



## espman (Jan 26, 2011)

Just read this entire thread and my head is fucking killing me.

War DOES NOT create peace, especially a war like infinity/custom are suggesting. All that will accomplish is wiping the slate clean, kind of like erasing chalk off of a chalkboard, the original writing may be gone, but you can still see fairly clearly what was written before it. From that standpoint, even if the US sucessfully wiped out all the guilty parties, the blood is still on the streets, and that would more than likely turn the remaning innocent people into enemies. Wipe them out and you get neighboring countries turning into enemies. Keep that trend up and sooner than you know it, the entire world is going to be against you, and when that happens, you're SOL and JWF.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jan 26, 2011)

groph said:


> Pearl Harbor
> 
> /nitpicker



Sorry man, even most of the internet vendors take Hawaii and Alaska serious LOL

I should use the words "main land" maybe.


----------



## Miek (Jan 26, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> Sorry man, even most of the internet vendors take Hawaii and Alaska serious LOL
> 
> I should use the words "main land" maybe.



Attacks on North America during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 26, 2011)

daemon barbeque said:


> and the only reason for that was it's own actions on foreign lands.



Wrong.

EDIT:

Regardless, we've strayed horribly off-topic (yes, partly my fault).

Original topic was the suicide bombing in a Russian airport, not American foreign relations. If anybody wants to continue this discussion, we need to start a separate thread.


----------



## DesertBurst (Jan 26, 2011)

ZeroSignal said:


> I mention the "conspiracy" theory because there IS enough evidence to support it as there is to say an American funded Saudi-Arabian terrorist organised the acts. Regardless of your view on whodunit, there are a ridiculous number of unanswered questions, such as how 3 modern steel buildings collapsed due to fire damage making them _the first in history to do so_ and how news broadcasters were stating that the buildings collapsed before they did so.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 27, 2011)

Infinity Complex said:


> Regardless, we've strayed horribly off-topic (yes, partly my fault).
> 
> Original topic was the suicide bombing in a Russian airport, not American foreign relations. If anybody wants to continue this discussion, we need to start a separate thread.



You're right. I'm dropping this shit like it's hot... 

Anyways, although the Russian Federation has declared that it's war against the Chechen separatists is over they clearly have a lot of work to do.

I think that the only real perps could be either Chechen or Dagestani separatists or a staged terrorist attack by the FSB or GRU to try and justify another military offensive.

The Russians have allegedly done so before (Belsen School Siege, Moscow apartment bombings pre-Second Chechen War).

The situation in Chechnya has always been fucked. I wouldn't be surprised if the warlord governor that the Russians installed will do something to cause even more unrest.


----------



## Loomer (Jan 27, 2011)

Loomer said:


> *sigh*
> 
> Can't we just... Throw the towel in the ring, destroy humanity and give the planet back to the chimps? They're obviously more civilised than us, looking at the big picture.



Hahaha, I got a pretty brilliant pos rep for this one:

"Nice, but chimps are actually raping, murdering assholes. As are dolphins."

Since it wasn't signed, I'll reply here:

Well, I wasn't implying they were saints either 
I just said they are more civilised than humans at their worst, which I still stand by, knowing that chimps do horrid things too like. 

Like eat babies.


----------



## Miek (Jan 27, 2011)

I'm almost positive it's an attack from a Chechen/Chechens.

Loomer: I don't know, dude, eating babies is just plain dumb. They don't even taste good.


----------



## Chickenhawk (Jan 27, 2011)

ZeroSignal said:


> Anyways, although the Russian Federation has declared that it's war against the Chechen separatists is over they clearly have a lot of work to do.
> 
> I think that the only real perps could be either Chechen or Dagestani separatists or a staged terrorist attack by the FSB or GRU to try and justify another military offensive.
> 
> ...



Agreed. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was Separatists, or the Russians themselves. They are bat shit crazy.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 28, 2011)

Infinity Complex said:


> Agreed. It wouldn't surprise me at all if it was Separatists, or the Russians themselves. They are bat shit crazy.



On a _related_ note: it's the fact that governments around the WORLD are batshit crazy is what would make me unsurprised if other major terrorist attacks were staged by governments to provide leverage either politically or militarily. Especially since so many countries have fallen into the Military Industrial Complex trap and Russia is no exception. They've been itching to expand and modernise their military away from the Soviet conscript horde concept (very few of their armoured vehicles even have GPS) and towards professional "contract" troops.

I'm just trying to figure out where the leverage would be for this particular attack since the Chechen war is "over".


----------

