All American friends are possible targets

**stroller** · 20-07-2007, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by machangezi

They might, if they really care about their citizens, stop poking their fucking nose in other's business if their civilians are killed in the same way they kill civilians of other countries. No?

Hmm, "they might"...not reason enough for me to kill Milkman or Buad hai.

Actually, I used to make posts like you do, until I realised it was my own anger and feeling of disempowerment which was dragging me down to advocate what I disapprove of.

**ADare** · 20-07-2007, 08:52 PM

^^ No.

**machangezi** · 20-07-2007, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by machangezi

They might, if they really care about their citizens, stop poking their fucking nose in other's business if their civilians are killed in the same way they kill civilians of other countries. No?

Hmm, "they might"...not reason enough for me to kill Milkman or Buad hai.

Actually, I used to make posts like you do, until I realised it was my own anger and feeling of disempowerment which was dragging me down to advocate what I disapprove of.

So the Muslims should sit on their arses and welcome the Americans to slain them?

**ADare** · 20-07-2007, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

Hmm, "they might"...not reason enough for me to kill Milkman or Buad hai.

Surely nothing that they do is 100% guaranteed to work. Everything is "it might work".

Do you therefore advocate that they do nothing and stand by and watch friends and family be killed until they themselves are?

edit. machangezi got there first

**ceburat** · 20-07-2007, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by machangezi

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by buad hai

to avoid being a legitimate target of terrorists?

No,no, not "terrorists", just pissed-off guys who want to revenge relatives' death and think the US will withdraw their troops if they torture you to death!

I think "blood for blood and eye for an eye" is the answer to the US aggression worldwide.

They might, if they really care about their citizens, stop poking their fucking nose in other's business if their civilians are killed in the same way they kill civilians of other countries. No?

If you really believe "blood for blood and eye for an eye" then you can really understand why the U. S. does what it does.

There is no US aggression, only a response to terorists type activities.

**buad hai** · 20-07-2007, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by ceburat

There is no US aggression, only a response to terorists type activities.

Nonsense. The proper response to terrorism is decent police work, not a "war" with its concomitant collateral damage.

**stroller** · 20-07-2007, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by machangezi

So the Muslims should sit on their arses and welcome the Americans to slain them?

Originally Posted by ADare

Do you therefore advocate that they do nothing and stand by and watch friends and family be killed until they themselves are?

I haven't said anything of the kind. Fekk, this thread is a joke.

Do any of you little puppies believe topping off Buad Hai (nothing personal, just as an example) would change anything, or that he deserves it in any way?

Further:
1) The hypothetical scenario describes an accident, not an intentional targeting - an important difference.
2) Either war activities in the area have to stop, or people got to move out, given that the weapons are somewhat inaccurate in some cases.
Both can be worked towards without killing random US citizens. There are media, political pressure groups and other non-violent channels, you could join the 'war' on the other side in the war area, or, as is proposed here, you could commit the kind of terrorist activities which have escalated the conflict into armed war in the area to start with - seems the least effective and least morally justifiable option to me.

**stroller** · 20-07-2007, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by ceburat

If you really believe "blood for blood and eye for an eye" then you can really understand why the U. S. does what it does.

There is no US aggression, only a response to terorists type activities.

I agree, and both are equally deplorable.

**machangezi** · 20-07-2007, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by Stroller

There are media, political pressure groups and other non-violent channels, you could join the 'war' on the other side in the war area,

What makes you think that it will work? Fuck me, even the UN couldn't stop the Americans from illegally invading Iraq. Where are the pressure groups? If they exist how long would they take to solve this issue?

**ChiangMai noon** · 20-07-2007, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by buad hai

Is there some place I can sign out from this? All I really want is fresh sheets, a warm shower and a clean place to shit.

you really are on one tonight aren't you.

**ADare** · 20-07-2007, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

2) Either war activities in the area have to stop, or people got to move out, given that the weapons are somewhat inaccurate in some cases. Both can be worked towards without killing random US citizens. There are media, political pressure groups and other non-violent channels, you could join the 'war' on the other side in the war area, or, as is proposed here, you could commit the kind of terrorist activities which have escalated the conflict into armed war in the area to start with - seems the least effective and least morally justifiable option to me.

All of the above are routes that could be taken. Some routes will have a better results in stopping the killing of your family. The unfortunate thing is no one can tell which will best get the desired result.

To be on the safe side, it is probably better to do all of them. Obviously no one person can do it all, so some people will be the ones to go the route of the "terrorist".

Can this action be morally justified, yes I think it can.

**Little Chuchok** · 20-07-2007, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by machangezi

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

Originally Posted by machangezi

He asked "what would you guys do if one of the American missiles miss the target and land in your house, as it usually does?" For a while there was a pin drop silence but then the silence broke when one of them said "if any of my family members get hurt (forget being killed by those so called precision bombs), all Americans (soldiers and civilians) anywhere on earth are targets.

Educated,or just plain stupid?

Educated by the Western standards!

Ok he is educated, but stupid.

I might just start slagging off all pakis,because one ripped my old man off in 1990.fcuk it,why don't I just go on big a paki bash with a few pissed up lads?...'cause that'll learn 'em.

So your mate would target all those yanks that are against the war etc?What about Muslim yanks????They must be targets too.

**barbaro** · 20-07-2007, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by ceburat

There is no US aggression, only a response to terorists type activities.

In Iraq? Guatemala with Arbenz? Cambodia? Panama? Iran in 1953? Hawaii in the late 1800s? Vietnam? Argentina with Allende?

The US is the same today as it was 150 years ago.

**stroller** · 20-07-2007, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by ADare

Can this action be morally justified, yes I think it can.

Which part would you take?

Justify killing random US civilians, let's put personalities to them - Buad Hai, Milkman, Hillbilly, Surasak, FriscoFrankie.

**barbaro** · 20-07-2007, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by machangezi

Sorry Milky I don't get your point. Do you mean to say that when Americans kill innocents it's a collateral damage and when Americans are killed it's murder??

No, not at all.

My post was unclear. My bad.

By the US trying to play it to ways I mean:

The US kills civilians all of the time. Not just by accident but by simply saying, "oh well, that's collateral damage, sorry."

But when a military person, contractor, or Foreign service person is killed, they call this American a "victim."

But the people the Americans kill are not "victims."

This is a concept called "Worthy vs. Unworthy" victims.

The U.S. media makes lots of reports, that tug at people's emotion about the poor American (usually military) that gets killed. They interview his family with moist eyes, talking about how he "really liked helping people," and then sometimes even interview his old high school teacher, who might a political comment: "he had to fight them on their soil, or they'd come to America and attack us."

Worth and Unworthy Victims come from Naom Chomsky in his book Manufacturing Consent.

**stroller** · 20-07-2007, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by machangezi

What makes you think that it will work? Fuck me, even the UN couldn't stop the Americans from illegally invading Iraq. Where are the pressure groups? If they exist how long would they take to solve this issue?

What makes you think killing US civilians will work? Have the American troops withdrawn after the beheading videos, or what was the reaction?

Would you rather be seen making a speech in public or having a signed letter published, or would you prefer to feature in a video wearing a mask sawing someone's head off? What's the more honorable thing to do?

**ADare** · 20-07-2007, 09:44 PM

^^^ Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes.

It does not mean I have to like it or agree with it, but it can be morally justified.

**ceburat** · 20-07-2007, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by buad hai

Originally Posted by ceburat

There is no US aggression, only a response to terorists type activities.

Nonsense. The proper response to terrorism is decent police work, not a "war" with its concomitant collateral damage.

What International Police Force do we have that can handle the 911 scene?

What International Police Force do we have that can convince one religion that they cannot kill anyone who does not agree with them or join with them?

**blackgang** · 20-07-2007, 09:47 PM

Originally Posted by machangezi

Spot on bro but those Talibans or freedom fighters in Iraq ain't our heros. Hezbollah fighters are what I might, still not sure as I don't know a lot about them, consider as heroes.

How very correct you are, Hezbollah fighters only fire rockets from populated areas that is home to many civillians and only have their bases and compounds and seek out fire fights in populated areas so they when anyone wants to stop them that they have to kill a lot of civillians or no Hezbollah fighters.

So the Muslims should sit on their arses and welcome the Americans to slain them?

Not at all, they should be doing exactly as they are doing now in both Paki and Iraq,, filling cars and their undershirts with dynamite and killing as many of their own countrymen as they can,, just same o same o.

**stroller** · 20-07-2007, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by ceburat

What International Police Force do we have that can convince one religion that they cannot kill anyone who does not agree with them or join with them?

Which "religion" needs to be convinced? Maybe your brand of Christianity?

**ceburat** · 20-07-2007, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by ceburat

What International Police Force do we have that can convince one religion that they cannot kill anyone who does not agree with them or join with them?

Which "religion" needs to be convinced? Maybe your brand of Christianity?

My brand of christianity has never killed anyone and never will. As to your question, Which "religion" needs to be convinced? You already know the answer to that one.

**blackpanther** · 20-07-2007, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by blackgang

Hezbollah fighters only fire rockets from populated areas that is home to many civillians and only have their bases and compounds and seek out fire fights in populated areas

so they should play the queensbury rules?

expose youselves lads to our superior firepower so we can wipe yer dirty filty upsurgent (ain't that a new word for freedom fighter btw??) ass off the earth!!!!!!

ya got them all in one bomb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**ceburat** · 20-07-2007, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by blackpanther

Originally Posted by blackgang

Hezbollah fighters only fire rockets from populated areas that is home to many civillians and only have their bases and compounds and seek out fire fights in populated areas

so they should play the queensbury rules?

expose youselves lads to our superior firepower so we can wipe yer dirty filty upsurgent (ain't that a new word for freedom fighter btw??) ass off the earth!!!!!!

ya got them all in one bomb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They should not play by the queensbury rules. What they should do is quit hiding behind women and children to do their dirty work, hoping that no one would fire back. When the enemy does fire back they cry - you shot innocent women and children, not, you shot back at the enemy. All blood shed from this type of fighting is directly on the hands on the fighters hiding behind the women and children.

**blackpanther** · 20-07-2007, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by ceburat

They should not play by the queensbury rules.

ok

Originally Posted by ceburat

hiding behind women and children to do their dirty work

ummmm...not queensbury rules??

Originally Posted by ceburat

All blood shed from this type of fighting is directly on the hands on the fighters hiding behind the women and children.

not queensbury rules but whose bombs killed the women, kids and men?

kinda hard to defeat the emotional "kid killer" argument however hard it is to rationalise....

**stroller** · 20-07-2007, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by ceburat

Which "religion" needs to be convinced? You already know the answer to that one.

Yes, I know your answer to that.
Maybe it's not the religion itself, but some of its misguided followers, who need to be talked out of medieval sentiments like "an eye for an eye"?

Thread: All American friends are possible targets

Thread Tools

Display

targets

targets

targets

targets

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions