Osama Bin Laden is DEAD!

[TheGreatSatan]

Is this true?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110502/pl_atlantic/cnnosamabinladendead37230_1

[OvRiDe]

Well if you can believe the news, it is. In this case, I believe they are right.

The news does need to settle down a bit. They keep talking like this is the end of terrorism, but he was not the sole source. He had followers that will be more then happy to take up the torch.

I do wish he had been captured so he could stand trial, if only to bring to light to some of his followers, the insanity he preached. Dead he has become a martyr.

I keep hearing the news say "We can go back to normal" or "we can fly without fear".. these are the things we cannot do at least for the moment. We should be extremely cautious for retaliation strikes. These are extremists and thus logical in their minds.

[TheGreatSatan]

I just hope he's enjoying all those virgins

[altec]

I just hope he's enjoying all those virgins

All those 50 year old hairy male virgins... Gotta read the fine print!


Usama Bin Laden is dead?

[Ichbin]

One thing to consider though, it will make Obama look fantastic during the election.

[altec]

One thing to consider though, it will make Obama look fantastic during the election.

Will it?

[dr.walrus]

Shrug. Don't imagine this news changing anything.

[crenn]

When I first heard about it, I thought it was a joke. Either way, shrugging my shoulders at this.

[Fuganater]

Confirmed kill. Fells good to say that.

[OvRiDe]

Yah, since he was the leader of an organization that was responsible for an attack that took nearly 3000 American lives and changed our way of life forever, I can see where some might not see a sense of justice as others might. For many of the victims families it may only be a sense of closure. Judging from the crowds forming at Ground Zero and the Capitol it means something to those that have a more direct connection. Where as it might not change our policies or Al Qaeda's dedication, it does change some things, even if its only at a personal level.

[blaze15301]

i dont understand why everyone is getting all happy about this. the man was a terrorist but someone worst will just step into his place. its like oneslow said.its not the end of terrorism

[OvRiDe]

. its like oneslow said.its not the end of terrorism
ummm.. oneslow hasn't said anything on here yet.. :whistler:

...but my previous post might explain while people are happy.

As for worse... we can only address the known, and wait for the unknown to surface.

[x88x]

For many of the victims families it may only be a sense of closure. Judging from the crowds forming at Ground Zero and the Capitol it means something to those that have a more direct connection. Where as it might not change our policies or Al Qaeda's dedication, it does change some things, even if its only at a personal level.
/\That, pretty much.

I doubt it'll change any major policies or practices for anyone on either side, but it's good to know we finally got the bastard.

[Liquid_Scope_99]

/\That, pretty much.

I doubt it'll change any major policies or practices for anyone on either side, but it's good to know we finally got the bastard.

Amen Brother could not have said it any better myself

[TheGreatSatan]

It's like the royal wedding. Just a little time to be happy and forget the wars

[Fuganater]

We are doing champagne in the office since we kinda helped :D

[Oneslowz28]

Like OvRiDe said, this is not the end of terrorism. It is however the end of an era and the beginning of something new. Someone will step up and take over as the so called leader. They will plan some form of retaliation and unfortunately some innocent person will lose their life because some radical thinks it is better to kill than to adapt and evolve to the 21 century. We ( I mean WE as in every freedom and democracy loving individual on earth) must still remain on alert and keep an eye out for anyone who seems out of place or has that shady look about them. The plain fact is that terrorist ( at least the leaders anyway) are not the dumb asses that we take them to be. The train their followers to adapt and break the rules they live by, the terrorist that will attack American soil will not be wearing sandals, a turban and robe. They will look like you and I, will partake in the same activities as we do and will even speak fluent English like most of us. I predict that we will be fighting the war on terror for the rest of most of our lives if not our kids lives as well. The moment we let our guard down is the moment something bad will happen.

The one thing that is really pissing me off about this whole situation is that our president did not mention or give praise to the men and women of our Armed Services. They are the ones who have spent the last 10 years crawling through caves, walking through deserts and fighting in -20 to 120 degree weather to find that bastard. It's these people who deserve the full credit. The special ops unit who went in did not suffer even a single minor injury despite one of their choppers being damaged in the fire fight and having to make a crash landing. This is a testament to how well trained and well prepared our special forces are.

My thanks go out to every man and woman who is serving or has served in our Armed Services. I plan on finding a vet or active service member today at random and buying them lunch or as many cold beers as they can drink. I want to personally thank TGS and SgtM for serving in the USMC and keeping America free!

[lynn's engraving]

jeez, y'all should read some of the conspiracy idiots' comments already circulating. it's quite entertaining in a sad kind of way.

retaliation is my fear at the moment, but i'm not convinced they're capable of pulling off a major hit, especially al-queda. i'm not in the CIA, though, so i can't say for sure. his death is, to me, more symbolic now than threat removal. then again, i've heard that if we only knew how many terrorist plots are foiled we wouldn't be able to sleep at night, so perhaps bin laden's death will help abate that to some, or even a large, degree.

definitely great news. it doesn't mean anything has ended... but it sure ended bin laden's ability to kill innocent people.

an interesting weekend. a peasant marries a prince, gadhafi loses a son in a missile attack, and the most notorious terrorist in the world is killed. maybe next weekend NATO will nail that s.o.b. qaddafi. hey, syria, how's it hangin'? we'll be seeing you real soon, i'm guessing. :)

i think we need more weekends like this....

[Fuganater]

Very well said Oneslowz28.

I will never speak bad about our friends and family that server in the Millitary. I respect their decision to join the Millitary to server our country but there many others out there serving our country that do not wear a uniform. Many of my friends are there that are Millitary and non-Millitary. I chose a USG career over the Millitary due to my attitude. (Problem with authority. I would probably chew some drill SGT out.) I spent my time in the Middle East and almost no one knows I was there or what I was doing. Granted I'm not the guy with the gun, but we are there. Just not as visible as our Millitary counterparts.

I'm not looking for thanks or trying to talk down the Millitary. Just letting everyone know, there are more than just the Armed Services out there protecting this country. Especially for bringing down UBL.

[Beta-brain]

And Pakistan never knew he was there?

The compound in which Osama bin Laden was found and killed in a targeted operation has already been mapped on Google.

The compound, in Abbbotabad, is about 800 feet (250 metres) from a police station, according to the map, and also features in a Flickr photo from February 2007.

The photo, taken by a Flickr user called "Environmentalist", who has taken a number of photos around Abbotabad, says that it lies inside the historic "cantt. police station (fortress)" and that it is included in the demolition list of the provincial government works department. It is unknown whether that was a ruse to divert people from its importance to Al-Q'aida. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/may/02/osama-bin-laden-compound-mapped-google)

[jdbnsn]

Shrug. Don't imagine this news changing anything.

Agreed, other than ratings and election rhetoric it's not much to me either. To my knowledge, Osama hasn't personally killed anyone since the Afghan war vs the Soviets. During which his earliest accomplishments were financial support, building of orphanages, distributing medicine, and building roads and trenches. He did become a warrior (kind of impressive for a rich boy volunteer conscript) during that time but not very proficient as a fighter, he found his true talent as an organizer of support with the guidance of CIA and special forces sent to bolster support against the USSR. That is when the Al Queda (literally "base of intelligence") became his baby. He didn't give much of a damn about the west until his family invited the USA to help fight against Saddam (another CIA trained leadership figure). His complaints were that we would never leave once bases were established (correct), we would only be helping to preserve and later exploit our interests in oil reserves (correct), and that we would ignore the religious law of the land (correct). Thats when he went all Jihad on our ass. But his complaint about us building on his holy land is not much different about our complaint regarding the plans to build an Islamic cultural center at ground zero (plans later abandoned due to Muslims agreeing that it was not appropriate and the backlash likely to be huge) except amplify "offendedness" a few hundred times.

I do agree 100% with the above statements that "Terrorism" is not abolished. So long as military operations remain profitable to key decision makers in Washington D.C., it never will be abolished. I guarantee it. It may seem like conspiracy theory, but look into it for yourself, I'm not making this **** up. Kind of wish I was.

[dr.walrus]

Though the man was a mass murderer, I am still disconcerted by anyone having street parties to celebrate someone's death.

[Fuganater]

Though the man was a mass murderer, I am still disconcerted by anyone having street parties to celebrate someone's death.

Yes but at least no one was burning Korans.

[xr4man]

Though the man was a mass murderer, I am still disconcerted by anyone having street parties to celebrate someone's death.

yeah, i was thinking the same thing. that and making jokes about it. yeah, i believe F**K that dude and the horse he rode in on, but i don't think it's very couth to be making jokes or partying about it for some reason.

[slaveofconvention]

So the American armed forces finally got the guy - it's amazing what you guys can accomplish when the Playstation network is down.....

*grins and runs*

[xr4man]

BWAHAHAHAHA!

that's just wrong.

[Luke122]

So the American armed forces finally got the guy - it's amazing what you guys can accomplish when the Playstation network is down.....

*grins and runs*

Like.
:D

*also runs*

[Airbozo]

So the American armed forces finally got the guy - it's amazing what you guys can accomplish when the Playstation network is down.....

*grins and runs*

...well when they finally got the Seals involved **** happened...

Just sayin'...

(and yes that is funny!)

[lynn's engraving]

neither did hitler personally kill anyone after his stint in WWI.

simply, bin laden was a religious extremist, hateful of the west, jews, most other muslims and chilled water (no joke). his organization, which has a number of interpretations such as 'the base' and 'the database,' had killed or orchestrated the murder of thousands of people since its inception in 1988 (as i recall, he didn't 'take it over,' he began it as rather a secretive organization). their first failed terrorist act resulted in a couple of civilian deaths, which later al-queda justified, saying the death of innocent bystanders was okay as they would receive their reward in heaven if they were a 'good muslim.' the rub was anyone that didn't believe in bin laden's specific form of muslim was a 'bad muslim.'

in essense, the man would have killed anyone that didn't believe in his ideology. and he did his absolute best to see that end carried out. americans, jews, muslims ~ the man was truly a lunatic on the par of hitler. the soap opera that is the middle east could serve any purpose you want it to. in osama's case, he was really set off by saudi's rejection of him and allowing american troops on their soil while iraq pressured saudi (going to have to look that back up, but that's how i remember it). he could have used any number of excuses to focus on america, or, say, egypt or libya for that matter. funny, i don't remember seeing any reports of him complaining when we 'covertly' helped rout the soviets from afghanistan. he also didn't limit his terrorism campaign to america or our soldiers. no, not at all! it's just what he's most notorious for.

osama's masterplan for 'his' people was to keep them subjugated through fear, threats, ignorance, religious zealousy and violence. for the rest he simply had murder on his brain.

he was simply a modern day hitler, a man with charisma and money to see his insane beliefs come to fruition. he had no real justification for his actions, he just used whatever justification he had at his disposal to convince others to see it his way. he really didn't have any qualms with the litany of genocidal dictators slaughtering their own people ~ they weren't 'good' muslims. one thing that attracted him to find in afghanistan was they were under taliban rule, and they were the only 'truly' muslim country as far as bin laden was concerned, meaning that they were the most extreme in their beliefs and practices. essentially, he was a 'freedom' fighter to preserve a regime's ability to abuse their people. i guess that equates to a 'holy warrior' to some people. not me.

when you say we wouldn't preserve the religious law of the land, i'm not sure what you mean by that. anything less than sharia law osama would not suffer. what osama (and most zealots) fear is people getting their freedom. some fear it leads to other people's passage to hell, others fear it would destroy their backwards way of life, i.e. ruin the party by such things as, gasp, not treating women like slaves.

it truly is a soap opera there. we have pakistan, who we've given over $18B to in the last ten years, who's supposed to be an ally (albeit a strategic ally), who certainly was aware of bin laden's presense, and protest us as we speak. go figure. just goes to show that a good deed never goes unpunished.

osama bin laden is dead and the world is a safer place for it. he had to be captured or killed because he *was* the figurehead of terrorism, even if he was perhaps no longer his organization's functional leader.

and as much as i hate it, we have to stay in afghanistan, i believe, since it's a hotbed of terrorist activity and the staging point for so many attacks. i want to have faith in the idea that all of these dictatorships will fall like dominos in time. i'm waiting for libya, then syria. i just wish we were as good at installing democracy as we are sometimes at liberating a country from tyranny, lol. we're best at fighting wars of attrition, though, that's why we 'lost' vietnam and that's one reason, among others i've heard of, we're not bound to 'win' afghanistan any time soon, because they don't fight the same kind of war we do. it's like our generals haven't read 'the art of war', lol.

[AmEv]

No, you see, the PSN was down so they could find where Osama's PS3 was, and track him that way.


In all seriousness, I'm glad terrorism is coming to a close.

[x88x]

I will never speak bad about our friends and family that server in the Millitary. I respect their decision to join the Millitary to server our country but there many others out there serving our country that do not wear a uniform. Many of my friends are there that are Millitary and non-Millitary. I chose a USG career over the Millitary due to my attitude. (Problem with authority. I would probably chew some drill SGT out.) I spent my time in the Middle East and almost no one knows I was there or what I was doing. Granted I'm not the guy with the gun, but we are there. Just not as visible as our Millitary counterparts.

Agreed. That's one thing that a lot of people forget (or, to be fair, don't know in the first place). The number of civilian contractors in active warzones is, I'm pretty sure, the highest in the history of our nation. And no, I'm not talking about PMCs. I'm talking about support staff, weapons developers, countermeasure developers, intelligence analysts, and so on.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, huge respect and thanks to everyone involved.

[dr.walrus]

osama's masterplan for 'his' people was to keep them subjugated through fear, threats, ignorance, religious zealousy and violence. for the rest he simply had murder on his brain.


Okay, with all that said, our armies have killed triple the 9/11 casualties in afghanistan alone. More like 20 times that many in Iraq. Do our own civilian casualties justify that loss of life?

What if those civilian casualties were US citizens on US soil?

[lynn's engraving]

our government's function is to protect us. like i said, i'm not in the CIA or have any insider information other than what i'm able to cull together and talking to people in real life who've been in the military (those rangers won't tell me *anything*, damnit, lol), so how am i able to justify civilian deaths? well, we bombed the hell out of germany to end the murder of our troops and civilians. too, we dropped atomic bombs in japan, killing thousands of civilians, to end a war. i can't say it's the best solution.

in afghanistan, it's probably trickier since they don't wear uniforms saying 'shoot us, we're terrorists!' not meaning to be flippant, there. sure, civilians die even in surgical missile strikes, but also the enemy surrounds themselves with civilians as a deterrant for such strikes.

[dr.walrus]

The funny thing is that I wish we had his body here stateside to party over. The bastard was responsible for the death of 3000 innocent Americans, most of whom did not get a "proper" burial because they were either burned or crushed to dust. We should have denied him the same right.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but the whole 'burial' thing just struck me as odd. Whatever their reasons, I'm not concerned with a corpse.


Yes our own civilian casualties justify the deaths of 10,000x as many radicals and insurgents.

I asked about civilians. Women and children. People trying to raise their families. Just like the people who died in the WTC. What about them?


They brought the fight to the USA on 9-11

Who exactly? Most of the Taliban fighters do it purely because they're paid well. Most of the casualties we've had in the last ten yeas have been non-combatants, and i find it sickening that people think that's okay because they're not from the same country.


so no one should get pissy when the USA totally and completely demolishes their way of life and attempts to wipe them from the face of the earth.

...You're idealising genocide? Who is this 'them'? What is this 'way of life'? Islam? I don't have a problem with getting rid of abhorrent religious extremism, but we're just creating a breeding ground for it over there.


Until those living in the middle east, and other muslim nations wake up and realize that we live in the 21st century, there will always be a war on terror.
Look at the uprisings that are happening right now. Look at the prtests in Iran when Ahmedinijhad was elected. Look at the men queueing up to have their beards shaven when the Taliban were deposed in Afghanistan (ostensibly a good outcome from the war, but at what cost?). The middle east is brimming with those who want rid of extremist governments, but until we stop waving a huge club and expecting them to comply, they will continue to vote in people who have hard line policies, who they think will protect them.

All I'm saying is, there ARE lots of moderate muslims in the middle east who aren't rabidly anti-american, but by supposing they're all fanatics, we've killed indiscriminately at times, and every time we do, extremists gain legitimacy.

[dr.walrus]

well, we bombed the hell out of germany to end the murder of our troops and civilians. too, we dropped atomic bombs in japan, killing thousands of civilians, to end a war. i can't say it's the best solution.

Actually, that's a good analogy. Germany + Japan lost well over a million civilians to British and American bombing (mainly fire-bombing, a surprisingly little known fact is that most of the devastation caused to Japan was by conventional ordnance).

I would certainly have never argue I would want to live in a world with Nazi Germany at the helm, I'm simply saying that generals have been hung as war criminals for much less.

The truth is, WW2 was partially caused by the financial impositions on Germany at the end of WW2. They lost their monarchy, half their country and they were crippled by debt. When the wall street crash happened, people started starving on the streets. What did they do? They elected someone hard-line. The rest is history...



in afghanistan, it's probably trickier since they don't wear uniforms saying 'shoot us, we're terrorists!' not meaning to be flippant, there. sure, civilians die even in surgical missile strikes, but also the enemy surrounds themselves with civilians as a deterrant for such strikes.

Actually, I have real sympathy for some of the Iraqi fighters. Some of them have watched their families killed - wouldn't you pick up a gun to defend yourself?

Christ, I'm not arguing that I think these administrations in the middle east are right, it's just that when you put people against the wall, they fight back, hard and nasty. Are we too bloody stupid to see that?

[x88x]

Who is this 'them'? What is this 'way of life'? Islam? I don't have a problem with getting rid of abhorrent religious extremism, but we're just creating a breeding ground for it over there.
I'm pretty sure the abhorrent religious extremism is exactly what he was talking about demolishing.

EDIT:
And at the risk of raising further, deeper issues, most of your other comments are based in a simple fact of life. War is an endless cycle of hate with each side (usually) utterly convinced that it is entirely in the right...even when usually neither side is. Does that mean we should ignore bad things that happen during war? No, definitely not. But the fact remains that it is war. War is a horrible, despicable thing and horrible, despicable things happen during war, on both sides. It is easy to demonize the people involved in such a war, and this one is no exception. It is easy to call them murderers and empathize with the other side (whichever side that is) taking up arms. It is also easy to philosophize about the evils of war and how we as human beings are predisposed to violence as a reaction to violence. What is hard is taking any action about it. What is hardest by far is breaking that cycle. How many of us can honestly say that if we had a family member or loved one who was killed in a terrorist attack, that we would not want to destroy those who had perpetrated or enabled that attack?

Breaking the cycle of war is an incredibly difficult thing to do and goes against our very nature as human beings. I don't pretend to have any solutions, and I don't expect everyone to agree with me. All I'm saying is, in situations like these there is no easy right answer on any side. And anyone who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves.

[/rant]

[dr.walrus]

I'm pretty sure the abhorrent religious extremism is exactly what he was talking about.
Which I'm saying can't be targeted with bombs and no diplomacy. 'them', 'their way of life' and 'wipe them from the face of the earth' simply sounds like we're attacking a whole country.

We don't have bullets that will only hit people who hate women and want to destory america - in fact our 'surgical' missiles cause a higher ratio of civilian casualties than any traditional method of warfare.

Perhaps i should be clearer: I'd love to get rid of these extremists, but the methods we've taken are not the way. Did we have Iraqis killing Americans before we invaded their country in 2003?

And yet, our countries still support Saudi Arabia - a country where women get lashed as a punishment for being raped. This dichotomy is something we should all object to, but instead we're selling them Eurofighter Typhoons. Where is the justice?

[SgtM]

CJ, as I said on Facebook; it was my pleasure. Let's not forget about Tony (Commando) who is actually deployed right now (somewhere in the Mediterranean).

Closing this chapter in the war on terror really feels good to me. That said, it's like a double edged sword. The SOB eluded us for over a decade, but finally getting him I think sends a clear message. "Attack us, and we will take whatever means necessary to bring your as$ in." I couldn't agree more about staying vigilant. Whoever takes his place will want revenge, however they can get it.

[dr.walrus]

most of your other comments are based in a simple fact of life. War is an endless cycle of hate with each side (usually) utterly convinced that it is entirely in the right...even when usually neither side is. Does that mean we should ignore bad things that happen during war? No, definitely not.

But we do ignore those things. We flat blank refuse to accept that they happen. Worse, many people in the west simply don't care about people that aren't from their own country. We have processions for dead soldiers and monuments for terrorism victims - but we try to pretend the civilians who die at our hands don't even exists. This perpetuates that cycle.


But the fact remains that it is war. War is a horrible, despicable thing and horrible, despicable things happen during war, on both sides.

What we can do is try harder to minimise civilian casualties, and how about not having such overtly interventionist foreign policies in the first place?


It is easy to demonize the people involved in such a war, and this one is no exception. It is easy to call them murderers and empathize with the other side (whichever side that is) taking up arms. It is also easy to philosophize about the evils of war and how we as human beings are predisposed to violence as a reaction to violence.

What is hard is taking any action about it. What is hardest by far is breaking that cycle. How many of us can honestly say that if we had a family member or loved one who was killed in a terrorist attack, that we would not want to destroy those who had perpetrated or enabled that attack?

You won't get any arguments from me on any of that


Breaking the cycle of war is an incredibly difficult thing to do and goes against our very nature as human beings. I don't pretend to have any solutions, and I don't expect everyone to agree with me. All I'm saying is, in situations like these there is no easy right answer on any side. And anyone who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves.

See, this is what I'm getting at here. The very first thing we should do is as nations is stop our 'let's exterminate xxxx' rhetoric'. This is perpetuating this cycle of hate. Large scale civilian killings must not be used to avenge large scale civilian killings. We should apply similar standards to others that we apply to ourselves - see my comments about Saudi Arabia. Also, we have to realise how our policies look from the outside - we call others criminals for having technologies we consider standard.

Our governments need to start learning about Islam. Without those in command knowing why Sunnis and Shias still fight, how do we have a hope of stopping them?

[jdbnsn]

Maybe I was wrong, vengeance, ideological fervor, and generalized hatred are not only sound political views but they also make for good business models (http://shop.cafepress.com/osama-bin-laden) and snappy coffee mugs (http://www.cafepress.com/+mug,534531012)! LOL! OMG people, I think we might just all be lunatics, East, West, young and old. One huge group of nut-cases.

[dr.walrus]

Maybe I was wrong, vengeance, ideological fervor, and generalized hatred are not only sound political views but they also make for good business models (http://shop.cafepress.com/osama-bin-laden) and snappy coffee mugs (http://www.cafepress.com/+mug,534531012)! LOL! OMG people, I think we might just all be lunatics, East, West, young and old. One huge group of nut-cases.
Oh god, t-shirts! I suppose at least someone is making money from this - the soldiers who took him down are active military personnal and therefore can't claim the bounty!

[jdbnsn]

Oh god, t-shirts!

Hahahaha! Seriously dude, was there ever a doubt? There have probably been power-sellers on eBay sittin' on these bad boys for a decade.

[knowledgegranted]

Boston went NUTS. There were thousands of people marching the streets. They all marched to the common and were chanting "USA!"


I was talking to some of the europeans at my school, and they said that their parents cheered for the US. Not sure how many people found this that "huge," it is a big step, but the war is not over and Al-Qaeda still exists.

[dr.walrus]

Hahahaha! Seriously dude, was there ever a doubt? There have probably been power-sellers on eBay sittin' on these bad boys for a decade.

In other news, this destroys my answer to that question 'if you could invite any living people on earth round for dinner, who would you bring?'. My answer to that was always Bin Laden, Mr T and Hulk Hogan, because I would get to watch an awesome tag team match and then get to split the reward.

Also note the priceless tag on the google map for abottabad: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.169167,73.2425&spn=1.0E-5,1.0E-5&t=m&lci=org.wikipedia.en&q=34.169167,73.2425

[LiTHiUM0XiD3]

its an election technique... to cope with the leaked cables...
remember... one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter...

[Liquid_Scope_99]

The U.S. government is "ensuring [bin Laden's body] is handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition. It's something we take seriously and therefore it's being handled in an appropriate manner."

I have three points Agree/ disagree this is just how i feel .
I have mixed feelings about this quote one one hand it shows that we are different than the terrorists.
On the other hand all ican say is Really, Really after what he did .
Charles Mansion never killed anybody either. still Murder to me even more so a coward . We already knew this .


1. My first point

I wonder how much it would cost to ship a vile of my urine to Pakistan so i could give him the last rites i think he deserves .

2. I respect and love our military with all that i am From the Seal team that got That Bastard to the National Guard that has worked non stop durint the Tragedy. We had during the tornado here.
Esically the Mp's that were keeping things under control and safe for everybody . When the local wal mart . Murphy oil reopened.

Bringing things that were desperately needed .


3 I would like to thank all the Military top to bottom for everything you do .

It would be my honor to buy the first round for that Seal team .
If any Military are ever in the Guntersville / Albertville area .
It would be my honor to buy you a round too.

[x88x]

we call others criminals for having technologies we consider standard.
Ok, yeah, I do agree on that...but then we also don't let our civilian population have a lot of those technologies..so take from that what you will. *shrugs* Technology restrictions like that are a really slippery slope, but sometimes they are well founded. I mean, would you really want someone like Kim Jong Il to have nuclear armaments at his disposal?


Our governments need to start learning about Islam. Without those in command knowing why Sunnis and Shias still fight, how do we have a hope of stopping them?
Do you really think we're led by such incompetent morons that they don't already know this? We know exactly why Israel and Palestine fight each other and have known pretty much since they started fighting...that doesn't mean we can suddenly swoop in and make them stop. It's not the knowledge that is the problem; it's what to do with that knowledge.


What we can do is try harder to minimise civilian casualties, and how about not having such overtly interventionist foreign policies in the first place?
Sorry, I don't mean to turn this into a political sh**fest, but what exactly would you propose to further minimize civilian casualties that is not already being done? Seriously. I'm not being rhetorical here. If you have some great ideas, I'm sure a lot of people would love to hear them. Contrary to popular belief, not all Americans are bloodthirsty xehophobes that want to kill everyone in the Middle East.

Interventionist foreign policy is another matter; one that, I think, is based in global economic policy. You can't have a functioning global economy without guaranteed, safe transportation around the world. As for the interventionist policy for any specific situation, there are various other reasons; some good, some bad, most specific to that situation.

[dr.walrus]

Ok, yeah, I do agree on that...but then we also don't let our civilian population have a lot of those technologies..so take from that what you will. *shrugs* Technology restrictions like that are a really slippery slope, but sometimes they are well founded. I mean, would you really want someone like Kim Jong Il to have nuclear armaments at his disposal?

Whether I want him to or not, I don't think we have a right to stop countries acquiring technologies we've had for 60 years


Do you really think we're led by such incompetent morons that they don't already know this? We know exactly why Israel and Palestine fight each other and have known pretty much since they started fighting...that doesn't mean we can suddenly swoop in and make them stop. It's not the knowledge that is the problem; it's what to do with that knowledge.

Yes. Really.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/17/opinion/17stein.html?pagewanted=all

Take Representative Terry Everett, a seven-term Alabama Republican who is vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence.
“Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?” I asked him a few weeks ago.
Mr. Everett responded with a low chuckle. He thought for a moment: “One’s in one location, another’s in another location. No, to be honest with you, I don’t know. I thought it was differences in their religion, different families or something.”
To his credit, he asked me to explain the differences. I told him briefly about the schism that developed after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, and how Iraq and Iran are majority Shiite nations while the rest of the Muslim world is mostly Sunni. “Now that you’ve explained it to me,” he replied, “what occurs to me is that it makes what we’re doing over there extremely difficult, not only in Iraq but that whole area.”


As for the Israelis and Palestinians, the British played a huge part in that post-WW1...



Sorry, I don't mean to turn this into a political sh**fest, but what exactly would you propose to further minimize civilian casualties that is not already being done? Seriously. I'm not being rhetorical here. If you have some great ideas, I'm sure a lot of people would love to hear them. Contrary to popular belief, not all Americans are bloodthirsty xehophobes that want to kill everyone in the Middle East.

Okay, how about no missile strikes in residential areas. Preference placed on small arms, rather than long range ordnance. Increase the level of proof required to identify targets remotely. Outlawing cluster bombs (something the US is yet to do). Are we that disinterested in other countries' civilians we allow tens of thousands to go to their graves? Does that not interfere ideaologically with our mission statement?

I didn't suggest all Americans are bloodthirsty xenophobes. But many are.



Interventionist foreign policy is another matter; one that, I think, is based in global economic policy. You can't have a functioning global economy without guaranteed, safe transportation around the world. As for the interventionist policy for any specific situation, there are various other reasons; some good, some bad, most specific to that situation.

I agree interventionist policy is a broader issue - I'll clarify what I think here - our countries can't directly control what other countries do. However, we can control our own actions. And we can't sink to the level of terrorists - if we're knowingly killing civilians with tanks and helicopters, how are we any better than someone doing the same with suicide bombs and IEDs?

Whether I dislike their governments or not, I can not control the policy of these middle eastern countries. However, my vote influences my own country's policy - and as citizens/subjects we can and do hold our governments accountable. This is why I am more critical of my own country's actions - because, even if just a little, my voice matters here. It doesn't matter one bit in Iran!

[diluzio91]

Because one person is representitive of an entire countries knowledge... there are idiots in politics. Always have been, always will be, that doesn't make all political figureheads ignorant of a issue. I'm sure I could find a British politician that made a stupid comment. 15 min on Google will give anyone a basic understanding of the problem, if it doesn't pertain to the mission then they probably wont worry about it... while general knowledge is nice, its not always pertinent... sidenote... its a load of bullhockey how people from other nations treat the us as a idiot country with a hero complex... many of the areas that we ship troops to request our aid, we have huge debt, yet still ship out aid to almost any country that requests it.... it wild be nice if you look into an unbiased news source, and do some serious research into what actually happens here before you open your maw. Its annoying, and just as ignorant and arrogant as you claim America to be...

[dr.walrus]

Because one person is representitive of an entire countries knowledge... there are idiots in politics.

Read the source. Not just one. If you read more about this guy's questions, over half the people involved, the people coordinating these intelligence agencies and troops on the ground don't even understand why, fundamentally, it's happening. That is extremely serious.


I'm sure I could find a British politician that made a stupid comment.

I totally agree. I'm not suggesting British politicians are any better


15 min on Google will give anyone a basic understanding of the problem, if it doesn't pertain to the mission then they probably wont worry about it...

Okay, a few things. Yes the wikipedia article might give a basic outline, but not enough for someone whose job it is. It's highly important because it was pushing Iraq into civil war - it's also fundamental in understanding the relationship of Arab nations and Al Qaeda. It's not a pub quiz ffs!


its a load of bullhockey how people from other nations treat the us as a idiot country with a hero complex...many of the areas that we ship troops to request our aid, we have huge debt, yet still ship out aid to almost any country that requests it.... it wild be nice if you look into an unbiased news source, and do some serious research into what actually happens here before you open your maw. Its annoying, and just as ignorant and arrogant as you claim America to be...
You don't know a thing about what I know, where I read my news. America's record of support, especially for natural disasters, is unsurpassed, your troops were first on the ground in the tsunamis of recent years. America's legacy in terms of interventionist military action, 1960 onwards, not quite so exemplary.

Almost all of what I posted before is also relevant to my own country - we're allies in this conflict. You are calling me ignorant and arrogant, why? Does noone care about tens of thousands of dead civilians in the middle east? We've seen so many posts about the victims of 9/11, about our own servicemen and women, what about them? Can we simply take no responsibility by describing them as collateral damage?

You haven't even read the source link I posted, which raises MASSIVE questions about the way our governments are running a religious conflict without knowing the most basic facts about the religion involved...

I am NOT taking an anti-USA stance here. I am simply trying to make the point that, at times, the coalition's actions have had disastruous consequences, thousands people have died because of it, and no amount of jingoism can hide that.

[x88x]

Does noone care about tens of thousands of dead civilians in the middle east? We've seen so many posts about the victims of 9/11, about our own servicemen and women, what about them? Can we simply take no responsibility by describing them as collateral damage?
I most definitely do care about the civilian casualties in the middle east. But like I mentioned before, this is war, and there are always civilian casualties in war, especially urban war, where (iirc) most of the civilian casualties are occurring. The problem is not that there are civilian casualties (though that is definitely a problem) but how many were avoidable. There are, the way I see it, four different categories. Those who were killed by our troops directly (ie, targeted intentionally or unintentionally), those killed by our troops indirectly (ie, collateral damage from missile strikes, etc), those killed by enemy troops indirectly (ie, IEDs, mines, etc), and those killed by enemy troops directly (I would include the woman killed in bin Laden's capture in this category, regardless of who fired the shot that killed her). Only the first category do our people have any direct control over, and the second category they have a range of control over, the extent of which would depend on the specific circumstances. I don't know the numbers, but I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of civilian casualties have been in the third category or the result of firefights in urban areas. Take Kabul for example. At one time a point of heavy fighting, and still today, I believe. That city has a population density of ~17,267 people per square mile. 40% greater than that of London. How likely do you think civilian casualties would be if a major battle were to break out in the middle of London?

I'm not saying that civilian casualties do not matter. What I am saying is that it is foolish to think that a war could be waged with zero civilian casualties. Especially when the enemy combatants hide in civilian, residential areas. Our two countries are blessed in that we have not had a war conducted on our soil for at least the last ~150 years, so at first glance we compare it to ourselves and think "What!? How dare they let civilians get caught in a firefight!" But imagine an active firefight in a crowded neighborhood in downtown London, and how many people would die just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You mentioned missile strikes in residential areas. Since I seem to remember reading about something similar, how about this scenario. Intelligence is received that an enemy leader is occupying a specific house but will be gone and back in hiding by morning; let's say, 8 hours. Leaving this enemy leader free would likely result in the deaths of thousands but the nearest troops are 10 hours away. However, aircraft could be directed to the location and a surgical warhead could be used to destroy the house in question with little damage to any surrounding buildings. Would you make the strike even knowing that civilian casualties were a possibility?

What I'm trying to say is; war is messy and uncertain. Horrible things happen in war. But I think even with the horrible things that have been done in this war, we have done more good than harm.

[knowledgegranted]

You mentioned missile strikes in residential areas. Since I seem to remember reading about something similar, how about this scenario. Intelligence is received that an enemy leader is occupying a specific house but will be gone and back in hiding by morning; let's say, 8 hours. Leaving this enemy leader free would likely result in the deaths of thousands but the nearest troops are 10 hours away. However, aircraft could be directed to the location and a surgical warhead could be used to destroy the house in question with little damage to any surrounding buildings. Would you make the strike even knowing that civilian casualties were a possibility?

What I'm trying to say is; war is messy and uncertain. Horrible things happen in war. But I think even with the horrible things that have been done in this war, we have done more good than harm.

I would have to agree with x88x on alot of this especially the missile strikes in residential areas. Every war we have been in we have had these same scenarios. For example, WWII and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States took upon itself the constructs of the aftermath that would become of these two bombings. However the two bombings would result in far less death, and would avoid an entire mainland Japanese invasion.

I actually don't agree with what we did during WWII, but like x88x said, war is messy, decisions must be made, casualties are taken into account every time we enter a war.

[Fuganater]

I love how side tracked we got lol.

[dr.walrus]

Okat, I'm going to answer that in a different order than that in which you've posted it:



You mentioned missile strikes in residential areas. Since I seem to remember reading about something similar, how about this scenario. Intelligence is received that an enemy leader is occupying a specific house but will be gone and back in hiding by morning; let's say, 8 hours. Leaving this enemy leader free would likely result in the deaths of thousands but the nearest troops are 10 hours away. However, aircraft could be directed to the location and a surgical warhead could be used to destroy the house in question with little damage to any surrounding buildings. Would you make the strike even knowing that civilian casualties were a possibility?
Okay, ignoring the validity of this dilemma (saving thousands of lives seems like a stretch), I'll ask you one question in response:

What if the suspect was in New York or London? Would you call in that same airstrike on american or british soil? Of course we wouldn't - because we would never tolerate that loss of lives on our own citizens.

Maybe that analogy is flawed, so I'll ask the question - what if, for some reason, there was a large american civilian population resident in Iraq? Would we call in airstrikes on buildings full of people from Boston, Chicago, Dallas? No, we wouldn't - because then Americans would have to watch their families be killed, it'd be an outrage, it'd be a war crime, frankly the president would be out of office in a week if there were american civilian casualties on the level that there are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I most definitely do care about the civilian casualties in the middle east. But like I mentioned before, this is war, and there are always civilian casualties in war, especially urban war, where (iirc) most of the civilian casualties are occurring. The problem is not that there are civilian casualties (though that is definitely a problem) but how many were avoidable. There are, the way I see it, four different categories. Those who were killed by our troops directly (ie, targeted intentionally or unintentionally), those killed by our troops indirectly (ie, collateral damage from missile strikes, etc), those killed by enemy troops indirectly (ie, IEDs, mines, etc), and those killed by enemy troops directly

Okay, well think about it this way: as the primary combatant (remember, we're not fighting a government any more) in Iraq, we must partially take responsibility for EVERYTHING that happens on the ground. A response to our tactics is still an indirect result.



(I would include the woman killed in bin Laden's capture in this category, regardless of who fired the shot that killed her).

...Even if it was a Navy SEAL who shot her?



Only the first category do our people have any direct control over, and the second category they have a range of control over, the extent of which would depend on the specific circumstances. I don't know the numbers, but I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of civilian casualties have been in the third category or the result of firefights in urban areas. Take Kabul for example. At one time a point of heavy fighting, and still today, I believe. That city has a population density of ~17,267 people per square mile. 40% greater than that of London. How likely do you think civilian casualties would be if a major battle were to break out in the middle of London?

There would be extremely heavy casualties. And if a country had gone to war with us, knowing there'd be fighting in such densely populated areas, or without the right intelligence or even general knowledge to know the possibilities of civil war, I'd describe them as, at best, totally inhumane.

Remember who declared war in Iraq - it wasn't them, nor was it their civilians - yet they are the ones who must pay the price.


I'm not saying that civilian casualties do not matter. What I am saying is that it is foolish to think that a war could be waged with zero civilian casualties. Especially when the enemy combatants hide in civilian, residential areas. Our two countries are blessed in that we have not had a war conducted on our soil for at least the last ~150 years, so at first glance we compare it to ourselves and think "What!? How dare they let civilians get caught in a firefight!" But imagine an active firefight in a crowded neighborhood in downtown London, and how many people would die just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

What I'm trying to say is; war is messy and uncertain. Horrible things happen in war. But I think even with the horrible things that have been done in this war, we have done more good than harm.
It is foolish to go to war with a shadow. We're not in a war against the nazi regime, we're not in a war with communism, we;re certainly not in a straightforward war against another country. We're in a 'war against terror', something so poorly-defined and ill-conceived, it's a shock it was ever started.

The problem is, the problem with the war on terror is we don't have true targets. We have troops packed into residentail neighbourhoods trying to target 'extremism'. We have planes with 30mm cannon trying to target 'extremism'. This is what I was saying before - we don't have guns that would just attack extremism.

And like i said before, that's the reason we shouldn't have entered these conflicts in the way we did. Even a child should know you can't invade a country because there is a rogue element being living there, or even sheltered there.

We would not accept this on our own soil, but it's okay when it happens to people who look funny and talk funny and have a 'nutty' religion. Let's put aside the ethics of civilian casualties and ask how civilian casualties breed extremisim. The answer is simple - if you kill peoples' families, they're going to fight back. And yet, we label these people 'insurgents' and 'extremists' - how are they insurgents? They lived there in the first place! Most of them are just furious about the fact Baghdad has become a completely suicidal place to live, and trying to get rid of a foreign army trying to enforce an ideological change on therm.

My view from my bedroom window as a child was a ww2 bomb site. I grew up in the ferry port to Belfast at a time of IRA bombings. The damage to my country from terrorism and ww2 was minor compared to what we've done to Iraq. The USA has never seen mainland attacks before, and what's happening now is a vast over-reaction.

[dr.walrus]

I would have to agree with x88x on alot of this especially the missile strikes in residential areas. Every war we have been in we have had these same scenarios. For example, WWII and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States took upon itself the constructs of the aftermath that would become of these two bombings. However the two bombings would result in far less death, and would avoid an entire mainland Japanese invasion.

I actually don't agree with what we did during WWII, but like x88x said, war is messy, decisions must be made, casualties are taken into account every time we enter a war.

Like I said before, the two atomic bombings were far from the only bombings of Japan in WW2. They represent at most a third of the bombing casualties from US bombing.

However, perhaps we should look at it this way - why didn't we simply negotiate for a conditional surrender? The only reason the USA dropped the atomic bombs was to force Japan into an unconditional surrender. Diplomatic options were not even investigated.

[mDust]

... to cope with the leaked cables...


Indeed. It's quite easy to control information by simply changing the topic. Suddenly the public is jubilant and forgets about shady dealings of the past.

Most people in the world are sheep with few serious thoughts or ideas of their own. People tend to borrow ideas, fashion, goals, habits, hobbies, etc...just about everything actually...from family and people they like or even idolize. The fact that celebrity clothing lines and other businesses are so stupidly successful regardless of the crap they are pushing proves this. Also, political beliefs tend to be passed down from generation to generation...it's because it's one of the borrowed ideas that we are taught from an early age. It's pretty rare when someone objectively looks at their borrowed ideas and actions and changes them. Most people just do what the crowd does.

Now, why would anyone expect anyone else to jump outside the norm and question something, like the War on Terror, in great detail? Individuals of the masses don't question most of the things they do themselves, so why would they question the decision making of someone who isn't on their favorite TV show? People blown to bits by a precision missile strike on the other side of the planet is no different to most people than people blown to bits in a movie. There is minimal emotional attachment, and after the spinsters inform the media that 500 terrorists were killed in the blast, nobody inquires about the 500 civilians casualties. Hell, sometimes boom mics are mistaken for AK-47s and all casualties in a firefight turn out to be civilian. How many people questioned it? One. He's now in a military prison for trying to open our eyes to some of the bad decisions that are being made.

Everyone is ignorant of something, we all can't know everything about everything. But we can learn to think about and question the things we do and the things happening around us. It doesn't matter when one person is a complete idiot and doesn't care, but when it's a whole country? It does matter. Even more so when it's soldiers heading to war.


I love how side tracked we got lol.
Lol, welcome to TBCS.

As for Osama being dead, I'll believe it when I see it. If it is actually him, I'll still be indifferent to his symbolic demise. As others have said before, this is NOT the end of terrorism or even al Qaeda. Many leaders of al Qaeda have been killed in the past and it only served as a speed bump...someone will step forward to fill the gap...just like if a ranking soldier in our military were killed.
We need to cut their funding and public support. Then invest heavily in the local economies to provide higher paying jobs so people can make a decent living and support their families without turning to mercenary careers. Then rinse and repeat since the funding comes from parties interested maintaining instability in the region and will just find new channels to accomplish their goals. Once the national governments are self-sustaining, stable and able to better control the interiors of their borders, then we can run around in 'mission complete' t-shirts.

[dr.walrus]

Now, why would anyone expect anyone else to jump outside the norm and question something, like the War on Terror, in great detail? Individuals of the masses don't question most of the things they do themselves, so why would they question the decision making of someone who isn't on their favorite TV show? People blown to bits by a precision missile strike on the other side of the planet is no different to most people than people blown to bits in a movie. There is minimal emotional attachment, and after the spinsters inform the media that 500 terrorists were killed in the blast, nobody inquires about the 500 civilians casualties. Hell, sometimes boom mics are mistaken for AK-47s and all casualties in a firefight turn out to be civilian. How many people questioned it? One. He's now in a military prison for trying to open our eyes to some of the bad decisions that are being made.
I can't add anything better to this, so i'm just going to quote it



invest heavily in the local economies to provide higher paying jobs so people can make a decent living and support their families without turning to mercenary careers.
Oh, and this

[Oneslowz28]

Yea, lets invest in their society while ours is still in economic troubles. I for one think that is a horrible idea. With fuel prices going up, my property value going down and national unemployment still in the 9-10% range lets give undeserving others our tax dollars, while we borrow more from China to cover our own asses. The answer here is simply to continue fighting until our mission has been accomplished. We have never lost a war and there is no reason to start now. (The Vietnam conflict was not a US started war, thus it does not count) I saw several reports yesterday on both right and left leaning news stations that had several experts estimating less than 100 al qaeda fighters left in Afghanistan. We have over 90,000 US troops plus allied forces hunting down those last 100 and we expect to be rid of them by the time we start pulling out next year. After that, I seriously expect us to move onto Pakistan and Yemen as that is where most of the remaining al qaeda fighters remain.

As for the woman killed when OBL took her as a human shield, she was guilty by association. Just as I would be if someone riding in my vehicle were caught with drugs, even if I had no knowledge of them what so ever.

So I ask you this, instead of jumping all over the good guys and attempting to show us the "errors" of our ways, how about you chastise the enemy (radical Muslims) for strapping bombs to little kids after pumping them full of opium. Or convincing innocent men that they should blow themselves up in the middle of a market where 1000 other innocent Muslims are. What about those who walk into a school and begin killing every child they see, just because they are learning things? Or the radicals who rape dozens of women in every village they pull into? Those are the real enemy's and the ones you should be talking bad about. Show a little love and appreciation for the freedom that the men and women of both the US and UK armed services fight every day to give you.

One last comment before I am done with this thread for good. My "undeserving" comment in the first paragraph was not aimed at the general Muslim populous, but rather directed at the tribal leaders and religious leaders that this money would ultimately go to. I label these leaders as undeserving because while they claim to "not be radicals" you do not see them nor hear of them publicly denouncing what the radicals are doing and preaching. This is the same reason the civilian deaths do not bother me as much as I guess it should. Until all of the self proclaimed non radicals stand up together and denounce what the radicals are doing, they are the same to me.

[knowledgegranted]

Like I said before, the two atomic bombings were far from the only bombings of Japan in WW2. They represent at most a third of the bombing casualties from US bombing.

However, perhaps we should look at it this way - why didn't we simply negotiate for a conditional surrender? The only reason the USA dropped the atomic bombs was to force Japan into an unconditional surrender. Diplomatic options were not even investigated.

It was agreed by the allies at the Casablanca Conference that no conditional surrenders would be taken during this war. That included everyone, but it just so happens that we were the only country at 'major' war with Japan.

[mDust]

Yea, lets invest in their society while ours is still in economic troubles. I for one think that is a horrible idea. With fuel prices going up, my property value going down and national unemployment still in the 9-10% range lets give undeserving others our tax dollars, while we borrow more from China to cover our own asses.

We are spending $6.7 billion per month in Afghanistan alone. Per month! Every 30 days another 6.7 billion dollars is spent and gone. Investing 'heavily' in their economy while slowly drawing down the number of troops would not cost any more than that. Do you think that not spending that 6.7 billion dollars a month will make gas prices drop or property values increase? I think it's right to give 'undeserving others' our tax dollars in the form of education, medicine, clean water, sanitation, and economic stimulus when they have nothing because we blew what little they did have to pieces. It's also right to give 'undeserving others' our tax dollars when it sways popular opinion in the circles that would otherwise be easily convinced to commit the violent atrocities against us and inocent civilians of which you later speak.


The answer here is simply to continue fighting until our mission has been accomplished.
Yeah, a $1.5 trillion war is probably cheaper since you're concerned with where our money is spent. We should probably borrow more from China to cover it.


We have never lost a war and there is no reason to start now. (The Vietnam conflict was not a US started war, thus it does not count)
We shot at them and they shot at us for 8 years, don't debase the sacrifices of Vietnam vets. Also, we did not win the Vietnam War.



I saw several reports yesterday on both right and left leaning news stations that had several experts estimating less than 100 al qaeda fighters left in Afghanistan. We have over 90,000 US troops plus allied forces hunting down those last 100 and we expect to be rid of them by the time we start pulling out next year. After that, I seriously expect us to move onto Pakistan and Yemen as that is where most of the remaining al qaeda fighters remain.
Then we will lose this war for the exact same reason we lost Vietnam. We can't take a hill and then abandon it immediately to go take another.


As for the woman killed when OBL took her as a human shield, she was guilty by association. Just as I would be if someone riding in my vehicle were caught with drugs, even if I had no knowledge of them what so ever.
This is ridiculous even if that woman did have the right to do as she wished. How is a hostage ever guilty by association?



So I ask you this, instead of jumping all over the good guys and attempting to show us the "errors" of our ways, how about you chastise the enemy (radical Muslims) for strapping bombs to little kids after pumping them full of opium. Or convincing innocent men that they should blow themselves up in the middle of a market where 1000 other innocent Muslims are. What about those who walk into a school and begin killing every child they see, just because they are learning things? Or the radicals who rape dozens of women in every village they pull into? Those are the real enemy's and the ones you should be talking bad about. Show a little love and appreciation for the freedom that the men and women of both the US and UK armed services fight every day to give you.
Who, in this thread, ever condoned any of those things? I want to stop and prevent every atrocity you've listed and more. Shooting an inexhaustible supply of mercenaries who are trying to feed their families in a war-torn land is not an effective approach. Did you know that the Iraqi and Afghan people did not hate the US before these wars? They do now. They both want us to 'get the hell out'. Funding for these terrorist acts often comes from Iran, the leaders of which would gladly pay a few hundred million dollars to keep us bumbling around, stomping on one country after another. It won't be long until every last person in the middle east despises us...do we really need millions more people in that part of the world hating us? Is it easier or harder to convince someone that hates us to perform terrorist acts against us?:think:
I'm not ungrateful for what our troops have done. They've accomplished a lot in the last decade, however, they are not the solution to the grand problem of popular opinion. People don't fight people they like.



One last comment before I am done with this thread for good. My "undeserving" comment in the first paragraph was not aimed at the general Muslim populous, but rather directed at the tribal leaders and religious leaders that this money would ultimately go to. I label these leaders as undeserving because while they claim to "not be radicals" you do not see them nor hear of them publicly denouncing what the radicals are doing and preaching. This is the same reason the civilian deaths do not bother me as much as I guess it should. Until all of the self proclaimed non radicals stand up together and denounce what the radicals are doing, they are the same to me.
Investing in their economy does not mean handing over billions of dollars to the leaders and wishing them the best of luck. We would need to find the core industries of the region and help them get back on their feet. Or just start new industries if there are none. We need to give the businesses what they need to make and spend money. The first businesses need to be able to provide what the people 'need'. The people need food, water, medicine and construction companies to build infrastructure and most importantly: jobs. And instead of awarding multimillion dollar contracts to American companies to do all these things, it would make more sense to teach the civilian companies there to build what they need.
The fact that the people there are so easily convinced to do terrible things to others in order to survive or provide for their family speaks volumes about the level of desperation in the area. Would you watch your children starve to death / die because you can't afford medicine or would you save them by burning down a school and shooting the soldiers that killed your innocent neighbors in their sleep?
We haven't been able to solve our problems in that region with guns for 40 years. Why would that change now? When will people question the same failing methods we've been using for decades?:dead:

[dr.walrus]

Yea, lets invest in their society while ours is still in economic troubles. I for one think that is a horrible idea.

A cruise missile costs half a million dollars... Really, the cost of contuined military operations are so high, and the taliban fighters are paid so little, it would have been a cheaper option in afghanistan to give $20,000 dollars EACH to every man, woman and child. Oh, and that's 40 times the average salary too.


With fuel prices going up, my property value going down and national unemployment still in the 9-10% range lets give undeserving others our tax dollars, while we borrow more from China to cover our own asses. The answer here is simply to continue fighting until our mission has been accomplished.

A 'war on terror' is so ideologically flawed, there won't be any 'mission accomplished'. 40% of Afghanistanis live on less than $1 a day, and unemployment sits at 35%. That makes troops incredibly cheap to hire for the Taliban. It is estimated that the ordnance required to kill a taliban soldier costs more than he earns in his military career.


We have never lost a war and there is no reason to start now.

...Well, no, but your country has a very short history in world terms. Perhaps a 'war on terror' is a ridiculous aim? I don't see us doing so well with the 'war on drugs' either. Perhaps we'd be better off if the US didn't fund the Taliban in the 80s, or give support to the IRA. Ffs, Giuliani gave Gerry Adams, the leader of the IRA, an award in the 90s:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/29/nyregion/at-city-hall-an-ira-leader-gets-a-warm-reception.html

Again, Al Qaeda really aren't the problem. You have local resistance movements everywhere, fed by the high civilian casualties (over 1000/year)


As for the woman killed when OBL took her as a human shield, she was guilty by association. Just as I would be if someone riding in my vehicle were caught with drugs, even if I had no knowledge of them what so ever.

Because women in forced marriages have a 'choice' :rolleyes:. What's she going to do, run away?


So I ask you this, instead of jumping all over the good guys and attempting to show us the "errors" of our ways, how about you chastise the enemy (radical Muslims) for strapping bombs to little kids after pumping them full of opium. Or convincing innocent men that they should blow themselves up in the middle of a market where 1000 other innocent Muslims are. What about those who walk into a school and begin killing every child they see, just because they are learning things? Or the radicals who rape dozens of women in every village they pull into? Those are the real enemy's and the ones you should be talking bad about. Show a little love and appreciation for the freedom that the men and women of both the US and UK armed services fight every day to give you.

10,000 - 30,000 civilians dead in Afghanistan. Estimates range between 90,000 and 600,000 dead in Iraq. I find it very hard to justify these deaths. You haven't once shown sympathy in this thread for these people, and to me really marries with the statements you made before about 'wiping them off the face of the earth' and 'destroying their way of life'. I'm sickened. Which brings me onto this:


One last comment before I am done with this thread for good. My "undeserving" comment in the first paragraph was not aimed at the general Muslim populous, but rather directed at the tribal leaders and religious leaders that this money would ultimately go to. I label these leaders as undeserving because while they claim to "not be radicals" you do not see them nor hear of them publicly denouncing what the radicals are doing and preaching. This is the same reason the civilian deaths do not bother me as much as I guess it should. Until all of the self proclaimed non radicals stand up together and denounce what the radicals are doing, they are the same to me.
Gross. So gross. You're practically promoting genocide. I'm not saying the Taliban are right on any level (though le's remember where they got the money to buy those guns!), but during this war, many have seen them as the least worst option against an agressive foreign military who have decimated the civilian population.

I will reiterate - I'm not anti-British, I'm not anti-American, but, christ, it's just not right to kill tens, hundreds of thousands of their civilians because they killed 3,000 of us. Our civilian lives aren't worth more than theirs.

[dr.walrus]

It was agreed by the allies at the Casablanca Conference that no conditional surrenders would be taken during this war. That included everyone, but it just so happens that we were the only country at 'major' war with Japan.

...and your point is? Most of the bombing of german civilians (650,000 dead) was done by the British, too - my point was simply that the way the nuclear bombings is discussed is usally out of context.

[knowledgegranted]

...and your point is? Most of the bombing of german civilians (650,000 dead) was done by the British, too - my point was simply that the way the nuclear bombings is discussed is usally out of context.

Fully Agreed.

[Oneslowz28]

It's not that I do not show sympathy, yes it is wrong to kill tens of thousands, but until I see hard proof, and not some left wing journalist, or regional media corp spitting out those numbers, I refuse to believe them. Mercenaries or not, if they fire at our troops they deserve what they get. I find it hard to believe that we killed 600,000 civilians. If you think for one second that that is accurate, I have some ocean front property in Colorado to sell you.

I am not promoting genocide, we have tried to build schools, and hospitals in both Iraq and Afghanistan and unless the local tribal leaders were on board with the project, they refused to give the land for that purpose or they simply burnt / bombed the building. There is no effective way to efficiently give them tons of cash for infrastructure without going through these leaders. Its not like we can just plop down a school house and it start being used the day its finished. With out the tribal leaders and religious leaders support the buildings will stay empty. We can teach them modern building methods and give them the funds to start but what usually happens is once the money is given, the person is never heard from again.

I truly believe that war is a way of life. It has been going on since the beginning of man. This whole "kill the infidels" thing has been going on for thousands of years, and I bet it will continue to go on for many more.

If by genocide you mean I support the killing of all radical Muslims, and anyone else who wishes hard on the USA then I guess I am guilty. I am not a bleeding heart liberal, never have been and never will be. I am a very far right leaning conservative who is pro war, anti abortion, and not a single ounce of me buys into the whole global warming thing. I was raised to be firm in my beliefs and to never waiver from them. I have lost family and friends in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I will remember them for the rest of my life for the sacrifices they made for me.

[Airbozo]

I am also waiting for hard evidence on the civilian casualties. 600,000? very doubtful. Plus the Afghanistan or Iraqi definition of civilian is not what most of the rest of the world would call a civilian. We have civilian contractors over in the middle east, but we don't call them "innocent civilians".

Until the middle east countries are ruled by level headed NON-religious leaders nothing will change. This goes for every country in the middle east not just the muslim countries.

War does not have to be a way of life, but just like the psychology class in high school taught me, war is inevitable when more than one person is living on the island(earth). Humans are violent creatures for the most part. That is how we survived and evolved for thousands of years. Religion just makes things worse because that gives both sides "divine justification" for killing the non-believers. As long as there is organized religion in this world, there will always be war. No way around that.

Some call me a liberal, some call me a conservative. I am anti-war (but am smart enough to know it is a necessity of life), pro-family, anti-abortion (but pro-choice). I believe in global warming because I know that the earth goes though cycles, however I don't believe that man is 100% responsible for it. I was also raised to be firm in my convictions and beliefs and to always listen to the other side because I may learn something.

I also don't believe for one minute that anything has changed with respect to terrorism...

[mDust]

I find it hard to believe that we killed 600,000 civilians. If you think for one second that that is accurate, I have some ocean front property in Colorado to sell you.

I too doubt the civilian body count is anywhere near 600,000. At least I hope it isn't.


I am not promoting genocide, we have tried to build schools, and hospitals in both Iraq and Afghanistan and unless the local tribal leaders were on board with the project, they refused to give the land for that purpose or they simply burnt / bombed the building. There is no effective way to efficiently give them tons of cash for infrastructure without going through these leaders. Its not like we can just plop down a school house and it start being used the day its finished. With out the tribal leaders and religious leaders support the buildings will stay empty. We can teach them modern building methods and give them the funds to start but what usually happens is once the money is given, the person is never heard from again.
We did OK in Iraq. Not great, but OK. We need to organize honest elections for government officials so the people will accept the new government. The coalition forces need to enforce the new government decisions. Corruption needs to be prevented or quickly remedied. And the new government shall be in charge of allocating land and infrastructure planning...not any religious leaders. The religious leaders should tend to their religious activities, not government.


I truly believe that war is a way of life. It has been going on since the beginning of man. This whole "kill the infidels" thing has been going on for thousands of years, and I bet it will continue to go on for many more.

You are terribly misinformed. What you are referring to is 'intifada', and it is nothing like what you think it is.


...who is pro war, anti abortion, and not a single ounce of me buys into the whole global warming thing. I was raised to be firm in my beliefs and to never waiver from them. I have lost family and friends in both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I will remember them for the rest of my life for the sacrifices they made for me.
Why would you self-identify as being 'pro-war'? Do you mean you support the war that is currently taking place or that you actively support killing anyone that you perceive as disagreeing with you?
You don't buy into the scientific fact that the average air temperature has been climbing recently? That isn't up for debate. What is causing the rise in temperature is, however, up for debate. I personally don't think we (as a species) have contributed much to the change if anything. The rise was noticed and some 'bleeding heart liberals' decided to use that information to further their agenda.
People being firm in their beliefs and not considering any alternative viewpoints is exactly what I was attacking in my first post in this thread. Nobody questions anything anymore, everyone is always right, and 'if you're not with me, you're against me'...people need to think for themselves, stay open-minded and stop being so complacent or this country will end up in the history books like Rome.
I'm sorry for the loss of your friends and family.



Until the middle east countries are ruled by level headed NON-religious leaders nothing will change. This goes for every country in the middle east not just the muslim countries.

War does not have to be a way of life, but just like the psychology class in high school taught me, war is inevitable when more than one person is living on the island(earth). Humans are violent creatures for the most part. That is how we survived and evolved for thousands of years. Religion just makes things worse because that gives both sides "divine justification" for killing the non-believers. As long as there is organized religion in this world, there will always be war. No way around that.
Exactly. I tend to be very anti-religion in general, but religion and politics mix like gasoline and fire. I'm fine with people believing whatever they want as long as they aren't hostile towards people that hold differing beliefs. Extremism of every type needs to stop...religious or not. The world is not black and white.

[dr.walrus]

Two people in a row pick up on the highest estimate... Not from a left-wing media source, but from a study by the Lancet, a British medical journal. I don't believe it either, I just gave it because it's quite clear the real number is somewhere between the two. There is one study that sits over a million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties). Iraq body count sits at about 100k, and that should be considered a bare minimum - using deaths confirmed by trusted media outlets.

As for 'killing all radical muslims', I simply don't think we can kill people without making people 'radical'. Corner people and they will fight back like animals protecting their young.

Airbozo - I do agree with what you say about the middle east - we've focused on Muslim countries here, but Israel's politics aren't tolerant by any stretch of the imagination... And like I said earlier in the thread, Saudi Arabia is a close ally of Britain, yet their religious politics are at times totally horrifying. I'm a liberal but I'm only a partial believer in moral relativism - a lot of policies in fundamental muslim countries I believe are just plain wrong. I do, however, believe that forcefully trying to change peoples' beliefs just does the opposite.

Oneslow, though I am not one to back down from my convictions, you're right that you and I aren't going to change each others beliefs one bit. I'm anti-war, but believe we must still maintain an effective military. I'm pro-choice (within the first 5 months of pregnancy) - I've lost two potential children to miscarriage, and not for one second do I think I've lost a kid. That was my belief before the miscarriages, and it only reinforced my beliefs when it happened.

I'm a stubborn atheist and think that whether global war is happening or not, we need to change our energy policy, simply because we're going to run out, and the earlier we get alternatives, the better we're placed to deal with them.

I simply can't accept nationalistic arguments - I don't believe, from a global perspective, our troops are any more special or worthwhile than anyone else's, and really, it's nationalism (or the lack of it) that's the difference in perspective here.

[lynn's engraving]

tens of thousands of innocent civilians dead? i find that number pretty high, nor do i know how the beancounters, or whoever, came to that conclusion (i'm assuming you read this from a credible source). any number generated by the government regarding virtually anything is instantly worthy of suspicion.

[lynn's engraving]

there absolutely are hard targets in the 'war on terror.' they're called terrorists. when we find out who they are, we have our specific enemy. they may be difficult to find, but they're not phantoms. we're not stabbing into a plume of smoke here and hoping for the best.

[lynn's engraving]

damnit, my first post didn't go through. :( rest assured, it was awesome. :) well, i'll skip the recap, lol.

[dr.walrus]

tens of thousands of innocent civilians dead? i find that number pretty high, nor do i know how the beancounters, or whoever, came to that conclusion (i'm assuming you read this from a credible source). any number generated by the government regarding virtually anything is instantly worthy of suspicion.

Wikipedia has a good page on Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War). The lowest estimate is the government's, at 66,000 or so, as per the wikileaks affair. The rest of the figures are by independent analysts. Media groups plump for around 100k (these are confirmed kills by reliable media sources, so they're actually very good estimates as they'll probably rule out false positives, but won't include unreported deaths).

The higher figures from the Lancet et al also include indirect consequence deaths, such as disease, lack of access to hospitals, dirty drinking water, but are survey-based so will of course be less accurate.

Sciencce Magazine (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6022/1256/suppl/DC1) have a great breakdown of data for Afghanistan, if you have a few hours to kill...

[lynn's engraving]

thanks for clarifying one that a bit. now i wonder if those numbers are broken into categories. i'll have to look into that.

well, if we're looking on the bright side of things, the world's intervention, un/wanted and/or asked for or not, has probably saved the lives of at least ten times that many innocent people.