But it is you see, because I think that it is a bad thing when innocent people die, and a worse thing when the innocent deaths were the primary objective, and a worse thing still when the overall objective is theocratic dictatorship. peaceful multicultural democracy > murderous jihadi mortocracy.
Some of them are taking revenge for what was done to their families, friends and societies. Ya know, an eye for an eye. What makes your outrage right and theirs flawed?
All I did was counter your point with a quote which, regardless of whether it is so well known as be called cliche, is STILL VALID.
Chill. What part of "devil's advocate" went way above YOUR dumb-assed head? Just because I comment doesn't mean I give a shit to what philosophy you subscribe to.
Nice how you bitch about wanting discourse, then fail to actually counter, AND resort to cursing/name calling. You lose at teh internuts.
1) You are arguing with the WRONG PERSON DIP-SHIT. Give HIM the fucking quote, not ME.
2) This argument is way beyond you cognitive abilities. I am against the death penalty for fuck sake. Do you not realize that I am pointing out to the other dip shit that HIS extremism is barely any different from that of those who blew up London? FUCK.
3) The name calling is appropriate since you are INDEED a dip shit. In this case it is not an insult but a statement of FACT.
Wow, check yourself before you reply. I'm not yelling or conversing with the other person. I'm not yelling at you. I responded to your eye for an eye comment 'cause I think the concept is obnoxious. That's it. No, your motivations were not entirely clear by your comment, but I didn't give a damn. I was only reponding to your use of a cliche phrase.
I probably wasn't the nicest in doing it, but I don't think I diserve your abuse. Just chill. It's a dead issue.
The fact that they express their outrage by anonymously killing non-combatants without warning or explanation, and I express mine by stating it, explaining the reasons, and seeking democratic support for ways to resolve the situation, with physical force used only if necessary, only through the appropriate authorities, keeping as close as possible to legitimate targets, and with a defined objective and end-point.
The fact that they express their outrage by anonymously killing non-combatants without warning or explanation
Neither do we or Israel.
and seeking democratic support for ways to resolve the situation
Since when do we give a shit about democracy? It is all about western interests, nothing more.
with physical force used only if necessary
AHAHAHAH You need a history lesson, dude..
only through the appropriate authorities, keeping as close as possible to legitimate targets, and with a defined objective and end-point.
And you can tell me with a straight face that this is what Israel does or that the US's foreign policy in the last 100 years has always been about this right?
We are not anonymous, our troops are identified. We do not target non-combatants, though we accept that there will be innocent casualties in wars which may nonetheless be worth fighting. We usually warn, or fight as part of a declared war with an identified enemy. We almost always explain. Our accountability to relatively free media means we must even if we wished not to.
Your remaining comments are irrelevant, since you are comparing what I support with the last century of a couple of country's history. However yes, overall I believe that democracy, proportionate directed force, and defined objectives are massively more a feature of Western and Israeli military action than Islamist terror strikes.
Yeah... When the mossad kills people or the CIA topples democratically elected governments, they always wear uniforms. Those long range intelligent weapons are also all in marked. They just have to get a glimpse of the markings on it before it blows them up.
We usually warn, or fight as part of a declared war with an identified enemy
So do they. They declared war on western society and they always claim responsibility. They are also outside of even their societies so what does media have to do with it?
Are you equating the Fanatics with the less than democratic nations they usually come from? Careful, some of those are our very good friends...We would not be friends with terrorist nations now would we?
Your remaining comments are irrelevant, since you are comparing what I support with the last century of a couple of country's history.
Read that one again and see if it makes any sense.
However yes, overall I believe that democracy, proportionate directed force
Except that we don't care about democracy. Our (the US's) current alliances clearly demonstrate that.
and defined objectives are massively more a feature of Western and Israeli military action than Islamist terror strikes.
You think that they do not have well defined objectives? What?
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-07-08 03:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-08 04:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-08 04:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-08 05:13 pm (UTC)Why are you not outraged about that?
no subject
Date: 2005-07-08 05:16 pm (UTC)<> Devil's advocate
Date: 2005-07-08 06:02 pm (UTC)Some of them are taking revenge for what was done to their families, friends and societies. Ya know, an eye for an eye.
What makes your outrage right and theirs flawed?
Re: <> Devil's advocate
Date: 2005-07-08 06:37 pm (UTC)Re: <> Devil's advocate
Date: 2005-07-08 07:17 pm (UTC)His beliefs are of no use when force has already been exercised.
-and see if you can use a quote that I have not heard over a gajillion times.
Re: <> Devil's advocate
Date: 2005-07-08 11:53 pm (UTC)Oh, and remember, you still have your Godwin's Law lifeline, among other copouts to avoid real discussion!
Re: <> Devil's advocate
Date: 2005-07-09 02:01 am (UTC)What part of "devil's advocate" went way above your dumb-assed head?
..and regardless, the quote is still a cliche.
Re: <> Devil's advocate
Date: 2005-07-09 02:10 am (UTC)Chill. What part of "devil's advocate" went way above YOUR dumb-assed head? Just because I comment doesn't mean I give a shit to what philosophy you subscribe to.
Nice how you bitch about wanting discourse, then fail to actually counter, AND resort to cursing/name calling. You lose at teh internuts.
Re: <> Devil's advocate
Date: 2005-07-09 02:15 am (UTC)2) This argument is way beyond you cognitive abilities. I am against the death penalty for fuck sake. Do you not realize that I am pointing out to the other dip shit that HIS extremism is barely any different from that of those who blew up London? FUCK.
3) The name calling is appropriate since you are INDEED a dip shit. In this case it is not an insult but a statement of FACT.
Re: <> Devil's advocate
Date: 2005-07-09 02:56 am (UTC)I probably wasn't the nicest in doing it, but I don't think I diserve your abuse. Just chill. It's a dead issue.
Re: <> Devil's advocate
Date: 2005-07-09 12:30 am (UTC)Re: <> Devil's advocate
Date: 2005-07-09 02:10 am (UTC)Try to find the remaining text/context from where his quote was originally taken and THEN come back.
Re: <> Devil's advocate
Date: 2005-07-08 06:40 pm (UTC)Re: <> Devil's advocate
Date: 2005-07-08 07:21 pm (UTC)Neither do we or Israel.
and seeking democratic support for ways to resolve the situation
Since when do we give a shit about democracy?
It is all about western interests, nothing more.
with physical force used only if necessary
AHAHAHAH
You need a history lesson, dude..
only through the appropriate authorities, keeping as close as possible to legitimate targets, and with a defined objective and end-point.
And you can tell me with a straight face that this is what Israel does or that the US's foreign policy in the last 100 years has always been about this right?
Re: <> Devil's advocate
Date: 2005-07-08 07:30 pm (UTC)We are not anonymous, our troops are identified.
We do not target non-combatants, though we accept that there will be innocent casualties in wars which may nonetheless be worth fighting.
We usually warn, or fight as part of a declared war with an identified enemy.
We almost always explain. Our accountability to relatively free media means we must even if we wished not to.
Your remaining comments are irrelevant, since you are comparing what I support with the last century of a couple of country's history. However yes, overall I believe that democracy, proportionate directed force, and defined objectives are massively more a feature of Western and Israeli military action than Islamist terror strikes.
Re: <> Devil's advocate
Date: 2005-07-08 08:05 pm (UTC)Yeah... When the mossad kills people or the CIA topples democratically elected governments, they always wear uniforms. Those long range intelligent weapons are also all in marked. They just have to get a glimpse of the markings on it before it blows them up.
We usually warn, or fight as part of a declared war with an identified enemy
So do they. They declared war on western society and they always claim responsibility. They are also outside of even their societies so what does media have to do with it?
Are you equating the Fanatics with the less than democratic nations they usually come from? Careful, some of those are our very good friends...We would not be friends with terrorist nations now would we?
Your remaining comments are irrelevant, since you are comparing what I support with the last century of a couple of country's history.
Read that one again and see if it makes any sense.
However yes, overall I believe that democracy, proportionate directed force
Except that we don't care about democracy. Our (the US's) current alliances clearly demonstrate that.
and defined objectives are massively more a feature of Western and Israeli military action than Islamist terror strikes.
You think that they do not have well defined objectives? What?