Some people push back - Page 4 - PbNation
Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

 
Archived Thread - Cannot Edit  
Old 05-16-2006, 03:43 AM #64
casual t (Banned)
 
 
casual t's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
michael moore is a hack and a joke thief. you're right, he reports some truth, but there are reasons why trey parker and matt stone made him out of ham and blew him up in team america.

he stole their ideas.

****ing fat twat

sorry to deviate from topic.
casual t is offline  
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 05-16-2006, 09:12 AM #65
Rugrat
 
 
Rugrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Van by the river
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zack
We pay taxes. I'm not a little Eichmann, by any means, but I AM a good, tax-paying, law-obeying German...er....I mean American. Remember, the holocaust wasn't possible because of the soldiers who executed it, nor the technocrats that made it possible, not even the beauracrats that ordered it. No, it was the good Germans who paid for it, who were complacent in the face of it.
Oh.. I see so because you pay taxes and am a "Good American" your a valid target.... So by your logic, pretty much, everyone America has killed in times of war where Valid Military Targets as well since they supported the governments we were at war with. Or is this just another case of your good ole double standard? You know they can kill our civilians "because they support teh US government", yet we have a smart bomb malfunction and blow up a nieghborhood and all of a sudden "we 're killing innocent civilians"...

Either you have no agruement or you're a hypocrit, which one is it?
__________________
CPPA #2701

Last edited by Rugrat : 05-16-2006 at 09:52 AM.
Rugrat is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 10:48 AM #66
greenmile
 
 
greenmile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UAC Phobos Lab
[quote=zack]Eichmann was also part of a mobilized society, he didn't directly take part in anything bad, he didn't even hate jews, he just made it logisticly possible, he just followed orders. This article is about what happens when people deffer to the authority of their group. If you do and you're group has genocidal tendencies, you should be prepared to take a few hundred thousand deaths for the team. You can't hide behind this "I disagree but won't do anything about it because I respect the law" thing.
QUOTE]

Zack, I agree Eichmann definitely was a member of a "mobilized society". Eichmann was sickened when he saw the death camps and ironically took solace in the rationalization that he only followed the orders given him and was not the one to physically administer the cyclon gas. When the actions are segmented between individuals and accountability is reserved to the authority that you are displaying defferance to....a society is "mobilized".

According to Erich Fromm, one of the greatest psycho-analysts of the 20th century Obedience is to Disobedience as Fear is to Courage. Obedience takes the form of acceptance or agreement while Disobedience/deviance takes the form of rebellious or revolutionary behavior.

if by citing Eichmann...you wish to see the obedience piece with reference to the genocide in nazi germany, you might like Chris Sartwell as well....he wrote some great articles on topic.

As for my views of obedience, deferance to authority, and apathy....I posted much of what I thought (which is a synthasis of Fromm and Sartwell) in the Apathy thread further down the page.

http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=1530114

gm
__________________
pps 45 squall
gr33nmil3
greenmile is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 05:03 PM #67
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat
Oh.. I see so because you pay taxes and am a "Good American" your a valid target.... So by your logic, pretty much, everyone America has killed in times of war where Valid Military Targets as well since they supported the governments we were at war with. Or is this just another case of your good ole double standard? You know they can kill our civilians "because they support teh US government", yet we have a smart bomb malfunction and blow up a nieghborhood and all of a sudden "we 're killing innocent civilians"...

Either you have no agruement or you're a hypocrit, which one is it?
Now you're starting to get it. We'll set aside the fact, for a moment, that we have killed people who WEREN'T tax payers for random regime X, but here's how it goes down in my mind. According to our military rationale we have only killed legitimate targets and everything else was acceptable collateral damage. The point is that our military logic justifies 9/11/01 and any similar terrorist attacks. Do I think 9/11/01 was a GOOD thing? No. Do I think any US military campaigns have been good ideas? No. The point of calling myself a military target (as well as everyone else who makes the US military/intelligence agencies operate effectively) is to destabalize the dichotomy between legitimate US violence and illegitimate terroristic violence. The two aren't at all different, they both rely on the same logic. Isn't the definition of terrorism that people throw around these days "violence with a political goal"? Hmmmm... We have to begin by destabalizing this dichotomy before we can ever give a proper account of violence.

Of course, that's sorta assumptive of other folks supporting a country that is as violent as ours, which is rarely the case.

Greenmile: I'm still confused why this means that this article isn't relevent or important. Anywho, I've never really gotten much into psychoanalysis. My knowledge of it doesn't extend much past Freud and Lacan (which tend to be the folks referenced by the folks I read), but I'll look up this Sartwell fellow.

Last edited by zack : 05-16-2006 at 05:05 PM.
zack is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 05:50 PM #68
Rugrat
 
 
Rugrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Van by the river
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zack
Now you're starting to get it. We'll set aside the fact, for a moment, that we have killed people who WEREN'T tax payers for random regime X, but here's how it goes down in my mind. According to our military rationale we have only killed legitimate targets and everything else was acceptable collateral damage. The point is that our military logic justifies 9/11/01 and any similar terrorist attacks. Do I think 9/11/01 was a GOOD thing? No. Do I think any US military campaigns have been good ideas? No. The point of calling myself a military target (as well as everyone else who makes the US military/intelligence agencies operate effectively) is to destabalize the dichotomy between legitimate US violence and illegitimate terroristic violence. The two aren't at all different, they both rely on the same logic. Isn't the definition of terrorism that people throw around these days "violence with a political goal"? Hmmmm... We have to begin by destabalizing this dichotomy before we can ever give a proper account of violence.

Of course, that's sorta assumptive of other folks supporting a country that is as violent as ours, which is rarely the case.
At first I wasn't going to reply to this as I find your morals odious; but the more I thought about it the more I felt I should respond.

Why would we want to break the dicotomy of terrorist violence done against innocent people and violence done between combatants in warfare? I would understand your desire to do this since you seem unable to discern between a bomb malfunctioning and killing an innocent family and gleefully flying a plane with that family on board into the side of a building. It must make it hard for you to not appear as an immoral monster in society. Just because the end results are the same (death), it does not justify or rationize accidental death and murder as the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zack
Isn't the definition of terrorism that people throw around these days "violence with a political goal"?
Maybe if you're ignorant you might use that definition; but that is not what the word means.

definition of terrorism- the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

definition of terror- violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
__________________
CPPA #2701
Rugrat is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 06:53 PM #69
greenmile
 
 
greenmile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UAC Phobos Lab
I get what your saying Zack, I did not mean to say that the article was not relevant. I meant that because of the way I felt about my "role" in society (as a govt tool unless I am disobedient), that for me there were no revelations about my character.

I am obediant and have defferance to the authority and structure of the society that I am in as a result of fear of retrobution for being deviant or disobedient to that structure. I don't necessarily agree with the actions of the govt, but I accept them....to be a part of this society. Similarly to the way the germans went along with hitler's maniacle schemes of world domination and genocide (unfortunately).

can't say I'm proud of the statement...but it is what it is.

as for Crispin Sartwell, the article I mentioned was "The Genocidal Killer in the Mirror" I did my best to pull the actual article for you, but only got other writings mentioning it. Try scholarGoogle
__________________
pps 45 squall
gr33nmil3
greenmile is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 04:37 PM #70
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat
Why would we want to break the dicotomy of terrorist violence done against innocent people and violence done between combatants in warfare?[/i]
Wow...

If you can't look back at this post, grasp the problem with it in light of the article in the first post and realize why what you just said is highly dubious you're an idiot. I'm sorry, but the whole point is that the way the US military kills people is no different from the way so-called terrorist groups do. The whole point is that we can no longer hide behind the label "innocent civilian" because we are all complicit in genocide. The whole point is that, while violence against the US isn't GOOD it makes a good deal of sense given the rules that we have established. The whole ****ing point, for the last time, is that that dichotomy is artificial, used to solidify and legitimate the current western order.
zack is offline  
Old 05-17-2006, 05:12 PM #71
Rugrat
 
 
Rugrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Van by the river
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zack
Wow...

If you can't look back at this post, grasp the problem with it in light of the article in the first post and realize why what you just said is highly dubious you're an idiot. I'm sorry, but the whole point is that the way the US military kills people is no different from the way so-called terrorist groups do. The whole point is that we can no longer hide behind the label "innocent civilian" because we are all complicit in genocide. The whole point is that, while violence against the US isn't GOOD it makes a good deal of sense given the rules that we have established. The whole ****ing point, for the last time, is that that dichotomy is artificial, used to solidify and legitimate the current western order.
Well at least you make this easy.

Terrorists target random people for no other reason than to instill fear in a population that no one is safe unless their demands are met.

The Military targets specific people, buildings, vehicles, and equipment. They don't bomb random houses to install fear that no one is safe from them.

See the difference there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zack
The whole ****ing point, for the last time, is that that dichotomy is artificial, used to solidify and legitimate the current western order.
Quick quiz for you Zack, can you tell the difference between
This


and This



According to your views (and Mr. Chruchill) there isn't, killing one is the same as killing the other.. There is no dichotomy right zack? These little girls already support the American system because they force their parents to spend money which perpetuates the system but they're not "innocent civilians" are they Zack? There's no difference in shooting a soldier and shooting one of them is there Zack?
__________________
CPPA #2701

Last edited by Rugrat : 05-17-2006 at 05:14 PM.
Rugrat is offline  
Old 05-19-2006, 12:44 AM #72
NorCalBaller88
iFap
 
NorCalBaller88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim96SC2
WE didn't starve anyone. Hussein had the ability to get food and medicine into his country. He chose to squander it and do under-the-table deals with France and Russia. BTW, the U.S. is the most considerate of all nations when taking into account secondary targets and the aftermaths of the raids. We try to avoid civilian casulties more then any other nation in history.



Perhaps you should figure that the majority of the "insurgents" and the "terrorists" are using the US's interference within the Muslim world (Bases in Saudi,etc) as a basis to justify their positons.



We were allowing those idiots at the United Nations to do the job. That worked real well, all talk no action. I wonder why *cough KICKBACKS cough*. PS: we weren't even at war with them, we were enforcing U.N. sanctions against Saddam.



WTF! Now it's time to put the crack pipe down, tell whoever is teaching you this to get out of the bong smoke and listen to what your saying. Palastine, we were never there. Vietnam, we came in to help defend an invasion from the Communist north vs. Democratic south. VIETNAM WASN'T LOST UNTIL A CEASE FIRE WAS BROKERED AND WE PULLED OUR TROOPS AS PER THE AGREEMENT. Cambodia, thats Pol Pot and his crew, not us. Balkans, thats the Serbs vs. Croats, not us. You seriously have an issue with truths in these areas, perhaps a few good factual books would help you. But apparently, judgeing by your writing, if they don't say "US is the worst thing on earth" you won't read it.

Indians: no taxes, reservations that they solely control for the most part. Yes it sucked what happened to them, but that was what, 150 years ago? In that case I'm waiting for my apology for the Muslim invasions of Northern Africa, western europe, etc.

As for the bolded section: killing a bunch of people at work is hardly restraint. You have issues, I suggest you deal with them.



No, the Twin Towers were a privately owned business. The Pentagon was a military target. Again, FACTS help.

In all, you need help. The U.S.A. is not some evil empire you think it is. Your parents really should check what your learning.
You are so terribly informed and the way you percieve history is very flawed. Look your **** over.
__________________
Johns Hopkins, class of 2013
:
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=597002


"Plenty of room at the Hotel California..."
NorCalBaller88 is offline  
Old 05-19-2006, 12:47 AM #73
NorCalBaller88
iFap
 
NorCalBaller88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat
I wonder about our country when I read things like this. The thing that really gripes my *** to no end is the hypocracy and pure BS of these posts. People like Chruchill and our beloved Zack strut around saying we get what we deserve and yet they live just like everyone else, are just as guilty, and just as much of the problem. You're a part of the "We" slick.

I think it would be poetic justice if Zack's, or Mr. Chruchill's, family falls victim to a terrorist attack. They they would understand just what it means when they say "We get what we deserve".
At least they aren't blind to reality, they are making their admitions of guilt. What more would you want them to do? Sacrifice a goat? **** man, think of what you are saying.
__________________
Johns Hopkins, class of 2013
:
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=597002


"Plenty of room at the Hotel California..."
NorCalBaller88 is offline  
Old 05-19-2006, 12:52 AM #74
NorCalBaller88
iFap
 
NorCalBaller88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by scumquat1
Churchill claims to be against everything this country stands for. He hates Capitalism and he hates the actions of our government. On the other hand, he supports the government by paying taxes and he also gets his salary from a state supported institution. I'm calling him a hypocrite... a living, breathing contradiciton. If he had any balls and any true sense of conviction when it comes to his hair-brained beliefs, he'd get the **** out of Dodge. He won't do that because he knows that almost anywhere else he goes, they'd throw his fake-Indian arse in prison to rot.

Frankly, I get a little sick of listening to people like Zack and Churchill prattle on about the banality of concepts like good and evil. They're beyond good and evil. Such ideas are meaningless, yet they certainly don't have a problem passing judgement on America. What a bunch of assclowns.
By speaking out against the system they have the belief that they can touch people and change the bad to good. It's the only thing they can do. Would it be any better if they moved away and made the same statements? No, because you would just write them off as some retarded foriegner that doesn't know anything about the American way of life.
You don't like what they are saying because it pertains to you and your way of life, your country. Your country isn't all peaches and cream so grow the hell up and smell the coffee for what it is.
__________________
Johns Hopkins, class of 2013
:
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=597002


"Plenty of room at the Hotel California..."
NorCalBaller88 is offline  
Old 05-19-2006, 12:58 AM #75
NorCalBaller88
iFap
 
NorCalBaller88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by doublenot7
FIXED
You are such a moron. Saddam was trying to take back land that originally belonged to Iraq. We didn't want that because it meant he would take control of the oil in that region.

He tried to back out of it diplomatically but we wouldn't listen to it at all because we wanted to show off our military strength to the Arab world.
Not only that, we surrounded thousands of their troops, ignoring their bid for surrender, and massacred them. We sure are the honorable fighters of the world. We RAPE the geneva convention. Why?
__________________
Johns Hopkins, class of 2013
:
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=597002


"Plenty of room at the Hotel California..."
NorCalBaller88 is offline  
Old 05-19-2006, 12:59 AM #76
NorCalBaller88
iFap
 
NorCalBaller88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat
Well at least you make this easy.

Terrorists target random people for no other reason than to instill fear in a population that no one is safe unless their demands are met.

The Military targets specific people, buildings, vehicles, and equipment. They don't bomb random houses to install fear that no one is safe from them.

See the difference there?
Yea your right, when those bombs miss and we kill thousands of civilians we write it off as collateral damage because those bombs were really meant for the bad guys.

Edit: Put yourself in their position. You are at school. Away from your home. American bombers are trying to take out military positions. A bomb goes astray and lands right on top of your house. Your entire family is killed. Wouldn't you want to get revenge? Wouldn't you join the ranks of those very "terrorists" that brought those bombers over to your soil? I sure as **** would. I would not stand quietly to a calm by the reasoning of that foreign government that the deaths of my family was an accident. That foreign government caused it, and it would instill such a hatred and bloodlust in my viens that I wouldn't stop until my dying breath to cause as much chaos and destruction to the SOBs that caused all of that pointless pain.
__________________
Johns Hopkins, class of 2013
:
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=597002


"Plenty of room at the Hotel California..."

Last edited by NorCalBaller88 : 05-19-2006 at 01:05 AM.
NorCalBaller88 is offline  
Old 05-19-2006, 01:12 AM #77
NorCalBaller88
iFap
 
NorCalBaller88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willplayforfood
You just contradicted yourself three times. Please, if you dont understand military strategy or techniques and just listen to reporters who don't either you're going to get nowhere. This is how an airstrike works. A patrol in Tal Afar comes under fire from a building three hundred yards down the street. The troops are pinned down and unable to move. A solider uses a laser targeting device and paint the building with it. Then an F-16 or F-18 comes in, and fires a laser guided bomb that homes in on the laser and hit the house. The U.S. troops use the momentary blast that stuns the insurgents to move on the house. They then enter inside, and kill any insurgents that are still a threat. They then evacuate all wounded insurgetns or innocent bystanders hurt in the blast to medical facilities.


Please tell me how this is a RANDOM bombing or a blanket bombing of a village? Our airforce does not randomly hit civillians simply because bombs are very expensive and wasting them on non-military targets just depletes money and ammunition.
Our laser guided bombs really aren't that accurate. The majority of them miss. And when a target is in the middle of a village, and there is a miss, it is bad.
__________________
Johns Hopkins, class of 2013
:
http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?t=597002


"Plenty of room at the Hotel California..."
NorCalBaller88 is offline  
Old 05-19-2006, 09:25 AM #78
Rugrat
 
 
Rugrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Van by the river
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalBaller88
At least they aren't blind to reality, they are making their admitions of guilt. What more would you want them to do? Sacrifice a goat? **** man, think of what you are saying.
They may not be blind to reality but they deffinately have a distorted view of it. Premeditated murder and accidental death are not the same. There's a difference between plotting and killing innocent people and a bomb going off course. You need to think about what your saying. We bombed Iraqi soldiers on the "highway of death" in war, so killing people who had nothing to do with it, other than them sharing teh same nationality is justified? Saddam starved his own poeple while at the same time bought weapons and built luxury palaces for his family, so killing people in another country for revenge is ok because your leader ****ed you over?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalBaller88
Yea your right, when those bombs miss and we kill thousands of civilians we write it off as collateral damage because those bombs were really meant for the bad guys.

Edit: Put yourself in their position. You are at school. Away from your home. American bombers are trying to take out military positions. A bomb goes astray and lands right on top of your house. Your entire family is killed. Wouldn't you want to get revenge? Wouldn't you join the ranks of those very "terrorists" that brought those bombers over to your soil? I sure as **** would. I would not stand quietly to a calm by the reasoning of that foreign government that the deaths of my family was an accident. That foreign government caused it, and it would instill such a hatred and bloodlust in my viens that I wouldn't stop until my dying breath to cause as much chaos and destruction to the SOBs that caused all of that pointless pain.
So how many poeple, who had nothing to do with teh death of your family, would you kill in order to avenge their deaths? Does the death of your family justify this?

And what about your victim's families, are they then justified to kill innocent people in your country because of what YOU did?

If my family was killed by a bomb aimed at a military target I'm not going to go out and shoot a mother and her 3 year daughter to "make up for" the deaths of my wfe and daughter. That innocent woman and child had nothing to do with teh attack, they didn't order it, they didn't drop the bomb that killed my family, they just happen to te same nationality as those who killed my family. And just because a few billionths of one cent of their tax money payed for that bomb that killed my family still doesn't make my shooting a mother and her child in cold blood right.

That's the difference between myself and you, Zack, and Mr. Chruchill. I see the diffence, you gus don't. In your minds those few billionths of one cent make that woman and her child a target and they "Got what they deserved" when I pulled the trigger. I can put myself in their shoes and I can't justify their actions.
__________________
CPPA #2701
Rugrat is offline  
Old 05-19-2006, 09:37 AM #79
Rugrat
 
 
Rugrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Van by the river
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalBaller88
Our laser guided bombs really aren't that accurate. The majority of them miss. And when a target is in the middle of a village, and there is a miss, it is bad.
Proof? Oh right there isn't any... I spent a year in iraq and in that entire time NEVER ONCE did I see bomb damage to anything other than buildings, (And I was all over Baghdad). I know Doubleknot was there as well, I'll bet money that he didn't either or if he did it was a rarity as we'll. Are you seriously saying that our bombs are missing teh target and yet they are always missing eough to strike nieghboring buildings? Or are you saying that Iraqi Department of Public Works was repairing roads, rebuilding walls, and replanting trees when ever a bomb would miss a building and land the front yard or street?
__________________
CPPA #2701
Rugrat is offline  
Old 05-19-2006, 12:12 PM #80
BCP Klaus
Sodomization happens!
 
BCP Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat
Proof? Oh right there isn't any... I spent a year in iraq and in that entire time NEVER ONCE did I see bomb damage to anything other than buildings, (And I was all over Baghdad). I know Doubleknot was there as well, I'll bet money that he didn't either or if he did it was a rarity as we'll. Are you seriously saying that our bombs are missing teh target and yet they are always missing eough to strike nieghboring buildings? Or are you saying that Iraqi Department of Public Works was repairing roads, rebuilding walls, and replanting trees when ever a bomb would miss a building and land the front yard or street?

The generation of LGM's being used as we type are very accurate, and yes, there have been a few that didn't hit intended targets, but thus far, collateral damage has been quite low. The LGM's during the first Gulf War, weren't quite as accurate, but the hit to miss ratio wasn't bad given the conditions at the time, but this time around, GPS guided munitions are proving to be the way to go. I'd also be interested in seeing if Norcal was just shooting from the hip so to speak, if he read this info somewhere credible?
__________________
Support my member
BCP Klaus is offline  
Old 05-20-2006, 12:40 AM #81
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rugrat
Stuff and things.
Mmmmm, straw man. You're still missing the point. Go back, read my post again, think and THEN post.

A. Killing people is bad. Neither I nor churchill argue that killing anyone, from the little kids to the soldier.

B. The dichotomy I speak of is NOT between a soldier and a child, but between one soldier and another, between one child and another. Thus the straw man you burn.

C. The point, again, is not that killing kids is the same as killing a soldier, but that ACCORDING TO OUR OWN MILITARY LOGIC THAT WE INSTITUTE WHEN WE BOMB PEOPLE both children and soldiers are acceptable targets. If it had been us attacking the world trade center, the logic would have been as such: the twin towers are part of the command and control structure of this country, making them targets, and the, say, kids inside the building are what we here in the US military like to call "acceptable collateral damange"

D. For me to classify someone as a legitimate military target DOES NOT MEAN I think they should be killed. It means that I think, by military logic, they would be killed and THAT IS WHY THAT PARTICULAR LOGIC IS BAD. Duh...

We don't deserve 9/11/01, but it IS a time to reconsider the logic we use when we go to war.
zack is offline  
Old 05-20-2006, 10:10 AM #82
smartone1939
 
 
smartone1939's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by zack
Mmmmm, straw man. You're still missing the point. Go back, read my post again, think and THEN post.

A. Killing people is bad. Neither I nor churchill argue that killing anyone, from the little kids to the soldier.

B. The dichotomy I speak of is NOT between a soldier and a child, but between one soldier and another, between one child and another. Thus the straw man you burn.

C. The point, again, is not that killing kids is the same as killing a soldier, but that ACCORDING TO OUR OWN MILITARY LOGIC THAT WE INSTITUTE WHEN WE BOMB PEOPLE both children and soldiers are acceptable targets. If it had been us attacking the world trade center, the logic would have been as such: the twin towers are part of the command and control structure of this country, making them targets, and the, say, kids inside the building are what we here in the US military like to call "acceptable collateral damange"

D. For me to classify someone as a legitimate military target DOES NOT MEAN I think they should be killed. It means that I think, by military logic, they would be killed and THAT IS WHY THAT PARTICULAR LOGIC IS BAD. Duh...

We don't deserve 9/11/01, but it IS a time to reconsider the logic we use when we go to war.

you and churchdill figured out that sometimes inocent people get killed in a war. i hope it didnt take you guys to long to get to that conclusion

thing i cant figure, is if theres no good or evil, how can anybody be inocent???
smartone1939 is offline  
Old 05-20-2006, 10:18 AM #83
$PJ$ (Banned)
Northern Ballers Prez
 
$PJ$'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Earth
$PJ$ is a Supporting Member
He is referring to those who have no choice but to be in a war zone yet do not participate as innocent. There really no such thing as good or evil, that is nothing more than a political tool to drum up support for whatever agenda is trying to be pushed.
$PJ$ is offline  
Old 05-21-2006, 02:41 AM #84
zack
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
 has been a member for 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartone1939
you and churchdill figured out that sometimes inocent people get killed in a war. i hope it didnt take you guys to long to get to that conclusion

thing i cant figure, is if theres no good or evil, how can anybody be inocent???
\
No, you missed the point. Try again.

The proper question is "how could there be any guilt?"
zack is offline  
 




Posting Rules
Forum Jump