|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 14, 2011 7:59:27 GMT -5
What are you going to claim that he was not working to kill people? Innocent until proven guilty. With the sole exeption of legitimate battlefield, or recognised army and uniform. Neither case fulfilled. Let's everyone be terrorists! Yay! Once again, agreeing with Fred, so strongly that I'll admit it in public, in fact. Stooping to the level of the enemy robs us of our moral authority. If we're just as bad as the terrorists, then who the fuck are we to condemn them for being terrorists? |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 14, 2011 8:06:26 GMT -5
Stooping to the level of the enemy is funny.
We are not killing innocent people. Yes the law says innocent until proven guilty. That is the law and not reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 14, 2011 8:11:00 GMT -5
Stooping to the level of the enemy is funny. We are not killing innocent people. Yes the law says innocent until proven guilty. That is the law and not reality. The terrorists are killing people they believe are guilty, without trial, and now so are we. Explain to me the difference, please? |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 14, 2011 8:18:14 GMT -5
The terrorists are killing people they believe are guilty, without trial, and now so are we. Explain to me the difference, please? The difference is between belief and reality. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 14, 2011 11:13:21 GMT -5
The terrorists are killing people they believe are guilty, without trial, and now so are we. Explain to me the difference, please? The difference is between belief and reality. When forced to resort to intangible abstractions, thats a pretty good indicator you know you're backing an indefensible proposition. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 14, 2011 11:17:45 GMT -5
Intangible abstraction, really?
Do you not understand the difference between a belief and reality or fact?
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Oct 14, 2011 11:21:22 GMT -5
Intangible abstraction, really? Do you not understand the difference between a belief and reality or fact? I do indeed understand the difference. However, you aren't specifying what you mean. What are your "facts" and their "beliefs" that are in conflict, specifically? |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Oct 14, 2011 11:42:24 GMT -5
The terrorists are killing people they believe are guilty, without trial, and now so are we. Explain to me the difference, please? The difference is between belief and reality. Your argument comes down to: This is us and that is them. m52nickerson, if you allow a state to kill enemies working against it just like this, you're opening Pandora's Box. This is sheer Might Makes Right, nothing else. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 14, 2011 11:43:44 GMT -5
I do indeed understand the difference. However, you aren't specifying what you mean. What are your "facts" and their "beliefs" that are in conflict, specifically? You stated that they believe they are attacking and killing people who are not Innocent. They think these people are guilty of something. We know they are wrong. We also know that the people we are targeting are not Innocent. They have come right out and stated they want to kill people. We also know they are actively trying to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Oct 14, 2011 11:52:03 GMT -5
I do indeed understand the difference. However, you aren't specifying what you mean. What are your "facts" and their "beliefs" that are in conflict, specifically? You stated that they believe they are attacking and killing people who are not Innocent. They think these people are guilty of something. We know they are wrong. We also know that the people we are targeting are not Innocent. They have come right out and stated they want to kill people. We also know they are actively trying to do that. Question, m52nickerson: How many people died in Afghanistan and Iraq? |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 14, 2011 12:03:25 GMT -5
Question, m52nickerson: How many people died in Afghanistan and Iraq? A great many. Now if you are going to claim that innocent people were killed, I will not argue different. We however did not target them, they were collateral casualties. War is messy, there is no getting around that. |
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Oct 14, 2011 12:03:28 GMT -5
It's a sad day when LHM and ltfred are the voices of reason...
|
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Oct 14, 2011 12:15:49 GMT -5
A great many. Now if you are going to claim that innocent people were killed, I will not argue different. We however did not target them, they were collateral casualties. War is messy, there is no getting around that. And I doubt Al Qaida targeted specific people on 9/11. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Oct 14, 2011 12:23:09 GMT -5
And I doubt Al Qaida targeted specific people on 9/11. That is my point. They did not target specific people, but they did target people. It did not matter who was killed. |
|
|
|
Post by Her3tiK on Oct 14, 2011 12:28:03 GMT -5
Here's a brief analysis from Al Jazeera that compares this conspiracy to Dubya's reasoning behind invading Iran. It's a pretty decent comparison, that, while the author doesn't outright call this "terror plot" a fraud, is incredibly skeptical. There's also new analysis from TYT, which goes over statements from the New York Times and insiders from the Bush Admin who are for[/url] attacking Iran, but admit that this so-called assassination doesn't sound like anything the Quds Force, Iran's special forces, would ever do. |
|
