http://www.thenews.com.pk/update_detail.asp?id=15813

US air strike against suspected Al-Qaeda members in Somalia: US media



WASHINGTON: The US military launched an air strike against members of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in southern Somalia, but it is unclear whether the operation was a success, US media said.
An AC-130 aerial gunship flew the mission in the last 24 hours, a US TV channel said, citing a senior Pentagon official.

"Sources say a lot of bodies were seen on the ground after the strike," another TV channel said.

"The targets included the senior Al-Qaeda leader in East Africa and an Al-Qaeda operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of two US embassies in Africa," in Kenya and Tanzania.

The suspected terrorists were chased out of Mogadishu by US-backed troops and were tracked by US unmanned aerial drones.

The AC-130 gunship, operated by the US Special Operations Command, flew from its base in Djibouti for the attack. It was not clear whether the operation was a success.
I wish the American forces good luck.

I appreciate their better aim. ;)

Guess the warlords figured out how to get a good slice of all that American moolah!

A fool and his money...:p

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6243459.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6243907.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6234167.stm

Should the UN condemn the US for attacking a sovereign nation?

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/427.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0607-03.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601625_pf.html

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2716.shtml

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/427.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0607-03.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051601625_pf.html

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2716.shtml

Nothing ever changes does it? When will the US ever learn? Well, apparently never.

Isn't it interesting how the patterns are EXACTLY the same?

Vested interest (communism/oil)-->money+weapons+dictator-->civil unrest/torture/murder/starvation-->"saving the people"-->people initially happy-->people want US out ASAP +US soldiers commit atrocities on civilians--->civil war+Al-Qaeda-->War on Terror

Thats Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam right there.

Whatever the USA decides to do is perfectly okay with me!

Baron Max

Whatever the USA decides to do is perfectly okay with me!

Baron Max

Whatever happened to your 'trust no authority' routine? Did it conflict with your 'trust the US government at all times' routine and lose?

AMERICA - my country, right or wrong - MY COUNTRY!

The American people voted for the government to represent them in peacetime and in war. Whatever my nation decides to do if fully approved, beforehand, by the people of this great nation.

AMERICA - my country, right or wrong - MY COUNTRY!

Baron Max

AMERICA - my country, right or wrong - MY COUNTRY!

The American people voted for the government to represent them in peacetime and in war. Whatever my nation decides to do if fully approved, beforehand, by the people of this great nation.

AMERICA - my country, right or wrong - MY COUNTRY!

Baron Max

You would have been an excellent nazi!

You would have been an excellent nazi!

I would have, that's for sure.

But I'm an even better AMERICAN!

Baron Max

Good americans don't hang around on foreign forums.


"My 4-year-old boy was killed in the strike," Mohamed Mahmud Burale told the BBC from the area.

Congratulations. You made some more enemies.

"So many dead people were lying in the area. We do not know who is who, but the raid was a success," interim government spokesman Abdirahman Dinari told AFP news agency about Monday's raids.

indiscriminate slaughter is defined as succes.

spurious, sounds like the Somalia Government is ok with the strike, the even requested it, what attack against a sovereign government?, when were the terrorist ever the legitimate government of Somalia?

Spurious apparently wants to undermine governments who stand up to the Islamic terrorists.

killing indiscriminately is not standing up to terrorism. It's terrorism.

Apparently iceagecivilization is a staunch terrorist supporter.

Guess the warlords figured out how to get a good slice of all that American moolah!

A fool and his money...:p

I don't think it's about money. It's about security. If you were in Africa being invaded by Bin Ladens terror cells, or were seeing this stuff happening of course you'd declare war.

I'm surprised it took this long for this to happen. I think the only way to win this war, is to fight Al Qaeda whereever they are, including if they t ry to hide in Africa. So if there are Islamic extremists in Africa, and if there are terrorist training camps in Africa, we should bomb them.

Spurious, you're against killing the terrorists in Somalia, that's your problem baby.

Good americans don't hang around on foreign forums.




Congratulations. You made some more enemies.



indiscriminate slaughter is defined as succes.

This is another matter. Innocent people do get killed in a strike, and this is why America should spend some time rebuilding the country after the strike.

I don't think however, that as an American, we can afford to allow Al Qaeda to grow in Africa. Al Qaeda is far too radical and extreme to be allowed to gain strength.

Whatever happened to your 'trust no authority' routine? Did it conflict with your 'trust the US government at all times' routine and lose?

Even if you don't trust authority, it's still authority. We don't have to agree with how the war is fought, it's still going to be fought and theres no avoiding that.

We might disagree with a lot of the politics, but we agree on national security. How can you be an American and not want your country to win a war? Of course we want to win, we might disagree with how we win, or on what winning is, but no one wants to lose. None of us want to suffer another terrorist attack, or have to go through another 911.

Spurious, you're against killing the terrorists in Somalia, that's your problem baby.

Clearly a christian like you should be able to find it where it says in the bible:

You shall not murder.

Obviously I was under the impression you were a christian. I didn't quite realize you were a bloodthirsty minion of the devil.

That is one of the interesting thing about America, after we kick the shit out of our enemies, we reach out and rebuild their countries, we don't extract the last measure of retribution, we re-established the government, and help clean up the Country, a interesting comparison is West and East Germany, which one was a economic power house, and which one was a economic basket case, Which model would you want the Russian, as applied to East Germany? - The American, as applied to West Germany?

This is another matter. Innocent people do get killed in a strike, and this is why America should spend some time rebuilding the country after the strike.

Have you not learned anything from the past? You cannot rebuild people. You are sowing hatred and you are going to reap that. Should these people be grateful for the US bombing the shit out of them and then 'rebuilding' the country?

Did you rebuild vietnam?

Did you rebuild afghanistan?

spuriousmonkey, there is a difference between murder and war, it is legally defined, and also remember that there is the admonition, Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's. So we have a injuncture from the Bible and Jesus to obey our government.

It is not murder to kill those who seek to kill you, you know, self defense.

If Iran, which swears to attack Israel, soon has nukes, do the Israelis have the right to take out that capability?

Have you not learned anything from the past? You cannot rebuild people. You are sowing hatred and you are going to reap that. Should these people be grateful for the US bombing the shit out of them and then 'rebuilding' the country?

Did you rebuild vietnam?

Did you rebuild afghanistan?

I don't control what our deciders decide. I never said I agreed with how the war was being fought, I'm just saying we have to win. It's started now, regardless of if you agree with it or not, you have to win.

I think it's in our best interest to rebuild what we destroy. Also it would create jobs to do so. I think we have to get Al Qaeda, it's just a debate as to how we do it.

It is not murder to kill those who seek to kill you, you know, self defense.

If Iran, which swears to attack Israel, soon has nukes, do the Israelis have the right to take out that capability?

There might be better ways to disarm Iran besides by force. Force might not work if it starts a world war.

It is not murder to kill those who seek to kill you, you know, self defense.

If Iran, which swears to attack Israel, soon has nukes, do the Israelis have the right to take out that capability?

You really aren't a Christian are you. You work for the devil.

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42, NIV)

I knew you were a fake.

I don't control what our deciders decide. I never said I agreed with how the war was being fought, I'm just saying we have to win. It's started now, regardless of if you agree with it or not, you have to win.

You can't win wars.

I agree that would not be the best way, but if, for instance, Mexico was gaining nuclear capability, and was sworn to destroy the U.S., I don't think we'd just kick back and hope that France and Russia would talk them out of it.

Vietnam won, making it their responsibility, but we are now doing project all over their country, at the New Years Eave Party that I was at, I met a Guy who is a Vietnam Veteran who goes over there and helps build Libraries and school, and he tells me that we the U.S. are helping the Vietnamese modernize their country. Afghanistan, it is still a work in progress, the war isn't over, but it seems that we are trying to rebuild even as the war goes on, most rebuilding generally take place after the war is over, that is something you don't seem to understand thing must be done in order, to rebuild the war must be over.

Hey Spurious, why do you suppose the Apostles carried swords, to pick their teeth?

Vietnam won, making it their responsibility, but we are now doing project all over their country, at the New Years Eave Party that I was at, I met a Guy who is a Vietnam Veteran who goes over there and helps build Libraries and school, and he tells me that we the U.S. are helping the Vietnamese modernize their country. Afghanistan, it is still a work in progress, the war isn't over, but it seems that we are trying to rebuild even as the war goes on, most rebuilding generally take place after the war is over, that is something you don't seem to understand thing must be done in order, to rebuild the war must be over.

If vietnam won you definitely should pay for rebuilding the country.

Hey Spurious, since you believe in the Devil, who is your Devil opposed to.

spuriousmonkey, We didn't win WWI and WWII, and any number of other conflict through out our history, it is only lately that we have a problem winning wars, could it be that the PC way of fighting a war and not using overwhelming force and worrying about the enemies before you have won is the problem?

ps: if you start out with the premise that you can't win you wont!

Hey Spurious, why do you suppose the Apostles carried swords, to pick their teeth?

I don't know devil worshipper. I would think the devil has been whispering sweet words into your ears.

Jesus said:
"Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26: 52).

Only if they can enforce the reparations, that is the way of the world.

Hey Spur, since you believe in the Devil, who is your Devil opposed to?

I can't believe that someone who claims to be a Christian never heard of the ten commandments.

You can't win wars.

You can win wars if you have rational objectives. You cannot win holywars because there is no rational objective.

Example, the holy wars in Europe were ended when the wars shifted to a resource dispute away from religious disputes.

You cannot win a holywar, but if it's practical, such as a war for natural resources, or a war to win land, etc, these wars end when you get what you were fighting for.

You can win wars if you have rational objectives. You cannot win holywars because there is no rational objective.

Example, the holy wars in Europe were ended when the wars shifted to a resource dispute away from religious disputes.

You cannot win a holywar, but if it's practical, such as a war for natural resources, or a war to win land, etc, these wars end when you get what you were fighting for.

You are fighting terrorists for natural resources?

spuriousmonkey, there is a difference between murder and war, it is legally defined,

Very true. I feel bad for SP Monkey, he got his ass kicked (so it seems) in U.S now all he does is cry about it on the internet.

Whatever happened to him has scarred him, poor guy.

Very true. I feel bad for SP Monkey, he got his ass kicked (so it seems) in U.S now all he does is cry about it on the internet.

Whatever happened to him has scarred him, poor guy.

I feel sorry for you because you are yourself.

Ours (U.S.) is not a holy war against Islam, we have hundreds of mosques in the U.S., and Muslims are free to worship and talk about their religion as they please, but the Muslim countries do not allow such freedom, it is their problem to be intolerant of other religions, and to seek to kill those who don't submit to Islam.

I feel sorry for you because you are yourself.

You should stick to analyzing dog farts, it is your specialty.

Dog farts are a good start for the monkster.

Ours (U.S.) is not a holy war against Islam, we have hundreds of mosques in the U.S., and Muslims are free to worship and talk about their religion as they please, but the Muslim countries do not allow such freedom, it is their problem to be intolerant of other religions, and to seek to kill those who don't submit to Islam.

That's a good enough reason to murder people? That other countries don't have religious freedom? Why be best buddies with Saudi Arabia? Why make war with Iraq were there were more religious freedoms than in Saudi Arabia.

Why murder innocent people in somalia? Did you ask them before you murdered them if they are in favour of religious freedom? Maybe they were a bit far away from the C-130 to hear the question.

You should stick to analyzing dog farts, it is your specialty.

Have an infraction my friend. It's on me.

Dog farts are a good start for the monkster.

He cant hide his genetic link to the father land.

We are after terrorists sworn to do us harm.

Have an infraction my friend. It's on me.

whats that?

You shall not murder.

whats that?

the infraction sticky thread:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61330

It's not murder to defend yourself.

oh my

It's not murder to defend yourself.

We already covered that. Turn the other cheek. No need to keep repeating yourself. You know the bible.

spuriousmonkey, again you demonstrate do as I say not as I do.

“ Originally Posted by John99
You should stick to analyzing dog farts, it is your specialty. ”

Have an infraction my friend. It's on me.

you would give a friend an infraction?

There are many time I would give infractions to several of the mods, but I'm not allowed.

you would give a friend an infraction?

Sure.

Apparently you think it is ok to come into a discussion and to start flaming. Feel free to complain to the moderator. Most infractions get reversed after all. That would be spidergoat for this forum. But then again. Infractions can be reversed by all mods. So pick the one that likes you best.

your drunk with power.

spuriousmonkey, you are one of the biggest flamer on this site.

That's funny...I was going to post this:

It's just a preventive strike on the war of flaming. I don't know what you are complaining about. If the US does this it is all good. Next thing you are going to complain that I flame. Then the parallel is complete.

???????????

You are fighting terrorists for natural resources?

Well, if it's a religious war, we can't win. If it's a war for increasing national security, then yes we can use the oil revenues which would come from Iraq, that does make sense and is rational.

However it totally depends on the kind of war we fight. If the war is against Al Qaeda, I think we should go after Islamic extremists, if the war is for oil we should get oil, if the war is for national security, we should protect the nation.

I don't think we can just, win the war by killing an unlimited amount of terrorists. I don't think we can win the war if we allow moderates to be radicalized.

Ours (U.S.) is not a holy war against Islam, we have hundreds of mosques in the U.S., and Muslims are free to worship and talk about their religion as they please, but the Muslim countries do not allow such freedom, it is their problem to be intolerant of other religions, and to seek to kill those who don't submit to Islam.

I completely agree that we should go after extremists. I think we just need to do so in a better more efficient way. I don't think we can just bomb Islamic extremism out of existance, in fact that kind of behavior risks radicalizing people who would never have become extremists.

You can win wars if you have rational objectives. You cannot win holywars because there is no rational objective.

Example, the holy wars in Europe were ended when the wars shifted to a resource dispute away from religious disputes.

You cannot win a holywar, but if it's practical, such as a war for natural resources, or a war to win land, etc, these wars end when you get what you were fighting for.

You think its justified to invade a country because you want their land or natural resources??? And you whine and cry about slights to america??? AND you call yourself a fuking humanist???????? Jesusfukingchrist!!

You must be a cow to be that stupid. I am really amazed. Americans really are that prickish and dumb beyond belief. Just pretend to be something your not, huh?? Do whatever it takes huh?? Then, still lie to yourself and call yourself a humanist BECAUSE you want to "win!!!" and think your still a saint, huh??

There are all kinds of egos but american ego is especially odorous and embarassing. Jesuschrist, you really do need your asses kicked really really fuking hard and I fuking hope your day comes you spoiled nasty brats.

Reinstitute the SOG program.

iam;1259327]You think its justified to invade a country because you want their land or natural resources??? And you whine and cry about slights to america??? AND you call yourself a fuking humanist???????? Jesusfukingchrist!!

I never said it was morally right. I said in the context of a war, or wars. Now you are making me out to be someone who enjoys war or something, thats not the case. I recognize that there will be wars as long as there are humans who want to live like this, who want to drive nice cars, and have unlimited energy, and consume and consume, and who want to not change their lifestyle.

You do realize, if we run out of oil, we can't even drive to and from work, or have this modern way of life. Our factories would shut down, we'd have problems feeding our ever increasing populations, etc.

You must be a cow to be that stupid. I am really amazed. Americans really are that prickish and dumb beyond belief. Just pretend to be something your not, huh?? Do whatever it takes huh??

Put yourself into the perspective of a President. Your country is running out of natural resources, your economy is about to collapse, and you are about to lose your status as number #1 economy in the world. At the same time terrorists are attacking your country. What is in the best interest of national security? A strong economy. In order to fight the war on terrorism, you could easily come to the conclusion that you need plenty of oil and natural resources to do it, to pay for the war.

I'm not saying this is what actually happened, but it's easy to see there are many rational reasons to go to war for natural resources which are in the best interest of a countries national security.

If we want to discuss the morality of it we can, perhaps it would have been more moral to operate in another way, but this is how the world has been in operation since before either of us have been alive, and we inherited this great country because people robbed other great countries, through whatever means. Can you at least understand that from the point of view of an American, that it's rational for an American to protect the interests of America?

I agree it's more rational to protect the interests of the planet and the world, but you have to also admit that a person can support certain wars with rational/moral intentions even if its not in the best interests of the planet.


Then, still lie to yourself and call yourself a humanist BECAUSE you want to "win!!!" and think your still a saint, huh??

Do you think Al Qaeda would treat me or any other American any different? Of course I want to win, it's not like losing is any option. The terrorists attacked civilians, in the case of Al Qaeda it is self defense.

There are all kinds of egos but american ego is especially odorous and embarassing. Jesuschrist, you really do need your asses kicked really really fuking hard and I fuking hope your day comes you spoiled nasty brats.

Nationalism is not going to go away overnight. While there might be better ways to live, better and more moral ways to handle and settle conflicts, the war has already started, and every American wants to win, because at the end of the day we are all Americans, we have to live in this country, period.

I don't know what country you are in, but we live here and our homes are here, our families and friends are here, and so we are attached to this place. We are also attached to our way of life. In the end, people who are in America, love their homeland, and it's very difficult for people to accept that they will have to give up some stuff.

Why don't you give up your quality of life? Why don't you do it? Mainly, it's not a situation where all Americans are bad, or even support the war, but all Americans have a stake in what happens. We all want to win because our lives are here.

iam's thinking would make perfect sense if the UN were the global government. However we still live under the American empire, at best with competition from Europe, Russia and China.

When you are dealing with hundreds of millions of people, and a country the size of America, it's a resource hungry place. American's don't get the option to settle for less, because other countries like China and India have over a billion people and they want the resources too.

It's a matter of America's national security, to get the resources before all the other countries do. Iam is right, it is immoral, the whole system is immoral, the whole geopolitics are immoral, but to assume America has to follow rules when none of the other countries follow them, is wrong.

Countries are no more "moral" than corporations. Countries represent groups of corporations. Corporations often represent groups of families.

While Corporations are global, the corporate world is better at diplomacy than the nation state world.

Iam, you have to tell me, if you are against nationalism, what comes after the nation state? Humanism? Even if you are a humanist first, you are representing your country second. So you can be a humanist, but you still live where you live. What alternative is there? Do you think the world would settle down and stop if America didn't seek world domination? Give some alternatives that are more moral.

^like I Said, Jesusfukingfragilisticchrist, You Are Fuking, Really, Humongously Stupid.

And You Call Yourself A Fuking Humanist. Do You Even Know What The Definition Is?

Humanists Are Concerned With "humanitarian" Principles Globally, Not Just The Greedy Comfort Of One Country And Their Ego Positioning At Number One, You Despicable, Fronting Moron Of Morons.

You still don't get it, even if you are a globalist, unless you have global citizenship, you aren't going to be able to act like a global citizen. Corporations can have global citizenship, people can't. People are kept in their nation state roles, as citizens of countries, and until this changes, people will be loyal to their country above all others.

Basically, it can't change unless we have global citizenship.

iam;1259390]You keep farting your stupidest farts and keep considering yourself a fuking humanist! The writing is on the wall mutherfuker! Its blasphemous for you to consider yourself a fuking humanist.


I'm a humanist, not an idiot. I'm not going to ignore political, economic or national realities. When I'm a global citizen, then you'll have a point.


Oh my, lol. Do you think because you are rationalizing your position that automatically means you are a humanist?? No, donkeysh*t. Its obvious
You don't give a shit about other countries or what happens to people beyond your borders.

Am I a citizen of other countries? Because I can only be a citizen of one country, I choose America.


You are a lying, fronting typical american selfish bastard that only cares about its comfort. You are not a fuking humanitarian mutherfuk and you better get off your high horse. Hehehe.. why don't you just get off it. You are starting to piss me off. Do americans buy your ridiculously weak front or think everyone else is that stupid?

People can only be a citizen of ONE country. It's not an option for people to support other countries, people should be loyal to the country they live in.

It's not my responsibility to be loyal to YOUR country whereever it is, because I'm not a citizen of your country. I do not have a house in your country. I do not have family in your country. And if I do have family in your country, I have not met them yet.

How are we supposed to promote America as the best country and get people to immigrate here, if we are disloyal to our country?

Now, it's one thing if you arent an American, then you can say all you want to say about America, but if you are an American, when you attack America you are attacking your friends and family. I do not attack my friends and family, period. I'm a humanist BECAUSE of my friends and family, not in spite of.

I cannot be responsible for the world. I have a responsibility to protect myself, my friends, family, country. Yes I have friends around the world, if I'm in their country and I'm a citizen of their country and the majority of my family is there, then I'd be loyal to that country.

At last we are fighting Al Quida again! Fantasic.

You keep farting your stupidest farts and keep considering yourself a fuking humanist! The writing is on the wall mutherfuker! Its blasphemous for you to consider yourself a fuking humanist.

Oh my, lol. Do you think because you are rationalizing your position that automatically means you are a humanist?? No, donkeysh*t. Its obvious
You don't give a shit about other countries or what happens to people beyond your borders. You are a lying, fronting typical american selfish bastard that only cares about its comfort. You are not a fuking humanitarian mutherfuk and you better get off your high horse. Hehehe.. why don't you just get off it. You are starting to piss me off. Do americans buy your ridiculously weak front or think everyone else is that stupid??

are you on medication? do all "humanists" act as you do? you are a fascinating specimen, fascinating.

I'm a humanist, not an idiot. I'm not going to ignore political, economic or national realities. When I'm a global citizen, then you'll have a point.



Am I a citizen of other countries? Because I can only be a citizen of one country, I choose America.



People can only be a citizen of ONE country. It's not an option for people to support other countries, people should be loyal to the country they live in.

It's not my responsibility to be loyal to YOUR country whereever it is, because I'm not a citizen of your country. I do not have a house in your country. I do not have family in your country. And if I do have family in your country, I have not met them yet.

How are we supposed to promote America as the best country and get people to immigrate here, if we are disloyal to our country?

Now, it's one thing if you arent an American, then you can say all you want to say about America, but if you are an American, when you attack America you are attacking your friends and family. I do not attack my friends and family, period. I'm a humanist BECAUSE of my friends and family, not in spite of.

I cannot be responsible for the world. I have a responsibility to protect myself, my friends, family, country. Yes I have friends around the world, if I'm in their country and I'm a citizen of their country and the majority of my family is there, then I'd be loyal to that country.

Who's the idiot?? Its easy to read between the lines in your posts. You call yourself a humanist. Forget about political strategies for a second. You think I don't know about that you presumptous fuk?? You have reading comprehension problems. You care about where you fuking live and the people you know and care about and the resources both through physical and cultural appropriation to keep you alive and comfortable period. Thats your real agenda, you fake piece of sh*t.

No matter what fake posturing or even rationals you use. The fact is anyone can lie about what their real motivations are. Self -preservation is all your about. Nothing else. You don't really give a shit about somebody else, there are just out there.

You are such a self-deceiver and your disgustingly self-centered. But to call yourself a humanist when you are not a humanitarian is what makes it so much worse.

are you on medication? do all "humanists" act as you do? you are a fascinating specimen, fascinating.


this coming from an american who thinks americans who claim to be humanists must be so, of course its unquestionable. LOL.

this coming from an american who thinks americans who claim to be humanists must be so, of course its unquestionable. LOL.

where are ye (you) from?

You know timetraveler, your posts are littered with nonhumanistic ideals and no one wants to see it especially the neonazi clan who are egomasturbating along with you.

For example, why would you care to "promote" one country to be the best over another? Humanitarians are about trying to fix or help 'humans' globally. Humans are everywhere and they all feel pain, hunger, suffering etc.

No doubt you will rationalize your stance on this even if your just a selfish bastard underneath it all that just cares about getting the largest piece of the pie, screw everybody else. Timetraveler, do you think just because you can pretend to be someone or convince others means thats what you really are? I guess its good enough for priests who molest and those who don't know. lol.

iam;1259457]Who's the idiot?? Its easy to read between the lines in your posts. You call yourself a humanist. Forget about political strategies for a second.

The thread is about politics, and war, not about me, and how you want to read between the lines. Obviously, you don't do a good job at it.


You think I don't know about that you presumptous fuk?? You have reading comprehension problems. You care about where you fuking live and the people you know and care about and the resources both through physical and cultural appropriation to keep you alive and comfortable period.

You care more about people you don't know than the people you know? You care more about countries you don't live in than the countries you live in? Sometimes you have to set priorities, it's good to care about people you havent yet met, but it's irrational to care more about people you havent met than about the people you HAVE met.

So you are irrational, think about this deeper, and furher before you respond.


Thats your real agenda, you fake piece of sh*t.


My agenda is to protect and care about my family, sometimes it includes people I have not met, but when I have to make a choice, or choices that are critical as to who I'm willing to put myself at risk to protect, I'm going to choose the people I've met over the people I havent met. I'm going to choose the people I know over the people I don't know. It does not mean I do not have compassion for the people I don't know, it just means I don't have the ability to save the world, and neither do you, but I'm rational enough to realize it.


No matter what fake posturing or even rationals you use.

Would you rather I use irrationals like you?


The fact is anyone can lie about what their real motivations are.

If I were going to lie, why would I lie about this?


Self -preservation is all your about. Nothing else.

Self preservation is the first law of nature, it's all any rational person is all about. If you want to die for the world go ahead, not everyone is suicidal and you should not expect us all to be.


You don't really give a shit about somebody else, there are just out there.

You don't seem to understand. Even if I give a shit about people I havent met, it does not change the fact that I have to set my priorities towards the people I've met and that I know. I'm supposed to risk myself for people I don't know and havent met?

At least if I meet a person, or know something about a person, I can know who or what I'm defending. You can try to make me out to be as mean, cruel, or cold as you want, but it does not change the fact that it's impossible for one person to save the world, one person can save their friends and family at best.


You are such a self-deceiver and your disgustingly self-centered. But to call yourself a humanist when you are not a humanitarian is what makes it so much worse.[

I'm a humanist, but I'm not crazy. You are ranting and raving like a crazy person who forgot to take his medicine. I suggest you calm down and read what I'm saying. Do the math, forget about your emotions for a moment if you can, but you seem so emotionally that you can't think straight.

Use your rational brain, ignore all emotions and all feeling, assume that it's a fact that many people are going to die, and many people are going to suffer, and theres nothing anyone can do to stop it. Once you assume this fact, then the option you get is, who do you want to choose to protect?

The first people you'll protect, or that anyone will protect, is their friends/family, the people they know best are the people they'll protect first. The second people people will protect, are people they haven't met, but who they know a lot about. Then you have billions of other people who you'll never have enough time to meet each one, or know about each one, or help each one.

So be realistic, if you are one person, theres only so many people that you can meet in your lifetime. If you are going to help people, you need to do it in a precise way. If you want to help people, the most professional and efficient way, is to help those who wish to help others.

But if you don't help yourself, and those closest to you, THEN YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HELP ANYONE ELSE. You have to help yourself before you can help anyone else, and you have to help those closest to you, but you can also help those who arent close to you, who want to help others. In general, we protect each other.

I don't know everyone on this forum, but in certain situations I'd defend people from this forum. That's how a community works, this forum is a community. I don't have to agree with your opinions to offer assistance.

It's not about emotions either, it's about being rational, it's about numbers. A rational person helps themselves to help others who want to help themselves. An irrational person, donates to charity to feel good about themselves even when it helps no one and the money goes to a warlord.

Do you now see, that it's better to help people locally where you can actually have some measureable impact than to try to help people accross the world? Can you see that you should help your community first?

You care more about people you don't know than the people you know? You care more about countries you don't live in than the countries you live in? Sometimes you have to set priorities, it's good to care about people you havent yet met, but it's irrational to care more about people you havent met than about the people you HAVE met.

anti-humanist statement.



My agenda is to protect and care about my family, sometimes it includes people I have not met, but when I have to make a choice, or choices that are critical as to who I'm willing to put myself at risk to protect, I'm going to choose the people I've met over the people I havent met. I'm going to choose the people I know over the people I don't know. It does not mean I do not have compassion for the people I don't know, it just means I don't have the ability to save the world, and neither do you, but I'm rational enough to realize it.

Anti-humanist statement





Self preservation is the first law of nature, it's all any rational person is all about.
Anti-humanist statement.


You don't seem to understand. Even if I give a shit about people I havent met, it does not change the fact that I have to set my priorities towards the people I've met and that I know. I'm supposed to risk myself for people I don't know and havent met?

Yes. If you are a humanist.


At least if I meet a person, or know something about a person, I can know who or what I'm defending. You can try to make me out to be as mean, cruel, or cold as you want, but it does not change the fact that it's impossible for one person to save the world, one person can save their friends and family at best.
Anti-humanist statement.






Do you now see, that it's better to help people locally where you can actually have some measureable impact than to try to help people accross the world? Can you see that you should help your community first?

Regional preference is completely and utterly anti-humanist.

Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.

iam;1259483]You know timetraveler, your posts are littered with nonhumanistic ideals and no one wants to see it especially the neonazi clan who are egomasturbating along with you.


It's not about ideals, it's about practical idealism. If your idealism is not practical then whats the point? So you want to help people you don't know, people who are across the world, who you know nothing about? How do you plan to do this? Don't you think you'd be better at helping people in your own community, or helping people you do know?


For example, why would you care to "promote" one country to be the best over another? Humanitarians are about trying to fix or help 'humans' globally.

I'll explain the logic so you understand. You are a person, you have friends/family who love you and who you love who you know, and you might have people who love you and who are potential friends that you have not met yet. You live in a community, as you grow, you form friendships, you create a family and a network, and this network is your family network. This network helps you, and you help them, and you grow old together, this is your most intimate network.

The next network is your community, these are groups of families, like yours, who share similar values, and who care about the community, the legal systems, the society, the institutions, and you are connected to them by these community concerns. You protect each other, you police each others streets, you fight fires together, and you rely on each other, it's a community.

Then you have inter-connected communities, these are groups of hundreds of networks, and thousands of communities, and they inter-connect like the internet, and the result is a country. They rely on language standards, protocols, a set of universal laws, etc. People care about their country because they care about their family, their religion, their community, their quality of life.

As much as we might care about Africa, how many people would want to switch places and give up quality of life? NO ONE. Everyone is fortunate to have been born in America, and we don't want our children to have a lower quality of life than ours.


Humans are everywhere and they all feel pain, hunger, suffering etc.

I know that, but humans in America are also suffering, why don't we help them, and let you help people in your country, and then when we have inter-connected countries, we can help all countries, maybe through the UN, but you cannot expect individuals to be capable of such things.


No doubt you will rationalize your stance on this even if your just a selfish bastard underneath it all that just cares about getting the largest piece of the pie, screw everybody else.

I never said screw everyone else, I never said society was fair, I never said it was efficient or that anyone had to suffer, however if society gives me an option like "choose who has to suffer, you and your family, or them and their family" I'd be disloyal to my family to choose anything other than my family.

Now I recognize, I might have family or potential family all around the world, but I can only make an impact locally. Who do you think I am? You act like I'm the President.


Timetraveler, do you think just because you can pretend to be someone or convince others means thats what you really are? I guess its good enough for priests who molest and those who don't know. lol.

You'll never understand who or what I really am because you are too emotional minded to figure it out. You can't even type without cussing and name calling, and thats a sign of intellectual weakness and emotional instability. All you have to do, is apply logic. You care about the world? Good, so do I, but I also realize that simply caring about something does not change anything. I guess you have not yet figured it out, so you are a naive idealist instead of a practical idealist. Naive meaning, you don't really pay much attention to if your idealism is realistic or can work, and you pay more attention to how it feels to do whatever you are doing. How you feel is not going to matter if you can't accomplish anything of importance because you are focused on whats going on over accross the world moreso than whats going on in your backyard. If you have family/friends across the world, then you focus on their part of the world because they are there, but if you don't, then you'll be using your brainpower inefficiently. Focus locally and think globally.

Regional preference is completely and utterly anti-humanist.

Act locally, think globally. You cannot get anything done practically if your mind is overseas and your body is here.

Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial

I agree with the morality, I disagree with the practicality of your naive idealist thinking. And someone as anti-American as yourself, has no right to comment. Maybe if you were not so anti-American you would not bring out nationalism in humanist Americans. When people such as yourself and Iam, group all Americans up like that, you only make us more nationalistic, so stop doing that.

Think Globally, Act Locally!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_globally,_act_locally

Act locally, think globally. You cannot get anything done practically if your mind is overseas and your body is here.



I agree with the morality, I disagree with the practicality of your naive idealist thinking. And someone as anti-American as yourself, has no right to comment. Maybe if you were not so anti-American you would not bring out nationalism in humanist Americans. When people such as yourself and Iam, group all Americans up like that, you only make us more nationalistic, so stop doing that.

Think Globally, Act Locally!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_globally,_act_locally

Anti-humanist statement. Nobody makes anyone nationalistic but him/herself.

Anti-humanist statement. Nobody makes anyone nationalistic but him/herself.

You are ignorant. Did you read the website? Maybe if you read it you'd know why it's irrational to expect anyone to give up their country.

You are ignorant. Did you read the website? Maybe if you read it you'd know why it's irrational to expect anyone to give up their country.

I don't need to read a website to have an opinion. I'm deep.

I don't need to read a website to have an opinion. I'm deep.

Don't comment unless you actually READ what I post.

How credible are the al-Qaeda allegations?

The UIC initially emerged after businessmen in Mogadishu funded a number of Islamic courts, in an attempt to impose law and order in a lawless city riven by years of factional fighting.

But whilst the courts were credited by many residents for clamping down on crime, there were elements within the Islamist militia pushing for an Islamic state.

The government also blamed the Islamists for deadly car bomb attacks earlier in December and last year's assassination attempt on President Yusuf.

The UIC, however, denied any links to al-Qaeda, or that there were terror training camps in Somalia.

Diplomats believe that small groups of al-Qaeda militants, including foreigners, have been operating in the country.

There have also been at least four attacks on US and Israeli targets in East Africa - all linked in some way to Somalia.

And with al-Qaeda's call to arms, following the routing of the Islamists, there are grave concerns about a renewed Islamic insurgency in the region.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4760775.stm


So are there any al-Qaeda there in Somalia or are we just justifying air strikes on people based on what "diplomats believe"?:confused:

Somalia: Victory Near At Militants Hideout, Heavy Fighting ...
Heavy fighting is reported at the jungle location, which may be an al Qaeda base. Meanwhile, Somalia's president made his first visit to the capital ...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/08/world/main2335451.shtml


The Pentagon confirmed Monday's strike targeting al Qaeda operatives late on Tuesday, but did not give any information on who was actually killed.

The targets included the senior al Qaeda leader in East Africa and an al Qaeda operative wanted for his involvement in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in Africa, Martin reported. Those terror attacks killed more than 200 people.


"But many international terrorists are dead in Somalia," Meles was quoted as saying. "Photographs have been taken and passports from different countries have been collected. The Kenyans are holding Eritrean and Canadian passport holders. We have injured people coming from Yemen, Pakistan, Sudan, the United Kingdom."
BBC NEWS | Africa | Somalia - al-Qaeda's new safe haven?
Al-Qaeda militants are now operating in the war-torn state of Somalia and are looking to use the country as a 'safe haven', US officials warn.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5086712.stm

Counterterrorism Blog: Somalia's Terrorists
Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, members of al-Qaeda's Somali cell, had returned to Somalia. They were financed by Sudanese al-Qaeda ...
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/12/somalias_terrorists.php

The Americans cannot stop the jihad. After all, their empire is collapsing into third-world status.

The jihad will triumph.

The jihad will triumph.

What do they win? What will it be when they force all people on the planet to surrender to them? What do they want? What's they're goals for the planet? And for all of us?

Baron Max

The Americans cannot stop the jihad. After all, their empire is collapsing into third-world status.

The jihad will triumph.

Pussy

It is not murder to kill those who seek to kill you

Nice religion!

Ours (U.S.) is not a holy war against Islam, we have hundreds of mosques in the U.S., and Muslims are free to worship and talk about their religion as they please, but the Muslim countries do not allow such freedom, it is their problem to be intolerant of other religions, and to seek to kill those who don't submit to Islam.

lol!

What do they win?

The right to fight the Chinese.

The right to fight the Chinese.

“ Originally Posted by infoterror: The jihad will triumph.”

And when they've triumphed over the Chinese? What do they win?

What do they win? What will it be when they force all people on the planet to surrender to them? What do they want? What's they're goals for the planet? And for all of us?

Baron Max

So are there any al-Qaeda there in Somalia or are we just justifying air strikes on people based on what "diplomats believe"?:confused:are you denying that islamists want to kill all non muslims?

are you denying that islamists want to kill all non muslims?

Whats an islamist?

A) What is your question?
B) Do you think this pretenteous acts of asking "what is", can help you?
C) What's a non-Muslim? a kafir!

A) What is your question?
B) What's a non-Muslim? a kafir!

non-Muslim=kafir (Arabic)

Islamist = ?

read again on my asking you regarding your "act" of asking "what is".

I know that kafir is in Arabic.
www.historyofjihad.org/quran.html
Do you want more?

I know that kafir is in Arabic.
www.historyofjihad.org/quran.html
Do you want more?

Ah so thats what an Islamist is! Thanks:)

I knew it meant a scholar of some sort, I see now it means a propagandist.

stop ptretending, that's not how you'll defend your religion.
Unless you prefer to call a radical Muslim just plain: "Muslim".

stop ptretending, that's not how you'll defend your religion.

Don't need to, its the religion of truth, and

"The Truth Is Out There!!!!"

Here entertain yourself:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61916

lol, not bad, thanks, I like entertaining.

lol, not bad, thanks, I like entertaining.

You're welcome.

See ya.;)

i am sure the terrorists claim to be freedom fighters...

MySpace: "I wish the American forces good luck."
Mr. G: "I appreciate their better aim."

US Strikes on al-Qa'ida Chiefs Kill Nomads (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article2149716.ece)

As luck (actually criminally-negligent intel) would have it, their aim was way off. Again. Not only does this miss the mark, but has added yet another setback in the "War on Terror": No bad guys were killed, but recruitment for America's enemies, including terrorists surely benefitted. Again.

When professionals cause damage and harm directly contravening their duties, we normally expect for there to be consequences. Those who are slapping together such poorly-planned and provocative missions need to have their licenses to kill revoked now.

i am sure the terrorists claim to be freedom fighters...

Most murderers and violent rapist claim innocence, too, but that doesn't make it so.

Baron Max

..., their aim was way off. Again.

And you believe that article without waiting for a single shred of evidence? An accusation from two people who probably have records of hating the US in anything they do? You just believe it because its something bad about the USA, Hype! Admit it. You're becoming the equal in hating the US as Samcdkey ...congratulations!

Baron Max

Most murderers and violent rapist claim innocence, too, but that doesn't make it so.

Baron Max

Come now Baron, those soldiers were already sentenced for raping and killing that 15 year old and her family. You can let go of the anger now.

And you believe that article without waiting for a single shred of evidence? An accusation from two people who probably have records of hating the US in anything they do? You just believe it because its something bad about the USA, Hype! Admit it. You're becoming the equal in hating the US as Samcdkey ...congratulations!

Baron Max

Hmm isn't the present government supporting the US?

A high-profile US air strike in Somalia missed its supposed main target of 3 senior Al-Qaeda members, American officials admitted yesterday, as concern continued to grow over the rising numbers of casualties from the conflict. US officials insisted the 10 people who were killed in the raid in southern Somalia were Islamist allies of Al-Qaeda, but a local member of parliament claimed there had been much larger-scale civilian casualties inflicted by the Americans and their Ethiopian allies, with at least 150 confirmed dead so far.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/ion/index.cfm/bulletin/5879

Baron Max: "you believe that article without waiting for a single shred of evidence?"

They missed, Baron. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003521564_somalia12.html) The evidence (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e629d56a-a18b-11db-8bc1-0000779e2340.html) is coming in, day after day. If you have evidence that the stated targets of the attacks were taken out, and that innocents weren't killed, then let's see it.

"You're becoming the equal in hating the US..."

I love my country. That you would so attack my patriotism only reveals your ignorance of most basic philosophical foundations of our constitutional free society.

They missed, Baron. The evidence is coming in, day after day.

And ye're just frothing at the mouth in gleeful anticipation that something went wrong and innocent people were killed .....so you can gloat about how the USA has fucked up.

Gloat all you want, Hype, but you can't call it patroitism and expect anyone to believe it.

Baron Max

No gloating here, Baron. My patriotism is offended because actions like this are harmful to my country in creating more enemies and eliminating none. Your notions of patriotism seem more simplistic to me; unqualified sentiments that would equally support any regime you might find yourself under, whatever the circumstances.

But maybe I'm wrong. Let's compare our respective patriotisms for a moment, Baron. What exactly do you think makes the USA most unique and deserving of our patriotism?

hypewaders, do you know anything about real war? Hiding in a Nuke Boat waiting for launch orders is not real war. Real war is nasty dirty dangerous business with multiple mistakes and innocents get hurt, look at WWII more civilians died in that war than military, and the truth be known that is a fact of life in 20th and 21st century warfare, when opposing forces choose to use civilians as a refuge, and attack from the civilian base, what do you expect to happen, you sat in your nice pig boat, in air conditioned comfort, good food and a shower at the end of your watch, and never had to face your enemy out in the open with the blood of your just killed friends in your face, eyes, mouth, nose, and the smell of his ruptured bowels all over your self, and you want to tell the grunt how to conduct operations, Have you ever read Carl von Clausewitz, I doubt it, or you would have a better understanding of von Clausewitz admonition

"The great uncertainty of all data in war is a peculiar difficulty, because all action must, to a certain extent, be planned in a mere twilight, which in addition not infrequently — like the effect of a fog or moonshine — gives to things exaggerated dimensions and unnatural appearance.

Very seldom is any thing really clear in a combat environment, even the targeting of supposed known identity, you do your best and live with your mistakes.

Baron Max: "hypewaders, do you know anything about real war?"

I lived in Beirut during some of the war years. I've seen enough war and killing.

"Hiding in a Nuke Boat waiting for launch orders is not real war. "

It felt extremely real at times. We were trained, briefed and paid for imminent danger. I served aboard attack boats, not boomers. We sometimes visited locations where the Soviets had legal justification to immediately attack us if we were detected. I don't think that having been in danger confers any special credibility, but yes I've been in danger in a military context.

"never had to face your enemy out in the open with the blood of your just killed friends in your face, eyes, mouth, nose, and the smell of his ruptured bowels all over your self"

Not enemies, but I've seen all that. I don't believe that an immersion in human butchery provides any special knowledge.

"Very seldom is any thing really clear in a combat environment, even the targeting of supposed known identity, you do your best and live with your mistakes."

Bullshit. You have no basis for saying that the situation was a Pentagon Panic: "Oh shit! We've gotta hit somebody in Somalia right now or we're all gonna die! Fire For Effect!" There was no crisis in Somalia rising to the level of a new American national emergency.

No, somebody got a tip from some shady Somalians. That tip went straight to the top, then the orders came straight back down, and all thewhile nobody bothered with verifiable target confirmation. We are behaving as a trigger-happy rogue state, quick to shoot, and utterly unprepared in terms of intel and target awareness. That's a recipe for fomenting, not suppressing terrorism.

Baron Max: "hypewaders, do you know anything about real war?"

I think you misquoted me, Hype. I didn't ask that question, Buffalo Roam did.

I lived in Beirut during some of the war years. I've seen enough war and killing.

Up close and personal, or from a distance ...or like on your tv? Hearing the bombs and shells in the distance is not real war, Hype ....you can get that effect on tv or in the movies. Are you really scared when you watch war movies?

Not enemies, but I've seen all that. I don't believe that an immersion in human butchery provides any special knowledge.

It's not knowledge that one gains so much as a different perspective of war and human savagery. One of the odd feelings is that it was ones own bullets that caused the death of the person lying on the ground with his brains blown out. Some peope puke, some feel sick, some laugh and cheer, but I've know very few who didn't feel a tremendous sense of accomplishment at killing an enemy soldier. You, Hype, and others, can't know that feeling just from reading a book or seeing a movie about war.

Most people see death on the tv news and pretend to feel an aversion to it. They pretend bacause they can't know, simply can't know! Yet that same person will play computer games where the object is to kill as many of the enemy as possible. It's almost like saying that you've seen some porno films, so you know what sex feels like, and you know that you'll like it.

There was no crisis in Somalia rising to the level of a new American national emergency.

Remember what you said in another post about your convictions, and how you'd carry out those convictions even in the face of opposition? Well, there you have it, Hype. President Bush is convinced that terrorists and terrorism are real and that they should be hunted down like the criminals they are ...it's a conviction that he feels. Or do you want a wimp as a president - doing whatever others suggest (as long as it's what you like or want)? Do you want a government that swings with the mood of the loudest protest groups?

No, somebody got a tip from some shady Somalians. That tip went straight to the top, then the orders came straight back down, and all thewhile nobody bothered with verifiable target confirmation.

So you'd want absolute, irrefutable proof before acting on anything? Would you like signed affidavits from the terrorists themselves? ...with a promise to stay in place until after the bombs were released?

Hype, as scared of public opinion as you are, you'd surely make the worst national leader that any nation on Earth could possibly have! You'd do nothing for fear of public recriminations.

That's a recipe for fomenting, not suppressing terrorism.

Not if we kill enough of 'em! Just like the Japanese in World War II ....we just kept killing them until there were so few left that they decided to surrender.

But had you been president during World War II era, you'd have done nothing in Europe, and you'd have done damned little in the Pacific while waiting for positive, irrefutable proof that the Japanese weren't nice guys and just errored in dropping their bombs on Pearl!

But I'm more interested in your comments about convictions, your personal ones as well as the president's. Do they mean anything to you? Or are convictions something that change with the blowing of the wind? Would you give up your own convictions because a few people didn't like them?

Baron Max

Most murderers and violent rapist claim innocence, too, but that doesn't make it so.

Baron Maxproblem is some buy their crap as reality.

No gloating here, Baron. My patriotism is offended because actions like this are harmful to my country in creating more enemies and eliminating none.

Well, that may be how YOU feel, Hype, but the duly elected officials of this great nation felt otherwise. Are you suggesting that they should not have convictions and carry out those convictions as they see fit?

But maybe I'm wrong.

Oh, heavens ....surely not?!!

Baron Max

Baron Max: "I didn't ask that question, Buffalo Roam did."

My apologies to Baron and Buffalo both.

"Up close and personal, or from a distance ...or like on your tv?"

Up so close, I mostly keep it personal.

"Are you really scared when you watch war movies?"

No.

"You, Hype, and others, can't know that feeling [of accomplishment at killing an enemy soldier]."

I'm not jealous.

"Remember what you said in another post about your convictions, and how you'd carry out those convictions even in the face of opposition?"

Yes.

"President Bush is convinced that terrorists and terrorism are real and that they should be hunted down like the criminals they are ."

In no way does that justify being indiscriminate.

"do you want a wimp as a president - doing whatever others suggest (as long as it's what you like or want)?"

A President need not be wimpy, but should follow the expressed will of the country. America wants OBL, not Somali shepherds. America wants out of unnecessary foreign quagmires, not in.

"Do you want a government that swings with the mood of the loudest protest groups?"

No, one that follows the consensus of elections will do.

"So you'd want absolute, irrefutable proof before acting on anything?"

Before carrying out lethal attacks, prudence requires positive target identification. Less discipline than that hurts our national interests. This kind of misapplication of force is a recipe for fomenting, not suppressing terrorism.

"Not if we kill enough of 'em! Just like the Japanese in World War II ....we just kept killing them until there were so few left that they decided to surrender."

That is not a comparable situation on many levels. We are not fighting one nationality or command structure in the War on Terror. A war on a tactic cannot bring about the universal abandonment of that tactic, like the war on Imperial Japan brought about their surrender. You seem to be the one deluded with a Hollywood conception of warfare, especially when it comes to counterterrorism, which is really rightful domain of law enforcement and not military campaigns.

"I'm more interested in your comments about convictions, your personal ones as well as the president's. Do they mean anything to you?"

President GW Bush does not impress me as a man of conviction, although he does display stubbornness. To me convictions arise from deep understanding, and stubbornness from little more than ego.

"are convictions something that change with the blowing of the wind?"

No.

"Would you give up your own convictions because a few people didn't like them? "

No.

"Are you suggesting that they should not have convictions and carry out those convictions as they see fit?"

Their highest convictions should be to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, to include serving the will of the People. But maybe I'm wrong.

"Oh, heavens ....surely not?!! "

I maintain hope that I'm right about America. If I am, this Administration will be greatly discredited in the future, and Americans will demand more accountable leadership.

hypewaders, do you know anything about real war? Hiding in a Nuke Boat waiting for launch orders is not real war. Real war is nasty dirty dangerous business with multiple mistakes and innocents get hurt, look at WWII more civilians died in that war than military, and the truth be known that is a fact of life in 20th and 21st century warfare, when opposing forces choose to use civilians as a refuge, and attack from the civilian base, what do you expect to happen, you sat in your nice pig boat, in air conditioned comfort, good food and a shower at the end of your watch, and never had to face your enemy out in the open with the blood of your just killed friends in your face, eyes, mouth, nose, and the smell of his ruptured bowels all over your self, and you want to tell the grunt how to conduct operations, Have you ever read Carl von Clausewitz, I doubt it, or you would have a better understanding of von Clausewitz admonition



Very seldom is any thing really clear in a combat environment, even the targeting of supposed known identity, you do your best and live with your mistakes.

gruesome, but very accurate. you had some experience there BR?

To much.

To much.

i often look at it his way. what doesnt kill you forge you.

my father once tolled me that because of the smell of the burned people, he couldnt eat meat for 3 years.

I could talk to your father, and would understand him, yes that which does not kill us, makes us stronger.

You'll get no respect from me by talking in cryptic ghoulishness, Buffalo.

By your vacuous line of reasoning, we should also envy the acquired "strength" of those who fed the Auschwitz ovens; We should envy the animal power of ancient warriors who ate the hearts of their enemies, and who peeled off and wore their skins of the vanquished: Towering figures of strength, my ass.

Admire history's greatest hand-to-hand killers in your own sick pleasure, even meditate on your own private horrors, but don't try selling me some bullshit that such experiences build character. Killing other humans for any reason -just or otherwise- does not improve one's character. The worship of gore as a mystic source of strength is an antiquated coda, a facile coping-mechanism, a depravity, and a weakness (not strength) of character.

Perhaps blood letting is also an addiction that needs to be fed. For all their vacuous stories of war, soldiers appear to lust for more killing, more blood and gore, and relish re-living the memories of their friends splattered all over them, as though it gave them special status to be part of a state sanctioned group of murderers.

why do americans like the term "war"? on anything?

hypewaders, hell I didn't think I was being cryptic, I was telling it like it is, there are some other things that stick out in my mind from back then to, one was a Tac-E, that started at o-dark thirty, we flew in to a Humong vill that was under attack, and e-vac-ed the place, on one of the flight's back out, one of the women, decided to have her baby right now, hell I just was finding out what pussy was for, and there I am delivering a baby at 4000 AGL on the cargo deck of a Slick, in the dark, baby and mother were returned to the ground in excellent condition, the other is after getting wicked on a combat insertion, the next day cleaning the blood and smell of death off the same cargo deck, and with the temperatures in Nam the smell had fermented into a really gut wrenching perfume, so I don't really care if I get no respect from you, as it tell me you haven't been there.

That's less cryptic, which I can appreciate. But please recall the way in which you initiated this little bloody sidebar: You were impugning my opinion with the assumption that I haven't been washed in The Blood. You assumed that I haven't smelled gallons of human blood, or seen human wreckage dead and dying, or that I have not experienced extreme jolts of adrenaline. You then used that assumption to assert that I resultantly don't know what I'm talking about. You added in the context of traumatic experienced that "what doesn't kill us makes us stronger".

That is why I have taken you to task over this tack in your conversation. I don't wish to dredge up anyone's traumatic memories. But I do resent such experiences being abused as some kind of imagined elite badges of courage, strength, or credibility on any given issue. I know from my own life experience, having experienced war, having associating with a good number of warriors, having witnessed wartime death, that putting on such heirs is complete bullshit, even a disgrace.

I can also assure anyone from my own personal experience that there is no higher plane, no special knowledge, no wellspring of inner strength, from the experience of witnessing human trauma, death and suffering. I personally don't know about witnessing births, but I have yet to see physicians display a similar attitude as yours, insinuating that those not washed in birth-blood are weaker people whose opinions count for less.

I don't really care if I get no respect from you, as it tell me you haven't been there."

You see, you are still puffing up with the same bullshit: "Oh, I'm above you're level on this." You are assuming much, and adding little to your argument that indiscriminate killing and military escalation are effective in suppressing global terrorism.