Page 16 of 27 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627 LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 521

Thread: US warships frightened by Iranian boats; War of Terror; US foreign policy, etc...

  1. #301
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Seems like a reasonable question.

    Speaking of questions that haven't really been asnwered around here: if OBL is really not a problem, and AQ destroyed, why is the US bombing Afghan civilians ?
    the question is based on 5-6 ridiculous underlying assumption.

    some are a result of side effects of OCD medication, some are results of the meds running out and SAM's delusions kicking i, and some because of misinformation due to reading www.rense.com all the time.

  2. #302
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    5,590
    Quote Originally Posted by S.A.M. View Post
    You tell me. Who is looking for him?
    So you're incapable of answering the question? Very well. Hopefully, this will only further expose exactly what you're after when you come to this site. Apparently, you aren't even capable of dialogue.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Seems like a reasonable question.
    And I wondered how many minutes it would take for you to race to Sam's defense with your lack of understanding in this arena. So since you have graced us all with your intellect: Do you think there is no evidence to connect Osama bin Laden to 9/11, too?

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Speaking of questions that haven't really been asnwered around here: if OBL is really not a problem, and AQ destroyed, why is the US bombing Afghan civilians ?
    Is the US "bombing Afghan civilians," and if so, is it intentional? Everything I see or read is about the US bombing Taliban or Al Qaeda positions with the occasional sort of miscue or collateral damage that always occurs in warfare.

    Secondly, I don't think anyone has said Osama bin Laden is not a problem or that Al Qaeda has been destroyed...

  3. #303
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    16,577
    Quote Originally Posted by count
    Is the US "bombing Afghan civilians," and if so, is it intentional?
    Yes, the US is bombing Afghan civilians.

    "Intentional" is your own special way of not thinking. The US knows what the consequences will be, of the tactics it adopts. Whether all these consequences are "intentional" or not, I leave to others.

    If you require rephrasing of the question, before answering, happy to oblige: Why is the US continuing the invasion of Afghanistan with tactics that lead to the bombing of civilians ?

    Quote Originally Posted by otheadp
    the question is based on 5-6 ridiculous underlying assumption.
    Like what ?

  4. #304
    a junkie's broken promise stretched's Avatar
    Posts
    1,239
    And I wondered how many minutes it would take for you to race to Sam's defense with your lack of understanding in this arena. So since you have graced us all with your intellect: Do you think there is no evidence to connect Osama bin Laden to 9/11, too?
    As you indicate that you have in depth understanding regarding this matter, grace us with your intellect and present the evidence.

  5. #305
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    5,590
    Answer the fucking question, Ice: Do you think there is no evidence to connect Osama bin Laden to 9/11, too?

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Yes, the US is bombing Afghan civilians.
    Please, provide some proof of this, as your opinion means next to nothing to me, especially in a part of the world you've demonstrated to know very little about in the past.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    "Intentional" is your own special way of not thinking.
    So because I don't see something as you see it, I'm not thinking? I'll put that down next to your specious claims about people not agreeing with you being on drugs, etc. However, the fact I seem to appreciate nuance and you do not would seem to undermine your claim.

    Homocide and murder are two different things, but both involve a person dying at the hands of another. So far as Afghanistan and the US military is concerned, morally and ethically speaking, bombing and accidentally killing civilians during the course of war is vastly different than intentionally bombing and killing civilians. I can't help it if you chose to ignore or are ignorant of such distinctions. Your inability to see such distinctions may be a political choice you have made. That's fine, but don't pretend the lines aren't there simply because you do not like them or acknowledge their importance.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    The US knows what the consequences will be, of the tactics it adopts. Whether all these consequences are "intentional" or not, I leave to others.
    So in other words, you're too chickenshit to say whether you think your country is intentionally boming to kill civilians? I have no such compunctions. The US, per my reckoning, is not intentionally bombing and killing civilians — and if I am right about your hidden feelings, I think it's sad you seem to think the opposite is the case. Believing that requires one to believe that the US military is a cabal of murderers.

  6. #306
    a junkie's broken promise stretched's Avatar
    Posts
    1,239
    "Bush opens Mideast tour with new warning to Iran"
    (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...HDfFb7QJjlEV0Q)

    Excerpts: "Bush threatened Iran with "serious consequences" if it attacked US warships, saying "all options" were on the table to protect US assets after Sunday's standoff in the strategic Strait of Hormuz."

    "Speaking in Jerusalem after talks with Israeli leaders, Bush also said that he remained convinced like them that Iran's nuclear programme made it a threat to world peace, despite a recent US intelligent report that said Tehran abandoned an atomic weapons drive in 2003."

    "Iran was a threat, Iran is a threat and Iran will be threat to world peace if the international community does not come together and prevent that nation from the development of the know-how to build a nuclear weapon," he said. (Bush)

    "Israel is widely considered the Middle East's sole if undeclared nuclear power and its leaders have made preventing Iran acquiring an atomic bomb their top strategic priority."

    He he. There is no agenda, eh.

  7. #307
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    16,577
    Quote Originally Posted by count
    The US, per my reckoning, is not intentionally bombing and killing civilians — and if I am right about your hidden feelings, I think it's sad you seem to think the opposite is the case
    You are never - never - right about my "hidden feelings". You would do much better flipping coins, on that subject. Give it up. Deal with as posted, for a change.

    Your careful, spinning use of "intentional" to deflect actual consideration of what the US is doing in Afghanistan is noted, and the discomfort of acceptance, as a US citizen, of what others claim the US is doing in Afghanistan is therefore suggested - it's not surprising.

    Most US citizens seem to rely on a set of unlikely assumptions and revisions of history, along with large and carefully maintained areas of ignorance , to provide them with comfort in their evaluations of the Afghan invasion. That is to their credit, IMHO.

    And the same applies to the wargames in the Persian Gulf and associated Waters. The actions of the Iranian (if they were, as seems likely) boats look different in a context of preparations for defense against threatened attack, than in a context of irresponsible provocation of the US Fleet.
    Last edited by iceaura; 01-10-08 at 04:25 PM.

  8. #308
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    And the same applies to the wargames in the Persian Gulf and associated Waters. The actions of the Iranian (if they were, as seems likely) boats look different in a context of preparations for defense against threatened attack, than in a context of irresponsible provocation of the US Fleet.
    But war games are not conducted with live runs on target with live weapons, or against live opponents with out a whole lot of prior consent.

    And to make live runs on ships of a Nations that you have declared your enemy is asking to get your butt handed to you, and it is your fault.

    The Commander and ships Captains, of that task force show remarkable restraint.

  9. #309
    a junkie's broken promise stretched's Avatar
    Posts
    1,239
    More cracks.

    "US doubts over Iran boat 'threat'"

    (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7182337.stm)

    "The New York Times noted on Wednesday that the US-released audio includes no ambient noise of the kind that might be expected if the broadcast had come from on one of the speedboats.

    Map showing Strait of Hormuz, with satellite photo
    Pentagon officials said the voice heard in the video clip is not directly traceable to the Iranian military, but could still have come from a high quality radio on one of the small boats, the paper reported."

  10. #310
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    5,590
    Answer the fucking question, Ice: Do you think there is no evidence to connect Osama bin Laden to 9/11, too? This is the third time you've been asked...

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    You are never - never - right about my "hidden feelings". You would do much better flipping coins, on that subject. Give it up. Deal with as posted, for a change.
    First, let me say that I wrote that because you very specifically seemed to be avoiding saying explicitly whether the US was intentionally bombing civilians.

    Secondly, I inferred what I did, because you wrote: "Yes, the US is bombing Afghan civilians." Then you proceeded to attack me for dealing with the nuances of morality and intent, so far as the bombing goes, a tack you returned to in your latest response. What was I supposed to think?

    And if I thought wrong, you could clear it up by overtly stating what you think. But the funny thing is, you didn't. You'd rather weasel around, play rhetorical games and try to turn the question back around on me, just like Sam attempted to do. What's even more bizarre about this is that I've stated very plainly what I think. So guess what? Here's your chance: Do you think the US is intentionally bombing civilians?

    Like the other question you have avoided, it's not tough to answer...

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Your careful, spinning use of "intentional" to deflect actual consideration of what the US is doing in Afghanistan is noted, and the discomfort of acceptance, as a US citizen, of what others claim the US is doing in Afghanistan is therefore suggested - it's not surprising.
    Please don't label my opinion as "spin." I said intentional, because I meant intentional. People die by accidents in wars, Ice. Buildings are bombed by mistake, targets are confused, allies are mistakingly attacked and collateral damage happens. None of these unfortunate circumstances can be totally avoided. The fact you refuse to acknowledge the very real very obvious difference between intentionally targeting someone with a bomb and an unfortunate circumstance where that same someone dies by being in the wrong place at the wrong time is telling, though I'm not even sure how. Either your bias has overpowered your brain or you are some sort of Kantian who sees morals in absolute terms. I really don't know or don't care, but I refuse to view all killing as equal. And I wonder: Do you deny moral nuances? Do you deny intent matters in the eyes of the law, ethics and morality? Can you not see homicide and murder are two different things, but both involve a person dying at the hands of another?

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Most US citizens seem to rely on a set of unlikely assumptions and revisions of history, along with large and carefully maintained areas of ignorance , to provide them with comfort in their evaluations of the Afghan invasion. That is to their credit, IMHO.
    Ignorance (or intentional obfuscation) in this arena is your specialty.

    Regardless, you've posted very little of substance whenever this topic comes up. What we typically get from you is cheap skepticism and your opinion. You also make statements without backing them up, and many times, those statements stand in direct conflict to actual facts that cannot be disputed.

  11. #311
    spidergoat: "Mod Note: Changed title to include the topics being discussed. Try to get it all out of your systems..."

    That you dismiss these issues as obsessions or distractions suggests that you have scant awareness of how these topics are connected with each other and with us- Your "moderation" overlooks how many of our lives and fortunes have already been dearly impacted, and how many of us remain at personal risk in all of this. I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but we won't be getting this escalating clusterfuck out of our systems for several lifetimes.

  12. #312
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    16,577
    First: I agree that retitling or (worse) merging threads like this should be done rarely, if at all. It gets harder to stay on a complex topic.

    Anyway, in the spirit of grabbag dealings:
    Quote Originally Posted by count
    Answer the fucking question, Ice: - -

    - - - I inferred what I did, because you wrote: "Yes, the US is bombing Afghan civilians."
    Forget questions like that, and - for the umpteenth time - quit making inferences about personal motives, hidden opinions, etc. The questions are trolling, and the inferences are stupid.
    Quote Originally Posted by count
    Please don't label my opinion as "spin."
    It's not your opinion, it's your use of the word "intentional " to deflect the actual argument.

    The US is choosing its weapons and tactics in Afghanistan on purpose, deliberately. The consequences of using these weapons and tactics are known, in advance.

    The question was a fair one, in some thread or another: given the original claims of purpose and so forth, and the current claimed situation, why is the US bombing civilians in Afghanistan ? Or if the phrasing is troublesome, what is essentially equivalent in this context: Why is the US choosing weapons and military tactics in Afghanistan that lead to the bombing of civilians ?

    Meanwhile: What exaclty changes in our evaluation of this little boat incident if we discover it was faked, somehow ? My contention is: very little. The Iranians, or some faction within them, might do something like this. The US might fake something like this. Neither event changes much about the situation, does it?

  13. #313
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    5,590
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    First: I agree that retitling or (worse) merging threads like this should be done rarely, if at all. It gets harder to stay on a complex topic.
    It was your buddy Sam who diverted this topic and you who followed suit when you jumped in to defend her ridiculous babbling. Now you're acting like a coward and calling for order because you don't want to answer a pair of simple and direct questions. That's pathetic...

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Forget questions like that, and - for the umpteenth time - quit making inferences about personal motives, hidden opinions, etc. The questions are trolling, and the inferences are stupid.
    I will not forget questions "like that."

    The question is relevant because you defended Sam, and in doing so, besmirched the opinions of others. You said her question was "reasonable." In order for something to be reasonable, it cannot be ridiculous. So I asked you: Do you think there is no evidence to connect Osama bin Laden to 9/11, too? Clearly, this is relevant. If there is no evidence, then Sam's question is reasonable and your defense stands. But if there is evidence, then Sam's question is starting to look a little ridiculous, along with your claim that it is "reasonable."

    I've asked you three times, I'll ask a fourth: Do you think there is no evidence to connect Osama bin Laden to 9/11, too?

    And here's another question you've yet to answer: Do you think the US is intentionally bombing civilians?

    If you don't answer this time, I hope people will more clearly see your intellectual cowardice, your prevarications and your obfuscations for the bullshit games they truly are...

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    It's not your opinion, it's your use of the word "intentional " to deflect the actual argument.
    I was not deflecting, I was explaining my position, and the use of the word "intentional" was, well, intentional. As I have argued and suggested for three posts now, I think intent very much enters into ethics and morals and if person is going to judge either they need to recognize this. All killing is not equal and acts of violence all have degrees of seriousness. US law recognizes this, so I can't see why the concept seems to baffle you so.

    To reiterate: There is a difference between intentionally killing civilians with bombs and accidentally killing them. This seems obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    The US is choosing its weapons and tactics in Afghanistan on purpose, deliberately. The consequences of using these weapons and tactics are known, in advance.
    So is the above your way of saying you think the US is intentionally targeting civilians with its bombs, given that you claim civilians are dying?

  14. #314
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    16,577
    Quote Originally Posted by count
    The question is relevant because you defended Sam, and in doing so, besmirched the opinions of others.
    I apologise to spidergoat for impugning his judgment about this thread.

    But it's still salvageable. I asked earlier, buried in the debris, if anyone with experience in the area knew of a local, non-Iranian (or illegitimate) source for the kinds of boats and capabilities of behavior in this incident.

    In the past, accounts of pirates in the region have resembled this account - that struck me as a possibility. If such an incident were to be faked, or be part of a false flag operation, who all would have motive, and could they hire it done ? It seems unlikely that any US agency, even, would use US resources for it.

  15. #315
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    5,590
    So be it, Iceaura. You are what you are, and it's fairly easy to see now...

    Run along and play now...

  16. #316
    Quote Originally Posted by Vega View Post
    It's the politicans that start the wars not the military...
    Wrong. Evil Muslim terrorists started the war 911. We will finish it.

    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Yes,the US is bombing Afghan civilians....
    We don't intentionally EVER strike innocents. That's what Muslim terrorists do.

    binLaden ADMITS to orchestrating 911. There is video/audio evidence. And yes, we are still trying to get him but Pakistan has him so well-protected, it's VERY hard.

  17. #317
    Registered Senior Member Buffalo Roam's Avatar
    Posts
    16,931
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    I apologise to spidergoat for impugning his judgment about this thread.

    But it's still salvageable. I asked earlier, buried in the debris, if anyone with experience in the area knew of a local, non-Iranian (or illegitimate) source for the kinds of boats and capabilities of behavior in this incident.

    In the past, accounts of pirates in the region have resembled this account - that struck me as a possibility. If such an incident were to be faked, or be part of a false flag operation, who all would have motive, and could they hire it done ? It seems unlikely that any US agency, even, would use US resources for it.
    Now another switch?, Pirates?, Now mayhap you wish to blame Peter Pan, and Wendy? Captain Hook?

    Then explain the New Release by the Iranians?

    Iran plays down 'ordinary' incident with US ships by Hiedeh Farmani
    Mon Jan 7, 2:54 PM ET

    TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran on Monday played down an incident between Iranian forces and US naval ships in the Strait of Hormuz, describing the event as an "ordinary occurrence" that ended without any disturbance.

    The assurances by Iran that the weekend encounter was unremarkable were in stark contrast to statements by Pentagon officials that Iranian speedboats swarmed three US navy ships, radioing a threat to blow them up.

    "This is an ordinary occurrence which happens every now and then for both sides," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told the state-run IRNA agency of the incident.

  18. #318
    I saw the video the Iranians released as their version of the incident. I have never seen such a poor editing job in my life. They are liars, skanks, troublemakers, and dangerous to the world.

  19. #319
    Quote Originally Posted by sandy View Post
    We don't intentionally EVER strike innocents. That's what Muslim terrorists do.
    What about the A-Bombings?

  20. #320
    (except in cases of world war)

Similar Threads

  1. By S.A.M. in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 12-10-09, 10:14 AM
    Replies: 3
  2. By wanneszinnig in forum The Cesspool
    Last Post: 05-28-09, 09:40 AM
    Replies: 439
  3. By Kadark in forum World Events
    Last Post: 02-04-08, 04:16 PM
    Replies: 44
  4. By Ganymede in forum Politics
    Last Post: 05-26-07, 01:02 AM
    Replies: 50
  5. By Zakariya04 in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 10-12-06, 10:06 AM
    Replies: 2

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •