An open challenge to S.A.M

I've asked a question repeatedly of S.A.M, and have been rewarded with nothing but evasions, strawmen and silence. So, I ask that S.A.M read the section of the article I have quoted from the Human Rights Watch, and then answer me this very simple question:

Why is it OK for resistance fighters in Afghanistan to kill civilians, but not OK for NATO forces to kill civilians?

The relevant article:
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/04/16/afghan15688.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you mean by OK ? As in Ok for sam or for the world ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who said it was okay? I simply said, how many suicide bombers were there before the American invasions? The resistance fighters are under the purview of the local government not a foreign force occupying the country.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Suicide bombings and the targeting of civillians are always a desperate tactic by a smaller enemy against a technologically superior foe. It happens against colonialists all the time.

eg, the FLN in Algeria
That doesn't justify it, but it is the reason that it is used.

 

This is hilarious. But firstly, S.A.M:

So do you condemn the tactics used by a significant proportion of the resistance fighters in Afghanistan, which involve both the targeting of civilians, as well as hiding amongst them, thus drawing fire from NATO forces? Yes or no, S.A.M.

How many NATO bombings were there in Afghanistan before the attack of 9/11? Since NATO interference in Afghanistan is a result of a previous event, then why should we blame them for any civilian causalities that they cause? By your own logic, it's the perpetrators of 9/11 that are to blame for the Afghani civilian deaths.

Quite simply, the only people responsible for suicide bombings are the suicide bombers themselves and those who assist the suicide bombers.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Challenger:

The targeting of your own civilians? The same civilians that you claim you are liberating? I mean, I could understand targeting the civilians of the occupying nation, but your own civilians? That's not only morally reprehensible, it's illogical.

And again, if it's OK for resistance fighters to target Afghani civilians, why condemn NATO for killing civilians?

 

lepustimidus

In Islam and SAM logic, we as infidels are always wrong, it is not right that we assault a Moslem.

But a Moslem on Jihad has the Protection of the Quran and Allah, any action done in the name of Jihad and Allah, all cannot be condemned.

Also it is against Sharia Law for the Infidel, Zimmis, Dhimmi to defend himself from assault by the Superior Moslem, But it is right and just for the Moslem to strike the Infidel, Zimmis, Dhimmi, because they are no believers in Islam.

Every which way, a Moslem is never at fault for someone else dying by his action.

Remember Islam it the superior religion, and it is right and just to kill to spread that religion of Peace.

 

like BR said, we are not muslims, period. besides, killing civilians is not the issue. the issue is do you want to be a muslim or not?

 

Just for the challenge: it is more OK because they are killing their own people, as compared to NATO forces killing foreigners, without invitation.

Good enough answer?

 

Yesterday a Muslim woman killed a number of Shi'ites and, as we know Shi'ites kill Sunnis. What has this got to do with anything other than fanatical Muslims killing other Muslims.

Rightly or wrongly. I believe Saddam Hussein prevented this sort of thing by keeping the lid on the pot.

 

Wow, you're the lucky one. I got nothing but lies, intellectual dishonesty and deceit from Sam.

You'd be deluding yourself if you expected anything more.

 

Indeed.

Lep, learn now that SAM is little more than an uneducated liar with deep seated insecurities about the west. She's done everything. Been everywhere. Endured every challenge and pain. I'll shit my brains out if she doesn't drop by and attempt to change the subject by brining up Iraq, genocide or some other annoying cherry picked issue.

~String

 

how else is she going to bait the evil infidels(westerners).

 

I think SAM is hot!
Plus, Jesus loves her.

 

i never seen SAM.

 

Me neither, but if you inspect MY avatar .... well

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

SAM is prone to deflection of topic with inflammatory questions, and misrepresenting or mistaking arguments for the purpose of making invalid assertions.

She is far from the worst offender around here, in those regards. And the ad hominum BS directed against her, which includes every fault of hers in spades and considerably worse, is bad enough to attract the attention of reasonable moderation. There are a half dozen posters here who are basically trolling her posts, and the forum is damaged thereby. We are in a thread begun with such BS - unless you think the OP is some kind of honest, valid question ?

She is not uneducated, and not to my observation a liar. (Of course, I am naive enough to believe that Countezero is not a liar, as well, so perhaps my judgment is suspect.)

 

are you an American?

 

And we can thank our lucky stars she's one of Sciforum's moderators and representatives of the finest science forum on the net.

Here's some good, ole' fashioned hypocrisy from the folks who brought you Sam.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=67636

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=73963

 

Ice, a person can lie by more than just direct words. SAM has, to my knowledge, been the worst at answering direct questions regarding any political topic, drops ad homs and non sequiturs whenever possible in order to avoid the relevant topic at hand, and on occasion drops outright lies. For example: calling US atrocities "genocide" in Iraq. This is patently ridiculous, openly defies the accepted definition, and is done for one reason: to antagonize. You know this. The definition of such a word is clear. One cannot redefine a political matter to suite one's sociological motives. That certainly makes a person a liar.

~String

 

Mod Note: while I have obviously sympathized with this topic, I feel that it needs to be moved to the Site Feedback forum.