AMERICA'S REVENGE HAS STARTED!

by nicolaou 85 Replies latest jw friends

COMF

an overreaction on such a scale that it makes the contemplation of acts like this in the future simply unthinkable.
They already did that, Jelly. WWI was "the war to end all wars." WWII produced the nuclear bomb, which made warfare too dangerous to fight.
Your views are simplistic and flawed.
I'm saying, don't kill the wrong people. That's simplistic and flawed?
show the world that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated
By killing a bunch of innocent civilians. Yeah, Jelly, you're right... that makes a whole lot more sense. Yeah, buddy.
COMF
jelly

Simply put this is war. We cannot be concerned about the other side’s civilian population. The only way to end terrorism is to reduce the countries that support it to the level that they are no longer able to support those activities with money, transportation, equipment, and intelligence. The flawed concept of ‘limited strikes’ and surgical operations are not only ineffective they are morally bankrupt. To give in to the idea of a limited strike would only invite more such aggression and the circle of hostility would begin again; in the end causing more bloodshed and pain.
Its interesting you bring up WWII, maybe you should consider the history and realize where appeasement led the world in 1939. Where would the world be now if Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt had been too concerned with the innocent Germans (and many were) to effectively fight a war. Also I must ask when is the last time the Germans or Japanese upset the stability of the world. My point being that WWII proved that, unfortunately, sometimes violence is the only appropriate answer.
In order for us to maintain our way of life as Americans terrorism must end and we must be the ones to end it. I hope everyone understands I hate writing this. Violence sickens me and the thought of war makes my stomach turn. I don’t write these things because ‘I want vengeance’ or because I get a thrill out of watching a war on CNN. I write these things because I see this as the only realistic and honest solution.
Jelly
fodeja

Simply put this is war. We cannot be concerned about the other side?s civilian population.

There's much talk about America not bowing down to terrorism, standing up as one, drawing closer and holding firm to its ideals these days. However, I think the terrorists have already succeeded in one important way: some Americans have adopted their way of thinking and speaking.
For further comments, please see the "Interesting thoughts...PLEASE READ" thread.
f.
jelly

fodeja,
You managed to respond to my post without addressing any of my points. Brilliant. Here I will put my points in outline for you.
I. we must fight a total war
II. limited strikes are ineffective and actually make the situation worse – hence morally bankrupt
III. World War II is a prime example of the time when appeasement causes more harm than good
IV. Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill had to make the difficult decision to fight a war for the good of humanity
V. Our way of life is threatened and the only way to maintain it is to inact this war
VI. I hate this solution, however it is the only honest and realistic solution available
I could be offended that you compared me with the terrorist but I choose not to. I would however hope that you could at least do me the curtsey of responding to my arguments.
Jelly
fodeja

I. we must fight a total war

Against who? "The middle east"? "The countries"? What makes up a country? Who, exactly, is the enemy?
I'm beginning to wonder what the response would be now if GWB yelled to a packed audience: "Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?"
II. limited strikes are ineffective and actually make the situation worse ? hence morally bankrupt
All-out wars like the one against Iraq did not have significantly more effect. They had more victims, though. If your idea of total war is to nuke the entire area, then I don't consider that a "point".
III. World War II is a prime example of the time when appeasement causes more harm than good
World War II was also an example of unbelievable atrocities committed for no reasons at all, on all sides. World War II cost the lives of millions and millions of people. That's also pretty much the definition of "total war", IMO. Do you really want that?
(clarification: I don't argue "against WWII" - I argue against the idea that total war is the only way to go now)
V. Our way of life is threatened and the only way to maintain it is to inact this war
Is it really? This sounds like the thinking of a desparate, suicidal person. Only one way out.
VI. I hate this solution, however it is the only honest and realistic solution available
Is it? Do you really think you have a complete picture of the situation, after two days, from the media, to reach such a conclusion involving the killing of many innocent persons? It takes weeks and careful deliberation in the courtroom to find just one single person guilty. For you, all it takes is a couple of video clips to sentence hundreds, thousands of people you've never seen to death.
To me, it doesn't matter whether you claim to hate this or not, statements like "We cannot be concerned about the other side's civilian population" make me sick. You don't even have a fucking clue who "the other side" is.
I could be offended that you compared me with the terrorist but I choose not to.
Fine. And I choose to stand by my words. People start to think like terrorists. I'm even more scared by that than by the terrorists themselves, and that's a lot.
I can't even begin to imagine how scared many people down in the evil "Middle East" are now.
f.
jelly

Against who? Any county that supported the terrorist in any way; financially, technically, or with training. Your claim that we don’t know who these people are is incorrect. But so you know Afghanistan for sure with a possible tie in to Iran.
Reference to Nazism, cute and completely invalid. I think America needs to protect their own first, this includes their own Muslim population. That’s the only response you’ll get on this.
‘All out wars like the one against Iraq did not seem to have significantly more effect.’ You might have missed this news story but Iraq was actually kicked out of Kuwait. Yes, can you image it the Gulf war actually achieved the purpose it set out to do. My only criticism is that the original goals were not far reaching enough, if we wanted Hussein our to power we could have done it, we chose not to.
Are you arguing against the validity of World War II. Well to answer you question, yes I am glad that the allies stood up to Hitler and his murders. Taking you view of war the allies would have never dared attack Hitler for fear of innocents being killed. You also sidestepped my argument; appeasement only encourages evil people to continue their acts of terror. LIKE WHAT HAPPENED WITH HITLER. Pacifism is morally bankrupt; it is a way for the weak to appear strong. Only children expect perfect justice in this imperfect world. My hart does ache for what must happen but I am adult and strong enough to realize this war in inevitable.
I am neither desperate nor suicidal, just a realist.
I do have a very good clue who the other side is.
Jelly
fodeja

Reference to Nazism, cute and completely invalid.

Neither cute(!?) nor invalid. I see exactly the same type of emotions coming up.
My hart does ache for what must happen but I am adult and strong enough to realize this war in inevitable.
All right, have your way. But then, Mr. Armchair General, do the killing yourself. Enlist, get training, kill. Don't call for "action" and "responses" and all that, do it. That's the honest way.
As for sidestepping arguments, you didn't answer my question how you can come up with such a life-and-death decision after a mere 2 days of watching TV news. Apparently, all it takes to have a "very good clue" is to watch Special Reports on CNN.
f., who's grown weary of people claiming to be "realists"
jelly

As for sidestepping arguments, you didn't answer my question how you can come up with such a life-and-death decision after a mere 2 days of watching TV news. Apparently, all it takes to have a "very good clue" is to watch Special Reports on CNN.

Fair enough I’ll answer your question. Two days would be to short of a time period to come to such conclusion, however terrorism has been a problem for more than two days. Afghanistan’s and Iran’s support of terrorist groups has been an ongoing problem that has existed for over a decade. I suggest you do a news search under Iran – terrorism – Afghanistan and see what you come up with. There is ample evidence that both of these countries have supported Bin Ladden (sp?) and his group for years, to me this makes them guilty. So to reiterate it is only because of these countries long-term practice of supporting terrorist that I feel they are accountable. The reason I feel the attack must be massive is for two reasons; (1) surgical attacks don’t work. Both Iran and the Taliban government would be more than happy to trade shots with the US, a building here a building there. And most importantly (2) this attack was unprecedented and as such America must now set a precedent. Our actions we do now will determine if an attack like this ever happens again.
All right, have your way. But then, Mr. Armchair General, do the killing yourself. Enlist, get training, kill. Don't call for "action" and "responses" and all that, do it. That's the honest way.
I don’t pretend to be a general, I would have no idea how to accomplish what I feel needs to be done. As an American however I can state my opinion as to what should be done. I notice that you offer no solutions just criticisms.
Neither cute(!?) nor invalid. I see exactly the same type of emotions coming up.
The Nazis demonized members of their own population to make them scapegoats and a focal point for hatred. I have done none of these things. I feel for America’s Islamic community and I have not called for attacks on Arabic countries that have not supported these acts of barbarism. Another thing the Nazis did was to silence people that disagreed with them by violence, threats, and RIDICULE. Read our threads and decide for yourself who has ‘Nazi’ like behavior.
As for sidestepping arguments
[1] You responded to none of my examples showing that sometimes war is necessary (WWII, etc)
[2] You have not acknowledged or responded to my argument that war can be a solution (Japan, Germany, Kuwait)
[3] You have not responded to my argument that ‘limited strikes’ are ineffective.
***** Please note two and three: Large-scale conflicts can resolve issues, limited strikes cannot.
[4] That a precedent must be set or we must be willing to live with atrocities like 9-11 our entire lives
[5] You have not responded to my assertion that to allow atrocities to occur and not do ever thing in you power to stop them, while hiding under the guise of pacifism, is cowardice, dishonest, immature, and ignorant.
Jelly
fodeja

Another thing the Nazis did was to silence people that disagreed with them by violence, threats, and RIDICULE. Read our threads and decide for yourself who has ?Nazi? like behavior.

Using the "logic" you are suggesting here, I would say that Farkel is showing Nazi like behaviour. He's using ridicule quite a lot. So are, just off the top of my head, Naeblis or Kent or JanH.
Seriously, I'm not accusing anyone of being a Nazi. I'm saying that the statements I'm reading here remind me very much of the fanatic, blood-thirsty rhetoric that was used by people back then (I know it: I've been studying it). Words like "total war" have a very distinct connotation for anyone who's been living in Europe in the past decades. As Lisa reminds us: watch your language. That's my point.
You have not responded to my assertion that to allow atrocities to occur and not do ever thing in you power to stop them, while hiding under the guise of pacifism, is cowardice, dishonest, immature, and ignorant.
You have not responded to my assertion that giving a fuck about the life of innocent civilians for "the greater good" is exactly how terrorists think. This is still my main criticism: that you, and other people, have adopted a way of thinking that is usually attributed to the people we all despise so much. You talk about not tolerating the ways of these people, not letting them intimidate you, and yet you are suddenly talking the way they talk.
Jelly, to make it clear: I'm *not' a pacifist in the usual sense of the word. I don't like violence, but I understand it is sometimes necessary. For instance, I believe that the Allies' response to Hitler was very necessary. I'm very, very glad about the result. But I don't believe that this justifies everything they did. Absolutely not.
Just as COMF, my opinion is that the wrong people shouldn't be killed. And that this is not the time to throw all ethics overboard without hesitation. And that it's not the time to give up the good tradition of thinking before acting.
I notice that you offer no solutions just criticisms.
Correct. I don't even pretend to.
f.
edited (formatting)
mike

I'm going to stick my neck out here and ask if we can all TRY to see things from a larger perspective.
The following is one of Jelly's posts adapted to read as if presented by one of Tuesday's terrorist aggressors. See how little editing is required then re-read some of the posts in this thread. Sad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Simply put this is war.
We cannot be concerned about the other side’s civilian population. The only way to end American sponsored terrorism and the spread of Western influence is to reduce the countries that support it to the level that they are no longer able to support those activities with money, transportation, equipment, and intelligence........
..............Where would the world be now if Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt had been too concerned with the innocent Germans (and many were) to effectively fight a war. So it is with the loss of a few thousand innocent Americans. My point being that WWII proved that, unfortunately, sometimes violence is the only appropriate answer.
In order for us to maintain our way of life as faithful Muslims, the threat of Western and, in particular, American imperialism and capitalism must end and we must be the ones to end it.
I hope everyone understands I hate writing this. The necessary violence we inflicted on Tuesday sickens me and the thought of war makes my stomach turn. I don’t write these things because ‘I want vengeance’ or because I get a thrill out of watching a war on CNN. I write these things because I see this as the only realistic and honest solution."
XXXXXXXXX
Allah be praised.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S I've assumed the aggressors to be Islamic but that is only an assumption.
Mike
"Doubt is not a pleasant mental state but certainty is a ridiculous one." --Voltaire

AMERICA'S REVENGE HAS STARTED!

Share this