• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Gadaffi captured or killed.

dafydd said:
Yes. War is inevitable. There have always been wars and there always will be wars. Do you have an argument apart from bitching about the USA?
Click to expand...

I think her point is more along the lines of "when the USA kills innocent civilians it's BAD BAD BAD. And when other countries kill innocent civilians it's, eh, understandable. Unless the USA made them do it, then it's BAD BAD BAD again."
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
None, probably. Killing civilians is an accepted way of advancing political power. Perhaps that's why so many other war criminals (e.g. Blair. Obama, Bush, Cheney) had no problem to doing business with and arming Gaddafi.
Click to expand...
I'm calling BS - unless you can produce a shred of evidence to support your fantasy.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
I'm sure that was Churchill's logic, too, and Alexander the Great, and Caesar...

What's your point ?
Click to expand...
If Gaddafi's grisly death can be justified by his grisly record, the same end can be justified for all other leaders who have killed innocent civilians.

Robrob said:
I'm calling BS - unless you can produce a shred of evidence to support your fantasy.
Click to expand...

http://links.org.au/node/2179

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...52643/US-brings-Gaddafi-in-from-the-cold.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ms-sales-countries-including-Libya-Egypt.html

http://theworldlink.com/news/local/article_d7a036a4-7b2f-53ae-afe8-869bbd170903.html

Polaris said:
I think her point is more along the lines of "when the USA kills innocent civilians it's BAD BAD BAD. And when other countries kill innocent civilians it's, eh, understandable. Unless the USA made them do it, then it's BAD BAD BAD again."
Click to expand...

No, it's not. I don’t think killing civilians is ever justifiable.

dafydd said:
Yes. War is inevitable. There have always been wars and there always will be wars. Do you have an argument apart from bitching about the USA?
Click to expand...

See above.

There's always been slavery, rape and murder.
 
JihadJane said:
If Gaddafi's grisly death can be justified by his grisly record, the same end can be justified for all other leaders who have killed innocent civilians.



http://links.org.au/node/2179

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...52643/US-brings-Gaddafi-in-from-the-cold.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ms-sales-countries-including-Libya-Egypt.html

http://theworldlink.com/news/local/article_d7a036a4-7b2f-53ae-afe8-869bbd170903.html



No, it's not. I don’t think killing civilians is ever justifiable.



See above.

There's always been slavery, rape and murder.
Click to expand...

And....?
 
Jane, what would you have done if you had been the Prime Minister of the UK during WWII?
 
JihadJane said:
Perhaps that's why so many other war criminals (e.g. Blair. Obama, Bush, Cheney) had no problem to doing business with and arming Gaddafi.
Click to expand...
Which you supported with these links:

JihadJane said:
http://links.org.au/node/2179

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...52643/US-brings-Gaddafi-in-from-the-cold.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ms-sales-countries-including-Libya-Egypt.html

http://theworldlink.com/news/local/article_d7a036a4-7b2f-53ae-afe8-869bbd170903.html.
Click to expand...

From your own links:

According to US political reporter Lauren Rozen, Perle traveled to Libya as a paid adviser to the Monitor Group, a prestigious Boston-based consulting firm with close ties to leading professors at the Harvard Business School
Click to expand...
Not a government agency. Huh...

On a mission sanctioned by Washington, they were eager to assure their country's former sworn enemy that President George W Bush would probably resume diplomatic and business links with Libya this year.
Click to expand...
What "business" did we establish and what part of it involved "arming Gaddafi?"

Frozen deal included 50 armored troop carriers
Before Libya's turmoil, U.S. planned arms sale

The U.S. government approved $40billion in private arms sales to countries including Libya and Egypt in 2009 - before they both dissolved into unrest this year - the State Department reported.

Libya is now under a blanket weapons ban imposed last month by the Obama administration.
Click to expand...
So, private companies sold arms to Libya? But only as recently as 2009 and now there's a ban? So how did that involve "Bush and Cheney?"

In the months before Libyans revolted and President Barack Obama told leader Moammar Gadhafi to go, the U.S. government was moving to do business with his regime on an increasing scale by quietly approving a $77 million dollar deal to deliver at least 50 refurbished armored troop carriers to the dictator's military.
Click to expand...
"Was moving?" So it didn't happen, huh, who knew?
 
JihadJane said:
If Gaddafi's grisly death can be justified by his grisly record, the same end can be justified for all other leaders who have killed innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

I haven't noticed anybody say it was justified. Just that it was not surprising, and that we do not feel much bad about it. Mussolini was also lynched, together with his wife/mistress (I fail to remember her exact status). Also not justified, but understandable, under the circumstances.

Several allied bomber pilots were lynched after parachuting to German soil during WW2. I'm not sure Churchill would have been very safe there, either. Nor would Hitler, had he suddenly walked the wrong street in London.

Wars are designed to get the worst out in people. Otherwise, they could not get sane people to participate.

Of course, we must try to stop atrocities, but in a country on the organisational level of just-liberated Libya, don't count on it.

Hans
 
dafydd said:
Yes. War is inevitable. There have always been wars and there always will be wars.
Click to expand...

Manipulative people like to state premises without a coherent argument that follows, and without conclusion. The reason is that they don't actually have a coherent argument.

MRC_Hans -

Wars are designed to get the worst out in people. Otherwise, they could not get sane people to participate.
Click to expand...

What piffle. From your fairy tale military training manual perhaps?

Of course, we must try to stop atrocities,
Click to expand...

Magical thinking, and I couldn't disagree more. Because it demonstrates a complete lack of consideration for evaluating the costs of our actions. Apparently all a lot of people need to do is cite some "benefit", and costs are irrelevant.


I have to admit how invincible blind patriotism, racism, etc. are. We are not even through with the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the lesson in Viet Nam, and yet great masses of people are still driven my magical thinking.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
Manipulative people like to state premises without a coherent argument that follows, and without conclusion. The reason is that they don't actually have a coherent argument.

MRC_Hans -



What piffle. From your fairy tale military training manual perhaps?



Magical thinking, and I couldn't disagree more. Because it demonstrates a complete lack of consideration for evaluating the costs of our actions. Apparently all a lot of people need to do is cite some "benefit", and costs are irrelevant.


I have to admit how invincible blind patriotism, racism, etc. are. We are not even through with the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the lesson in Viet Nam, and yet great masses of people are still driven my magical thinking.
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble following you post. What are you saying ? Are you saying anything, in fact ?
 
JihadJane said:
No, it's not. I don’t think killing civilians is ever justifiable.
Click to expand...

(Stealing this from Sam Harris)

Jane, be honest in your reply. If a "perfect" weapon were magically produced, one which would only kill enemy combatants, who do you imagine would be more likely to embrace it, Gadaffi or Obama? Bin Laden (the late) or Bush?
 
MRC_Hans said:
Wars are designed to get the worst out in people. Otherwise, they could not get sane people to participate.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe this rubbish?

Resume said:
(Stealing this from Sam Harris)

Jane, be honest in your reply. If a "perfect" weapon were magically produced, one which would only kill enemy combatants, who do you imagine would be more likely to embrace it, Gadaffi or Obama? Bin Laden (the late) or Bush?
Click to expand...

I expect Obama and Blair would define "enemy combatants" to be anyone who opposes their aggressive invasions. Gadaffi and bin Laden who do something similarly dishonest. I'm sure all them would use this magic weapon, if they could get hold of it.
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
I expect Obama and Blair would define "enemy combatants" to be anyone who opposes their aggressive invasions. Gadaffi and bin Laden who do something similarly dishonest. I'm sure all them would use this magic weapon, if they could get hold of it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Osama has proven in the past that he wouldn't attack innocent people, whom had nothing to do with the running of this country......

WTC.jpg


OOPS. Nevermind......

What a delusional belief......
 
dafydd said:
Jane, what would you have done if you had been the Prime Minister of the UK during WWII?
Click to expand...
That's rather a broad question, dafydd, but it wouldn't have included deleiberately incinerating civilians.

triforcharity said:
Yeah, Osama has proven in the past that he wouldn't attack innocent people, whom had nothing to do with the running of this country......

[qimg]http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l279/babyfrat92/WTC.jpg[/qimg]

OOPS. Nevermind......

What a delusional belief......
Click to expand...

What delusional belief are you talking about? Why do you think bin Laden wouldn't have used a weapon that could wipe out the US army without killing civilians?

P.S. Have you got any fiery photos of the US attacking people who've got nothing to do with running their country? If not, why not?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom