TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

RE: Religious war

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
How are we "acting like them"? Seriously? Wow. You are going to claim that our soldiers and our country "acts like them"? Are we beheading innocent people in the streets? No. We have the right to protect and defend our country and families. Wow.
And how is killing innocent children protecting your families. Oh, "collateral damage". That is not ok.
"Thou shall not kill" does not apply just to others, regardless of your justification.
You want to kill those who have killed - have at it to your heart's content. But there is no justification whatsoever for choosing to kill innocent people because it's easier to get the enemy that way.
We have the resources and the ability to deal with this strategically - but bombing would be easier, wouldn't it?

Um, we are bombing them NOW. What do you think all these airstrikes are doing? Just burning fuel?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
How are we "acting like them"? Seriously? Wow. You are going to claim that our soldiers and our country "acts like them"? Are we beheading innocent people in the streets? No. We have the right to protect and defend our country and families. Wow.
And how is killing innocent children protecting your families. Oh, "collateral damage". That is not ok.
"Thou shall not kill" does not apply just to others, regardless of your justification.
You want to kill those who have killed - have at it to your heart's content. But there is no justification whatsoever for choosing to kill innocent people because it's easier to get the enemy that way.
We have the resources and the ability to deal with this strategically - but bombing would be easier, wouldn't it?
Um, we are bombing them NOW. What do you think all these airstrikes are doing? Just burning fuel?

Not according to Gaga.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

And it is important to note that the bombing being done now? They are actively and conscientiously attempting to avoid civilian casualties.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

Lawyerlady wrote:
And it is important to note that the bombing being done now? They are actively and conscientiously attempting to avoid civilian casualties.

You can actively and conscientiously TRY to avoid civilian casualties, but there will still be civilian casualties.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

just Czech wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
And it is important to note that the bombing being done now? They are actively and conscientiously attempting to avoid civilian casualties.
You can actively and conscientiously TRY to avoid civilian casualties, but there will still be civilian casualties.

But that is a whole lot different than not trying and not caring.

Tinydancer · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
just Czech wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
And it is important to note that the bombing being done now? They are actively and conscientiously attempting to avoid civilian casualties.
You can actively and conscientiously TRY to avoid civilian casualties, but there will still be civilian casualties.
But that is a whole lot different than not trying and not caring.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
And it is important to note that the bombing being done now? They are actively and conscientiously attempting to avoid civilian casualties.

And yet they still happen.

Tinydancer · Guru

Yes they do but it's not something to be proud of or to celebrate. Unless you're ISIS or want to be like of course.

FNW · Guru

I don't see where anyone here is celebrating the deaths of innocents.

Tinydancer · Guru

Read some of huskers posts. He may not be celebrating but he sure isn't worried about killing children either.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tinydancer wrote:
Read some of huskers posts. He may not be celebrating but he sure isn't worried about killing children either.

Several people have not cared that they would be killing children. There has been a very big "oh well - that's war" attitude from more than one person.

FNW · Guru

That's what has made ISIS hard to nail. They walk among us.

Tinydancer · Guru

I realize innocents will be killed but an honorable nation (which I'd like to believe we are) would try their very best to avoid killing them if at all possible.

FNW · Guru

Well, it is war. No one wants innocent casualties. But what is the alternative? More attacks on our soil? European soil?

Tinydancer · Guru

FNW wrote:
That's what has made ISIS hard to nail. They walk among us.

So are you saying we shouldn't even try to avoid killing them?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

FNW wrote:
Well, it is war. No one wants innocent casualties. But what is the alternative? More attacks on our soil? European soil?

They are criminals and murderers. They are not a country - as much as we use the term "war", it is not a war in the legal sense. People need to stop using that as an excuse to kill civilians of other countries just because murderers choose to hid close by.

Would it be okay to bomb a New York block because a terrorist cell was hiding in one of the buildings? Absolutely not - and this is no different.

FNW · Guru

I am saying we should try to avoid killing them. I am saying we should not avoid killing ISIS.

I wonder, since ISIS is not a country, although they have a foothold in Gaza, Afghanistan, etc., whether they can be held in violation of the Geneva Convention since they never agreed nor ratified the terms of the agreement?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

FNW wrote:
I am saying we should try to avoid killing them. I am saying we should not avoid killing ISIS.

I wonder, since ISIS is not a country, although they have a foothold in Gaza, Afghanistan, etc., whether they can be held in violation of the Geneva Convention since they never agreed nor ratified the terms of the agreement?

WE agreed not to kill innocent civilians.

And since ISIS is not a country - tell me how it is ok to kill say....a Syrian civilian that has nothing to do with ISIS when we are not at war with Syria? What about if ISIS moves into Turkey - we going to start bombing Turkey and killing Turkish citizens when we are not at war with Turkey?

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
I am saying we should try to avoid killing them. I am saying we should not avoid killing ISIS.

I wonder, since ISIS is not a country, although they have a foothold in Gaza, Afghanistan, etc., whether they can be held in violation of the Geneva Convention since they never agreed nor ratified the terms of the agreement?
WE agreed not to kill innocent civilians.
And since ISIS is not a country - tell me how it is ok to kill say....a Syrian civilian that has nothing to do with ISIS when we are not at war with Syria? What about if ISIS moves into Turkey - we going to start bombing Turkey and killing Turkish citizens when we are not at war with Turkey?

If those civilians want to draw the battle lines and fight with us--then fine. Otherwise, get out of the way.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
I am saying we should try to avoid killing them. I am saying we should not avoid killing ISIS.

I wonder, since ISIS is not a country, although they have a foothold in Gaza, Afghanistan, etc., whether they can be held in violation of the Geneva Convention since they never agreed nor ratified the terms of the agreement?
WE agreed not to kill innocent civilians.
And since ISIS is not a country - tell me how it is ok to kill say....a Syrian civilian that has nothing to do with ISIS when we are not at war with Syria? What about if ISIS moves into Turkey - we going to start bombing Turkey and killing Turkish citizens when we are not at war with Turkey?

If those civilians want to draw the battle lines and fight with us--then fine. Otherwise, get out of the way.

So, if criminals from another country come in the United States and hide -that country just gets to bomb us to kill those criminals and the Americans better just get out of the way?

FNW · Guru

There are civilians who are aware of friends, relatives, neighbors, who are radicalized. And do nothing. Say nothing. Are those the ones you are concerned about?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

FNW wrote:
There are civilians who are aware of friends, relatives, neighbors, who are radicalized. And do nothing. Say nothing. Are those the ones you are concerned about?

You don't know who those are vs. the ones that are not. You don't just get to kill people willy nilly because they might be radical. And young children? They aren't old enough to have an opinion, yet, and you think it's ok to kill them because the ends justify the means. That is EVIL thinking.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
I am saying we should try to avoid killing them. I am saying we should not avoid killing ISIS.

I wonder, since ISIS is not a country, although they have a foothold in Gaza, Afghanistan, etc., whether they can be held in violation of the Geneva Convention since they never agreed nor ratified the terms of the agreement?
WE agreed not to kill innocent civilians.
And since ISIS is not a country - tell me how it is ok to kill say....a Syrian civilian that has nothing to do with ISIS when we are not at war with Syria? What about if ISIS moves into Turkey - we going to start bombing Turkey and killing Turkish citizens when we are not at war with Turkey?

If those civilians want to draw the battle lines and fight with us--then fine. Otherwise, get out of the way.
So, if criminals from another country come in the United States and hide -that country just gets to bomb us to kill those criminals and the Americans better just get out of the way?

I want to keep the criminals OUT.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
There are civilians who are aware of friends, relatives, neighbors, who are radicalized. And do nothing. Say nothing. Are those the ones you are concerned about?
You don't know who those are vs. the ones that are not. You don't just get to kill people willy nilly because they might be radical. And young children? They aren't old enough to have an opinion, yet, and you think it's ok to kill them because the ends justify the means. That is EVIL thinking.

The ends do sometimes justify the means.

Again, if we had information that the couple in San Bernadino was planning to do what they did, the police stormed their house before they got a chance to carry it out, and their baby had gotten killed in the process--what would be the greater evil? That, or letting them carry out their attack and kill those 14 people?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
I am saying we should try to avoid killing them. I am saying we should not avoid killing ISIS.

I wonder, since ISIS is not a country, although they have a foothold in Gaza, Afghanistan, etc., whether they can be held in violation of the Geneva Convention since they never agreed nor ratified the terms of the agreement?
WE agreed not to kill innocent civilians.
And since ISIS is not a country - tell me how it is ok to kill say....a Syrian civilian that has nothing to do with ISIS when we are not at war with Syria? What about if ISIS moves into Turkey - we going to start bombing Turkey and killing Turkish citizens when we are not at war with Turkey?

If those civilians want to draw the battle lines and fight with us--then fine. Otherwise, get out of the way.
So, if criminals from another country come in the United States and hide -that country just gets to bomb us to kill those criminals and the Americans better just get out of the way?
I want to keep the criminals OUT.

What you want is irrelevant. It could happen, anyway. And then do those other countries just get to send bombs in America to kill them?

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
I am saying we should try to avoid killing them. I am saying we should not avoid killing ISIS.

I wonder, since ISIS is not a country, although they have a foothold in Gaza, Afghanistan, etc., whether they can be held in violation of the Geneva Convention since they never agreed nor ratified the terms of the agreement?
WE agreed not to kill innocent civilians.
And since ISIS is not a country - tell me how it is ok to kill say....a Syrian civilian that has nothing to do with ISIS when we are not at war with Syria? What about if ISIS moves into Turkey - we going to start bombing Turkey and killing Turkish citizens when we are not at war with Turkey?

If those civilians want to draw the battle lines and fight with us--then fine. Otherwise, get out of the way.
So, if criminals from another country come in the United States and hide -that country just gets to bomb us to kill those criminals and the Americans better just get out of the way?
I want to keep the criminals OUT.
What you want is irrelevant. It could happen, anyway. And then do those other countries just get to send bombs in America to kill them?

Well, I'd like to think they wouldn't have to since we'd actually take care if it, ourselves--although anymore, I'm not so sure we would. We are so damn PC in this country.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
There are civilians who are aware of friends, relatives, neighbors, who are radicalized. And do nothing. Say nothing. Are those the ones you are concerned about?
You don't know who those are vs. the ones that are not. You don't just get to kill people willy nilly because they might be radical. And young children? They aren't old enough to have an opinion, yet, and you think it's ok to kill them because the ends justify the means. That is EVIL thinking.
The ends do sometimes justify the means.
Again, if we had information that the couple in San Bernadino was planning to do what they did, the police stormed their house before they got a chance to carry it out, and their baby had gotten killed in the process--what would be the greater evil? That, or letting them carry out their attack and kill those 14 people?

You are comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison would be - would it have been ok to bomb their bomb their house and kill innocent neighbors in the process?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
I am saying we should try to avoid killing them. I am saying we should not avoid killing ISIS.

I wonder, since ISIS is not a country, although they have a foothold in Gaza, Afghanistan, etc., whether they can be held in violation of the Geneva Convention since they never agreed nor ratified the terms of the agreement?
WE agreed not to kill innocent civilians.
And since ISIS is not a country - tell me how it is ok to kill say....a Syrian civilian that has nothing to do with ISIS when we are not at war with Syria? What about if ISIS moves into Turkey - we going to start bombing Turkey and killing Turkish citizens when we are not at war with Turkey?

If those civilians want to draw the battle lines and fight with us--then fine. Otherwise, get out of the way.
So, if criminals from another country come in the United States and hide -that country just gets to bomb us to kill those criminals and the Americans better just get out of the way?
I want to keep the criminals OUT.
What you want is irrelevant. It could happen, anyway. And then do those other countries just get to send bombs in America to kill them?
Well, I'd like to think they wouldn't have to since we'd actually take care if it, ourselves--although anymore, I'm not so sure we would. We are so damn PC in this country.

And if we don't? Is it ok for another country to send bombs into America to kill criminals hiding here?

Ohfour · Hooker

Absolutely...

Ohfour · Hooker

That was in response to your second to your last post...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

No frickin' way would we allow another country to send bombs into America without retaliating. NONE. You are delusional if you think that would be allowed.

ahh- post mix up. So, now killing innocent Americans is ok in the pursuit of terrorists, too. You have officially joined ISIS. Congrats.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Thursday 17th of December 2015 11:21:02 AM

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
There are civilians who are aware of friends, relatives, neighbors, who are radicalized. And do nothing. Say nothing. Are those the ones you are concerned about?
You don't know who those are vs. the ones that are not. You don't just get to kill people willy nilly because they might be radical. And young children? They aren't old enough to have an opinion, yet, and you think it's ok to kill them because the ends justify the means. That is EVIL thinking.
The ends do sometimes justify the means.
Again, if we had information that the couple in San Bernadino was planning to do what they did, the police stormed their house before they got a chance to carry it out, and their baby had gotten killed in the process--what would be the greater evil? That, or letting them carry out their attack and kill those 14 people?
You are comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison would be - would it have been ok to bomb their bomb their house and kill innocent neighbors in the process?

No, that is not a "better" comparison. That is EXACTLY what we are talking about. Killing supposedly "innocent" civilians.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
I am saying we should try to avoid killing them. I am saying we should not avoid killing ISIS.

I wonder, since ISIS is not a country, although they have a foothold in Gaza, Afghanistan, etc., whether they can be held in violation of the Geneva Convention since they never agreed nor ratified the terms of the agreement?
WE agreed not to kill innocent civilians.
And since ISIS is not a country - tell me how it is ok to kill say....a Syrian civilian that has nothing to do with ISIS when we are not at war with Syria? What about if ISIS moves into Turkey - we going to start bombing Turkey and killing Turkish citizens when we are not at war with Turkey?

If those civilians want to draw the battle lines and fight with us--then fine. Otherwise, get out of the way.
So, if criminals from another country come in the United States and hide -that country just gets to bomb us to kill those criminals and the Americans better just get out of the way?
I want to keep the criminals OUT.
What you want is irrelevant. It could happen, anyway. And then do those other countries just get to send bombs in America to kill them?
Well, I'd like to think they wouldn't have to since we'd actually take care if it, ourselves--although anymore, I'm not so sure we would. We are so damn PC in this country.
And if we don't? Is it ok for another country to send bombs into America to kill criminals hiding here?

Would I say it is "ok"??? No, but it's not up to the nation getting the bombs dropped on them. If people inside our borders were attacking people in other nations and we weren't doing squat about it--those nations may very well try to do something about it on their own.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
There are civilians who are aware of friends, relatives, neighbors, who are radicalized. And do nothing. Say nothing. Are those the ones you are concerned about?
You don't know who those are vs. the ones that are not. You don't just get to kill people willy nilly because they might be radical. And young children? They aren't old enough to have an opinion, yet, and you think it's ok to kill them because the ends justify the means. That is EVIL thinking.
The ends do sometimes justify the means.
Again, if we had information that the couple in San Bernadino was planning to do what they did, the police stormed their house before they got a chance to carry it out, and their baby had gotten killed in the process--what would be the greater evil? That, or letting them carry out their attack and kill those 14 people?
You are comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison would be - would it have been ok to bomb their bomb their house and kill innocent neighbors in the process?
No, that is not a "better" comparison. That is EXACTLY what we are talking about. Killing supposedly "innocent" civilians.

We are talking bombs, and you are talking strategic infiltration - which is what I was pushing for. If their baby had died, it would not have been intentional and it would not have been through callous indifference.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
There are civilians who are aware of friends, relatives, neighbors, who are radicalized. And do nothing. Say nothing. Are those the ones you are concerned about?
You don't know who those are vs. the ones that are not. You don't just get to kill people willy nilly because they might be radical. And young children? They aren't old enough to have an opinion, yet, and you think it's ok to kill them because the ends justify the means. That is EVIL thinking.
The ends do sometimes justify the means.
Again, if we had information that the couple in San Bernadino was planning to do what they did, the police stormed their house before they got a chance to carry it out, and their baby had gotten killed in the process--what would be the greater evil? That, or letting them carry out their attack and kill those 14 people?
You are comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison would be - would it have been ok to bomb their bomb their house and kill innocent neighbors in the process?
No, that is not a "better" comparison. That is EXACTLY what we are talking about. Killing supposedly "innocent" civilians.
We are talking bombs, and you are talking strategic infiltration - which is what I was pushing for. If their baby had died, it would not have been intentional and it would not have been through callous indifference.

And if we bomb a house using the available intelligence we have that insurgents are there--and it turns out to be the wrong house--that would not be intentional, either.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
I am saying we should try to avoid killing them. I am saying we should not avoid killing ISIS.

I wonder, since ISIS is not a country, although they have a foothold in Gaza, Afghanistan, etc., whether they can be held in violation of the Geneva Convention since they never agreed nor ratified the terms of the agreement?
WE agreed not to kill innocent civilians.
And since ISIS is not a country - tell me how it is ok to kill say....a Syrian civilian that has nothing to do with ISIS when we are not at war with Syria? What about if ISIS moves into Turkey - we going to start bombing Turkey and killing Turkish citizens when we are not at war with Turkey?

If those civilians want to draw the battle lines and fight with us--then fine. Otherwise, get out of the way.
So, if criminals from another country come in the United States and hide -that country just gets to bomb us to kill those criminals and the Americans better just get out of the way?
I want to keep the criminals OUT.
What you want is irrelevant. It could happen, anyway. And then do those other countries just get to send bombs in America to kill them?
Well, I'd like to think they wouldn't have to since we'd actually take care if it, ourselves--although anymore, I'm not so sure we would. We are so damn PC in this country.
And if we don't? Is it ok for another country to send bombs into America to kill criminals hiding here?
Would I say it is "ok"??? No, but it's not up to the nation getting the bombs dropped on them. If people inside our borders were attacking people in other nations and we weren't doing squat about it--those nations may very well try to do something about it on their own.

Please explain how being in the midst of a Civil War is "doing squat"?

huskerbb · Guru

A 20 year old kid, a Marine, is going house to house with his unit rooting the Taliban out of a village in Afghanistan. The last three doors they busted through they were met with gunfire. He watched two of his buddies die in front of his eyes, and several more get shot and injured.

They bust through the 4th door. In a split second, he sees movement in the corner of the room and fires his weapon. He shoots a 10 year old kid.

Your mentality is what has that kid looking at 20 years in Leavenworth busting rocks.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
There are civilians who are aware of friends, relatives, neighbors, who are radicalized. And do nothing. Say nothing. Are those the ones you are concerned about?
You don't know who those are vs. the ones that are not. You don't just get to kill people willy nilly because they might be radical. And young children? They aren't old enough to have an opinion, yet, and you think it's ok to kill them because the ends justify the means. That is EVIL thinking.
The ends do sometimes justify the means.
Again, if we had information that the couple in San Bernadino was planning to do what they did, the police stormed their house before they got a chance to carry it out, and their baby had gotten killed in the process--what would be the greater evil? That, or letting them carry out their attack and kill those 14 people?
You are comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison would be - would it have been ok to bomb their bomb their house and kill innocent neighbors in the process?
No, that is not a "better" comparison. That is EXACTLY what we are talking about. Killing supposedly "innocent" civilians.
We are talking bombs, and you are talking strategic infiltration - which is what I was pushing for. If their baby had died, it would not have been intentional and it would not have been through callous indifference.
And if we bomb a house using the available intelligence we have that insurgents are there--and it turns out to be the wrong house--that would not be intentional, either.

It would be negligent. That's why you don't just bomb places willy nilly.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
I am saying we should try to avoid killing them. I am saying we should not avoid killing ISIS.

I wonder, since ISIS is not a country, although they have a foothold in Gaza, Afghanistan, etc., whether they can be held in violation of the Geneva Convention since they never agreed nor ratified the terms of the agreement?
WE agreed not to kill innocent civilians.
And since ISIS is not a country - tell me how it is ok to kill say....a Syrian civilian that has nothing to do with ISIS when we are not at war with Syria? What about if ISIS moves into Turkey - we going to start bombing Turkey and killing Turkish citizens when we are not at war with Turkey?

If those civilians want to draw the battle lines and fight with us--then fine. Otherwise, get out of the way.
So, if criminals from another country come in the United States and hide -that country just gets to bomb us to kill those criminals and the Americans better just get out of the way?
I want to keep the criminals OUT.
What you want is irrelevant. It could happen, anyway. And then do those other countries just get to send bombs in America to kill them?
Well, I'd like to think they wouldn't have to since we'd actually take care if it, ourselves--although anymore, I'm not so sure we would. We are so damn PC in this country.
And if we don't? Is it ok for another country to send bombs into America to kill criminals hiding here?
Would I say it is "ok"??? No, but it's not up to the nation getting the bombs dropped on them. If people inside our borders were attacking people in other nations and we weren't doing squat about it--those nations may very well try to do something about it on their own.

Please explain how being in the midst of a Civil War is "doing squat"?

If Syria was handling this--they wouldn't need us, Jordan, France, Russia, or anyone else to do it. They can't--and we can't allow an ISIS state to spring up there which will take terrorism around the world on a scale that will make 9/11 seem like a tiny issue.

I can't believe you are even arguing in favor of ISIS.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
A 20 year old kid, a Marine, is going house to house with his unit rooting the Taliban out of a village in Afghanistan. The last three doors they busted through they were met with gunfire. He watched two of his buddies die in front of his eyes, and several more get shot and injured.

They bust through the 4th door. In a split second, he sees movement in the corner of the room and fires his weapon. He shoots a 10 year old kid.

Your mentality is what has that kid looking at 20 years in Leavenworth busting rocks.

Movement is not gunfire. He would have just killed an innocent child because he was not properly trained and/or he was traumatized and should have been pulled back before entering any more civilian houses.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
There are civilians who are aware of friends, relatives, neighbors, who are radicalized. And do nothing. Say nothing. Are those the ones you are concerned about?
You don't know who those are vs. the ones that are not. You don't just get to kill people willy nilly because they might be radical. And young children? They aren't old enough to have an opinion, yet, and you think it's ok to kill them because the ends justify the means. That is EVIL thinking.
The ends do sometimes justify the means.
Again, if we had information that the couple in San Bernadino was planning to do what they did, the police stormed their house before they got a chance to carry it out, and their baby had gotten killed in the process--what would be the greater evil? That, or letting them carry out their attack and kill those 14 people?
You are comparing apples to oranges. A better comparison would be - would it have been ok to bomb their bomb their house and kill innocent neighbors in the process?
No, that is not a "better" comparison. That is EXACTLY what we are talking about. Killing supposedly "innocent" civilians.
We are talking bombs, and you are talking strategic infiltration - which is what I was pushing for. If their baby had died, it would not have been intentional and it would not have been through callous indifference.
And if we bomb a house using the available intelligence we have that insurgents are there--and it turns out to be the wrong house--that would not be intentional, either.
It would be negligent. That's why you don't just bomb places willy nilly.

That is a flat out stupid post. Using your best intelligence to target a specific building is NOT "willy nilly". That is just an idiotic characterization.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
No frickin' way would we allow another country to send bombs into America without retaliating. NONE. You are delusional if you think that would be allowed.

ahh- post mix up. So, now killing innocent Americans is ok in the pursuit of terrorists, too. You have officially joined ISIS. Congrats.

-- Edited by Lawyerlady on Thursday 17th of December 2015 11:21:02 AM

We arent the aggressor. We are the defender. We do what we have to do.

I hope you realize how crazy you look on this thread. Its not kosher...

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
A 20 year old kid, a Marine, is going house to house with his unit rooting the Taliban out of a village in Afghanistan. The last three doors they busted through they were met with gunfire. He watched two of his buddies die in front of his eyes, and several more get shot and injured.

They bust through the 4th door. In a split second, he sees movement in the corner of the room and fires his weapon. He shoots a 10 year old kid.

Your mentality is what has that kid looking at 20 years in Leavenworth busting rocks.
Movement is not gunfire. He would have just killed an innocent child because he was not properly trained and/or he was traumatized and should have been pulled back before entering any more civilian houses.

So our troops have to wait until someone shoots at them? You've lost your fvcking mind.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
I am saying we should try to avoid killing them. I am saying we should not avoid killing ISIS.

I wonder, since ISIS is not a country, although they have a foothold in Gaza, Afghanistan, etc., whether they can be held in violation of the Geneva Convention since they never agreed nor ratified the terms of the agreement?
WE agreed not to kill innocent civilians.
And since ISIS is not a country - tell me how it is ok to kill say....a Syrian civilian that has nothing to do with ISIS when we are not at war with Syria? What about if ISIS moves into Turkey - we going to start bombing Turkey and killing Turkish citizens when we are not at war with Turkey?

If those civilians want to draw the battle lines and fight with us--then fine. Otherwise, get out of the way.
So, if criminals from another country come in the United States and hide -that country just gets to bomb us to kill those criminals and the Americans better just get out of the way?
I want to keep the criminals OUT.
What you want is irrelevant. It could happen, anyway. And then do those other countries just get to send bombs in America to kill them?
Well, I'd like to think they wouldn't have to since we'd actually take care if it, ourselves--although anymore, I'm not so sure we would. We are so damn PC in this country.
And if we don't? Is it ok for another country to send bombs into America to kill criminals hiding here?
Would I say it is "ok"??? No, but it's not up to the nation getting the bombs dropped on them. If people inside our borders were attacking people in other nations and we weren't doing squat about it--those nations may very well try to do something about it on their own.

Please explain how being in the midst of a Civil War is "doing squat"?
If Syria was handling this--they wouldn't need us, Jordan, France, Russia, or anyone else to do it. They can't--and we can't allow an ISIS state to spring up there which will take terrorism around the world on a scale that will make 9/11 seem like a tiny issue.
I can't believe you are even arguing in favor of ISIS.

Don't be ridiculous - I'm not arguing in favor of ISIS, the fact that you would say something so absurd shows you are running out of arguments. I'm arguing in favor of the innocent Syrians who may well die from American bombs even while trying to defeat ISIS because that is what you think to be most expedient.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
A 20 year old kid, a Marine, is going house to house with his unit rooting the Taliban out of a village in Afghanistan. The last three doors they busted through they were met with gunfire. He watched two of his buddies die in front of his eyes, and several more get shot and injured.

They bust through the 4th door. In a split second, he sees movement in the corner of the room and fires his weapon. He shoots a 10 year old kid.

Your mentality is what has that kid looking at 20 years in Leavenworth busting rocks.
Movement is not gunfire. He would have just killed an innocent child because he was not properly trained and/or he was traumatized and should have been pulled back before entering any more civilian houses.

You REALLY do not understand war...wow...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
A 20 year old kid, a Marine, is going house to house with his unit rooting the Taliban out of a village in Afghanistan. The last three doors they busted through they were met with gunfire. He watched two of his buddies die in front of his eyes, and several more get shot and injured.

They bust through the 4th door. In a split second, he sees movement in the corner of the room and fires his weapon. He shoots a 10 year old kid.

Your mentality is what has that kid looking at 20 years in Leavenworth busting rocks.
Movement is not gunfire. He would have just killed an innocent child because he was not properly trained and/or he was traumatized and should have been pulled back before entering any more civilian houses.
So our troops have to wait until someone shoots at them? You've lost your fvcking mind.

Our troops have to be trained not to shoot at anything that moves.

huskerbb · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
I am saying we should try to avoid killing them. I am saying we should not avoid killing ISIS.

I wonder, since ISIS is not a country, although they have a foothold in Gaza, Afghanistan, etc., whether they can be held in violation of the Geneva Convention since they never agreed nor ratified the terms of the agreement?
WE agreed not to kill innocent civilians.
And since ISIS is not a country - tell me how it is ok to kill say....a Syrian civilian that has nothing to do with ISIS when we are not at war with Syria? What about if ISIS moves into Turkey - we going to start bombing Turkey and killing Turkish citizens when we are not at war with Turkey?

If those civilians want to draw the battle lines and fight with us--then fine. Otherwise, get out of the way.
So, if criminals from another country come in the United States and hide -that country just gets to bomb us to kill those criminals and the Americans better just get out of the way?
I want to keep the criminals OUT.
What you want is irrelevant. It could happen, anyway. And then do those other countries just get to send bombs in America to kill them?
Well, I'd like to think they wouldn't have to since we'd actually take care if it, ourselves--although anymore, I'm not so sure we would. We are so damn PC in this country.
And if we don't? Is it ok for another country to send bombs into America to kill criminals hiding here?
Would I say it is "ok"??? No, but it's not up to the nation getting the bombs dropped on them. If people inside our borders were attacking people in other nations and we weren't doing squat about it--those nations may very well try to do something about it on their own.

Please explain how being in the midst of a Civil War is "doing squat"?
If Syria was handling this--they wouldn't need us, Jordan, France, Russia, or anyone else to do it. They can't--and we can't allow an ISIS state to spring up there which will take terrorism around the world on a scale that will make 9/11 seem like a tiny issue.
I can't believe you are even arguing in favor of ISIS.
Don't be ridiculous - I'm not arguing in favor of ISIS, the fact that you would say something so absurd shows you are running out of arguments. I'm arguing in favor of the innocent Syrians who may well die from American bombs even while trying to defeat ISIS because that is what you think to be most expedient.

Yes, you are. You would have us wait for Syria to defeat them--when they are not capable of doing so.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
A 20 year old kid, a Marine, is going house to house with his unit rooting the Taliban out of a village in Afghanistan. The last three doors they busted through they were met with gunfire. He watched two of his buddies die in front of his eyes, and several more get shot and injured.

They bust through the 4th door. In a split second, he sees movement in the corner of the room and fires his weapon. He shoots a 10 year old kid.

Your mentality is what has that kid looking at 20 years in Leavenworth busting rocks.
Movement is not gunfire. He would have just killed an innocent child because he was not properly trained and/or he was traumatized and should have been pulled back before entering any more civilian houses.
You REALLY do not understand war...wow...

WE ARE NOT AT FVCKING WAR WITH INNOCENT CIVILIANS IN SYRIA.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
FNW wrote:
I am saying we should try to avoid killing them. I am saying we should not avoid killing ISIS.

I wonder, since ISIS is not a country, although they have a foothold in Gaza, Afghanistan, etc., whether they can be held in violation of the Geneva Convention since they never agreed nor ratified the terms of the agreement?
WE agreed not to kill innocent civilians.
And since ISIS is not a country - tell me how it is ok to kill say....a Syrian civilian that has nothing to do with ISIS when we are not at war with Syria? What about if ISIS moves into Turkey - we going to start bombing Turkey and killing Turkish citizens when we are not at war with Turkey?

If those civilians want to draw the battle lines and fight with us--then fine. Otherwise, get out of the way.
So, if criminals from another country come in the United States and hide -that country just gets to bomb us to kill those criminals and the Americans better just get out of the way?
I want to keep the criminals OUT.
What you want is irrelevant. It could happen, anyway. And then do those other countries just get to send bombs in America to kill them?
Well, I'd like to think they wouldn't have to since we'd actually take care if it, ourselves--although anymore, I'm not so sure we would. We are so damn PC in this country.
And if we don't? Is it ok for another country to send bombs into America to kill criminals hiding here?
Would I say it is "ok"??? No, but it's not up to the nation getting the bombs dropped on them. If people inside our borders were attacking people in other nations and we weren't doing squat about it--those nations may very well try to do something about it on their own.

Please explain how being in the midst of a Civil War is "doing squat"?
If Syria was handling this--they wouldn't need us, Jordan, France, Russia, or anyone else to do it. They can't--and we can't allow an ISIS state to spring up there which will take terrorism around the world on a scale that will make 9/11 seem like a tiny issue.
I can't believe you are even arguing in favor of ISIS.
Don't be ridiculous - I'm not arguing in favor of ISIS, the fact that you would say something so absurd shows you are running out of arguments. I'm arguing in favor of the innocent Syrians who may well die from American bombs even while trying to defeat ISIS because that is what you think to be most expedient.
Yes, you are. You would have us wait for Syria to defeat them--when they are not capable of doing so.

No. I would have us use the techonology and manpower we have to strategically take out ISIS without callously disregarding innocent civilian lives.