War On 'Terror' ? - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-13-2001, 03:04 AM   #31
War Child
 
Marko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 739
Local Time: 06:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer:
Marko (and Crashed),

Are you saying that we shouldn't be bombing Afghanistan, or that we shouldn't be attacking Afghanistan at all? Because I think there are some very good reasons why the Taliban has to go.


What I'm saying is that you shouldn't bomb it like this. You shouldn't throw cluster bombs and kill civilians. I know it's though, but you have to figure out a way to trace and kill only terorists and noone else. As I said in some other posts - it's the standard of war crimes that YOU set up for others so you should stick with it.
Did you even know that cluster bombs are banned by geveva conventions? think about it for a minute and you'll see that I'm not anti american or pro-taliban. I'm just pointing out the wrong things that you are doing by this kind of bombing. You should rise up above them, and we all know that if you don't the history will not take a note. But right now I have a right to speak up about your mistajes too.
__________________

__________________
Marko is offline  
Old 11-19-2001, 06:50 PM   #32
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 05:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer:
Uh, it's not quite our intent to convince ObL to stop attacking us.

I think our intent is to eliminate him.
Yes.. Speedracer, don't go back on your statement, eliminating him and his aides/counterparts, means to Kill him.. Locking him away will not suffice, if he were to be jumped by some of the prisoners in the shower and plugged until he died, then maybe, hah... sick sense of humor, but these people need to die, it was just announced today that .. and i forget the details, but an inspirational leader of al queda helped plan and institute attacks from Prison.. Sadly, they need to be killed,.. or they'll find ways to kill more of us... And I am Extremely proud of our bombing during ramadan, because it is strictly a military point of view that is causing it.. If bin laden hadn't run three planes into our buildings then we wouldn't have to be bombing at all, and they could have their fasting in peace.. Rumsfeld knows what he is doing, I don't think there is anyone else on this planet who ismore qualified, as he is working with chaney and powell too... The statement of 'bombing on christmas eve'... would be a retalitory attack, in which case, we should just annihilate all involved, with a ridiculous amount of force.. Sadly, sometimes its worse that afghanistan is one of the nation's toilets, because there is hardly anythign to bomb, or take out in return.. but oh well.. the man hunt is ongoing, but it is under the cover of the bombing... i sure don't want to see hundreds of us soldiers dying in unprotected zones because bush bowed down to the liberal peace fanaticism and gave them opportunities to gun our men down without us doing al we can to protect them...

__________________

__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 11-20-2001, 05:21 AM   #33
Refugee
 
Klodomir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,198
Local Time: 06:24 AM
Ahh, I'm beginning to understand what's really going on here. Lemonite, could it be that you are in fact fiercely against the bombings and cleverly trying to make the people who are for military retaliation look like radical crazies who get off on bombing? Shrewd, very shrewd.
__________________
Klodomir is offline  
Old 11-20-2001, 09:41 AM   #34
I'm a chauvinist leprechaun
 
Lemonite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Notre Dame, IN, 46556
Posts: 1,072
Local Time: 05:24 AM
No.. I'm truly for it, and there is method to my madness, logic for my sweeping generalizations, and reason for my ramblings, but I must head off to class.. Hah.. Paranoia and 20th Century literature .. Kafka freaks me out.. maybe i'll watch Babe 'pig in the city'.. darn.. that's jsut as bleak a movie... ok.. give me Caddyshack.. that's always a spirit lifter
__________________
Lemonite is offline  
Old 11-20-2001, 06:27 PM   #35
sv
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 229
Local Time: 05:24 AM
Scenario: So John Wayne Gacy (a serial child rapist/murderer from the late 1970s in Chicago - 33 killed) flees from the police and hides in a classroom of 50 schoolchildren. You are the chief of police and you arrive at the school in hot pursuit. You enter the classroom, and Gacy has surrounded himself with children. It doesn't seem possible to get him (alive or dead) without killing lots of children.

Do you get a machine gun and open fire, killing everyone in the room including Gacy and the children?

If you say yes, in my opinion you are a brutal human rights abuser and child-murderer - your basic goal was to punish Gacy and not to prevent innocent deaths. Your thirst for punishment far outweighed your stated aim of making the world safer for innocent people.

If you say no (and I certainly hope all of you said no), WHY IS IT ANY DIFFERENT IF THE CHILDREN ARE FROM AFGHANISTAN?????????

Do you think the women and children of Afghanistan voted to have Osama spend a few years in their country? Did they vote to have him murder 5000 Americans? Did these civilians have any choice whatsoever? If not, why is his murder/capture considered adequate justification to murder them? Since when does our thirst for vengeance outweigh the right of an Afghani child to live?

If you say this is about deterrance not vengeance, making the short-term deaths worth the long-term lives saved, let's first remember that these were suicide bombers - apparently fear of death is not a particularly strong deterrant. The U.S. has been bombing someone or other for years - doesn't seem to have scared these people. History shows that murder doesn't deter.

If you say we can take away their technical capabilities to commit such acts, that argument might hold water if the U.S. (and the other Security Council nations) wasn't selling every possible form of arms to the highest bidders all over the world. General Electric, Boeing, Lockheed, Honeywell . . . lots of money in murder. America's best companies, right? Murderers tend to find weapons if they are being offered for sale. Ask the veterans of the Gulf War, who were expecting fire from bows and arrows, not the sidewinder missiles they got. So as long as there are terrorists, they will find weapons.

So murdering innocent civilians to prevent terrorism has little chance of working, on pragmatic grounds. On moral grounds, this plan fails miserably.

The best way to honor the 5000 dead in New York would be to find a way to prevent terrorism in the future - and this isn't it.
__________________
sv is offline  
Old 11-20-2001, 10:52 PM   #36
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,574
Local Time: 12:24 AM
Does anyone have an estimate for the number of innocent civilians the US and the Northern Alliance have killed? I don't know, but I suspect it's not nearly as bad as the wholesale slaughter that some pacifists say has happened.
__________________
speedracer is online now  
Old 11-24-2001, 11:12 AM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: back and to the left
Posts: 8,523
Local Time: 11:24 PM
war is a tough subject...for a long time the u.s were the defenders of democracy. then we laid off that for a while when we realized we haven't got a clue what democracy is, so how couldwe actually preach it? but the taliban does need to be stopped, they killed 30% of their population in 2 years! not to forget they picked a fight with the u.s (who DOES that?!). Anyways, I could say a thousand more reasons why it's ok that we are at war, but think of two thousand more reasons why we shouldn't be bombing them day and night. but aren't you happy that you CAN talk about it like this? gotta love America

------------------
Go lightly down your darkened way.
__________________
Lilly is offline  
Old 11-26-2001, 07:57 AM   #38
War Child
 
stagman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Sunshine State - Australia
Posts: 936
Local Time: 05:24 AM
Just face it war is a part of life and always will be, it's never fair and never was meant to be.
I just hope they fry every last terrorist around, so they can't do anything nasty again. Saddam Hussain and most of his supporters have earnt their early tickets to hell as well!!!

__________________
stagman is offline  
Old 11-26-2001, 11:53 AM   #39
sv
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 229
Local Time: 05:24 AM
Stagman, and does Ronald Reagan also qualify as a terrorist for the bombing of Nicaragua, which was done to remove a democratically elected government? Shall we fry him? Who decides which murder is a terrorist act and which murder is OK? What criteria are used and are you so sure we are qualified (either in terms of morality or knowledge) to judge? Who becomes the judges? The most powerful or the most just?
__________________
sv is offline  
Old 11-26-2001, 12:49 PM   #40
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sv:
Scenario: So John Wayne Gacy (a serial child rapist/murderer from the late 1970s in Chicago - 33 killed) flees from the police and hides in a classroom of 50 schoolchildren. You are the chief of police and you arrive at the school in hot pursuit. You enter the classroom, and Gacy has surrounded himself with children. It doesn't seem possible to get him (alive or dead) without killing lots of children.

Do you get a machine gun and open fire, killing everyone in the room including Gacy and the children?
If you say no (and I certainly hope all of you said no), WHY IS IT ANY DIFFERENT IF THE CHILDREN ARE FROM AFGHANISTAN?????????

The best way to honor the 5000 dead in New York would be to find a way to prevent terrorism in the future - and this isn't it.
It's not the same. Yes, the people of Afghanistan were being held hostage by the Taliban, but they were indeed the self-proclaimed acting government. To strike at a country sometimes unfortunately means civilian casualties. Has been that way in every war in history. This is not the same as shooting at a room full of unprotected children. Yes, the loss of civilian life is sad. But, the USA is taking every precaution to ensure as few civilian deaths as possible.
And if war isn't the way to prevent terrorism in the future, what is? Do you have any workable ideas at all?
Diplomatic measures don't work with madmen.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 11-26-2001, 02:42 PM   #41
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 12:24 AM
What would have happened if America had done nothing? Well, let's look at this questions in a different perspective: What would have happened if America had never destroy millions of lives before Sept 11th. Would we have been attacked? Would we have deserved the attack? Probably not.

My point here is simple. If we continue to kill innocent civilians in the name of love, which is essentially what we are claiming to do, why are we outraged when those effected by our "Freedom fighters" and "Anti-Terrorist" bombings fight back?

I remember hearing from independent media sources long before the Sept 11th attacks. About how America had bombed civilian land spaces, how we had funded rebels like Bin Ladin in Afganistan...and on and on...and I wondered when we would finally get hit ourselves? Well, it happened, and it was a hard price to pay.

I feel tremendously sorry for anyone who lost a loved one in the attacks. It could have been anyone's family that died...that's how scary terrorism is. I am also very deeply saddened that our only response is to bomb people that haven't even admitted their guilt. That's even more scary. To think that our government doesn't think twice about killing people as the terrorist do.
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 11-26-2001, 06:59 PM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:24 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Danospano:
I am also very deeply saddened that our only response is to bomb people that haven't even admitted their guilt. That's even more scary. To think that our government doesn't think twice about killing people as the terrorist do.
1)He did admit guilt in a video tape a couple weeks ago.
2)Even if he hadn't (which he did), the evidence was overwhelming according to all sources, British, American, Russian, UN that viewed it.

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 11-26-2001, 08:28 PM   #43
Refugee
 
notiti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kong Studios
Posts: 1,336
Local Time: 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Swallow:
So you think that Afganistan would just let American/UN forces could just walk around their country at free will?

*Reality check*
Uh yeah, I do. Don't bother yelling at me cuz I think all you right wingers are nuts, and I'm not nessisarily coming back, but here's one that might shock you: the Afaganis hate the Taliban. There is no way in hell that the armies of the Taliban could EVER stand up to ours (think desert storm people.) The majority of people in that country want the Taliban the hell out. By bombing the civilians who actually are our supporters (which we are doing intentionally or not) we are not exactly putting ourselves out there as nice people.
Everyone on the planet is sorry for us, we all deplore what happened on September 11, but the majority of nations also see us as spoiled brats. We are not helping our image in any way by hurting the innocent, in fact we are just guarenteeing that another generation of kids is going to grow up hating the US military industrial complex.
Basically at this point Afganistan is our bitch, they have nothing but bombed out buildings left, their agriculture is ruined and the people want us to help them. Send in the damn ground troops, ferret Osalma Bin Ladin's crazy ass out, kill him and be done with it.
WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OG THE CHILDREN??
hehe...



------------------
Please repeat the message, it's the music that we choose.
http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~kljense3/MrTvs.html
__________________
notiti is offline  
Old 11-27-2001, 12:04 AM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
U2Bama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gulf Coast State of Mine
Posts: 3,405
Local Time: 11:24 PM
Bono thinks of The Osama as a spoiled brat.
__________________
U2Bama is offline  
Old 11-27-2001, 11:40 AM   #45
sv
The Fly
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 229
Local Time: 05:24 AM
Someone invades a country, sets up a "govenment", and "proclaims" that they are in control. That doesn't mean the occupied people are complicit in the government's crimes, especially if they're truly helpless. In Afghanistan, we're talking about starving people, many of whose legs have been blown off by landmines. People who want peace but have no control over it. People who are used and abused in horrendous fashion by the brutal regime, through no fault of their own.

And you can't justify murdering civilians by saying "hey, it's war". This sounds simplistic, but it's quite valid: if it was your family, I don't think it would seem very acceptable at all.

And as for solutions, I'm glad you asked because I do have a few suggestions. First, I'd like to say that I DO believe the U.S. could be a major positive influence in stopping terrorism. Of course it's a complicated problem, but this would be a good start:

1. The U.S. should stop supporting terrorists around the world. I'm ashamed to say it, but we (the U.S.) are the leading financial supporters of terrorists and human rights abusers around the world. U.S. foreign policy is based on the principle of creating a "favorable business climate" for our companies in other countries. What this involves is working hard to prevent unionization of workers, humane working conditions, environmentally sound policies - and doing whatever it takes (murder, torture, preventing freedom of speech, etc.) to accomplish this. The way we do it is by supporting brutal dictators/regimes financially so they can use their brutal armies/death squads to suppress human rights. The number of countries in which we do this is VERY large, and this is VERY well documented.

2. Stop selling arms. The 5 U.N. security council nations are responsible for 90% of world arms sales, with the U.S. the leader by far. Boeing, Lockheed, General Electric, Honeywell - yes they make commercial airliners and light bulbs and burglar alarms, but the way they make their money is by massive government (ours and others) contracts to make tanks, bombers, fighter planes, munitions, etc.

3. Stop providing unjust diplomatic support for our companies hurtful policies overseas. For instance, the U.S. sues African countries for patent infringement when they try to find alternative ("generic") versions of drugs sold by our companies at prices they can't afford. I'm talking about malaria, TB, and other diseases that could be eradicated with sound policy. Let's give them a break - Africa loses millions of lives a year because of their inability to treat simple diseases. Also, the U.S. threatened trade sanctions against several Southeast Asian countries when they tried to limit cigarette imports in 1996-7 - the countries were forced to back down, and the rate of teen smoking in Japan (one example) has increased by more than 10% PER YEAR since then. That's a lot of deaths.

4. Debt relief. Why should African countries that can't feed their people be forced to pay money to the U.S.? Especially when the "loans" were never used for human/social development but to support brutal 3rd world dictators who supported our business policies.

5. Every citizen should learn about what its country is up to by reading many sources, of which many should include foreign ones - the U.S. press (like any countries but much more powerful) cannot be depended upon to provide anything but propaganda. And get involved in nonviolent efforts to improve the behavior of our country.

Long . . . but anyway it's a start.

SV
__________________

__________________
sv is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com