NationStates Jolt Archive

Considering inflamatory US Foreign Policy in the Middle-East. This attack was on a military target and I certainly applauded it when I heard about it, a justifiable response to attacks in the Middle-East, anyone who cals this 'terrorism' is decieving themselves.

Why do you appluade it? Sure its not terrorism per say but why did you like it?

I wouldn't go so far as to applaud it, as that's just guaranteeing flaming, but it was a justifiable target, and to call it terrorism is stupid, even if it was attacked by 'terrorist' groups

The attack on the cole was perpetrated by a terrorist organization. It was not justified by American foreign policy. It was designed to weaken the USA in order to destabalize the region, overthrow one or more middle eastern governments, and install radical islamist governments in their place.

A really good friend of mine died in that attack.

OK, you support terrorism, anything new to tell us?

I certainly applauded it.
You applauded everything that had to do with Americans dying, from what I've seen you post.

Considering inflamatory US Foreign Policy in the Middle-East. This attack was on a military target and I certainly applauded it when I heard about it, a justifiable response to attacks in the Middle-East, anyone who cals this 'terrorism' is decieving themselves.
I don't think the death of any human being is completely justifiable. Not even yours -.-

Considering inflamatory US Foreign Policy in the Middle-East. This attack was on a military target and I certainly applauded it when I heard about it, a justifiable response to attacks in the Middle-East, anyone who cals this 'terrorism' is decieving themselves.
What foreign policy are you talking about? This attack was perpetrated during the Clinton Administration. The warship was not there as part of a war. There was no war in the region at the time. There was no focus on Bin Laden either. This was a completely unprovoked attack. In fact, the US had folded its hands and done nothing against anyone after the first WTC attack, and the US Embassy bombings in Africa; all under Clinton's watch and prior to any "inflamatory" policy in the middle east. Get your facts straight you envious anti-American socialist!

Considering inflamatory US Foreign Policy in the Middle-East. This attack was on a military target and I certainly applauded it when I heard about it, a justifiable response to attacks in the Middle-East, anyone who cals this 'terrorism' is decieving themselves.

OH COME ON!! I know our foregin policy there is just asking for it (in other words it sux), but you don't say things like that!!!

Considering inflamatory US Foreign Policy in the Middle-East. This attack was on a military target and I certainly applauded it when I heard about it, a justifiable response to attacks in the Middle-East, anyone who cals this 'terrorism' is decieving themselves.
it would be justfiable if the terrorists were some kinda democracy activists are something--but the terrorists were talken about are clearly religious fundamentalist savages so Im compelled to disagree

I don't think the death of any human being is completely justifiable. Not even yours -.-

It would be one less idiot to screw up the world, though

it would be justfiable if the terrorists were some kinda democracy activists are something--but the terrorists were talken about are clearly religious fundamentalist savages so Im compelled to disagree
This is a first, when MKULTRA and NWV disagree.

it would be justfiable if the terrorists were some kinda democracy activists are something--but the terrorists were talken about are clearly religious fundamentalist savages so Im compelled to disagree
So they aren't that different from the US elite.

it would be justfiable if the terrorists were some kinda democracy activists are something--but the terrorists were talken about are clearly religious fundamentalist savages so Im compelled to disagree

Well, MKULTRA hit his limit eh? Good to hear it.

Meh. I dont blame him. I did not know that NWV was farther out than MKULTRA, that is surprising.

So they aren't that different from the US elite.
true- I hate em all

As a future US Naval Officer I can say that this is garbage. The mission was not to just damage a US Warship, but to also hope to destabalize Yemen, which was a terrorist attack. If I am so lucky when in the US Navy Submarine corp to fire a TLAM at a terrorist camp and kill the perpetrators it will be a mission well done

As a future US Naval Officer I can say that this is garbage. The mission was not to just damage a US Warship, but to also hope to destabalize Yemen, which was a terrorist attack. If I am so lucky when in the US Navy Submarine corp to fire a TLAM at a terrorist camp and kill the perpetrators it will be a mission well done
kill all the ones trained by the cia too

As a future US Naval Officer I can say that this is garbage. The mission was not to just damage a US Warship, but to also hope to destabalize Yemen, which was a terrorist attack. If I am so lucky when in the US Navy Submarine corp to fire a TLAM at a terrorist camp and kill the perpetrators it will be a mission well done

Ok, but the target itself was justified, it was a military warship, not innocent civilians, more guerilla tactics than terrorism.

Ok, but the target itself was justified, it was a military warship, not innocent civilians, more guerilla tactics than terrorism.
thats a good point

Ok, but the target itself was justified, it was a military warship, not innocent civilians, more guerilla tactics than terrorism.
but the scope of the mission (it's goals) was terrorism

Ok, but the target itself was justified, it was a military warship, not innocent civilians, more guerilla tactics than terrorism.

So can I go to France and blow up the base where they train their soldiers? By your logic, I can. It's a military instalation that trains people for war. OK, war may be extreme in France's case, but you get the general idea.

but the scope of the mission (it's goals) was terrorism

But that equates exactly with America's crimes in Nicaragua. (Except the Contras willingly killed innocents).

Guerilla tactics against what? I agree with El Aguila on this one. US foreign policy was nothing like today when that happened. Are you just angry that Clinton wouldn't allow more Albanians to be killed? That was pretty much the extent of US foreign policy back then.

but the scope of the mission (it's goals) was terrorism

Their goals were to de-stablize Yemen, by attacking a military target, that's guerilla warfare. Had they attacked Yemenese civilians to de-stablize their government, than it would be terrorist.

Their goals were to de-stablize Yemen, by attacking a military target, that's guerilla warfare. Had they attacked Yemenese civilians to de-stablize their government, than it would be terrorist.
which they do.

So can I go to France and blow up the base where they train their soldiers? By your logic, I can. It's a military instalation that trains people for war. OK, war may be extreme in France's case, but you get the general idea.

Yes you can, of course, in doing so, France reserves the right to shot you before you blow it up, and attack whatever organization your fighting with.

So can I go to France and blow up the base where they train their soldiers? By your logic, I can. It's a military instalation that trains people for war. OK, war may be extreme in France's case, but you get the general idea.

But what would it be in response to? In this case the freedom fighters had a valid point.

Their goals were to de-stablize Yemen, by attacking a military target, that's guerilla warfare. Had they attacked Yemenese civilians to de-stablize their government, than it would be terrorist.

The target was not Yemeni in nature.

A really good friend of mine died in that attack.


Aherm!

'Nuff said.

But what would it be in response to? In this case the freedom fighters had a valid point.

What did we do to provoke an attack on the Cole? Parking it in the ocean NEAR the Arabian peninsula?

Aherm!

'Nuff said.

I'm sure people's really good friends in Iraq died because of The American War.

And besides what I have heard about the American Armies institunionalized racism really makes me sick. 'Sand Niggers', 'Dune Coons'.... Racists anyone?

What did we do to provoke an attack on the Cole? Parking it in the ocean NEAR the Arabian peninsula?
it was refueling at a friendly nation

Aherm!

'Nuff said.
sorry to hear that--in america, only the innocent die this way

The response was from providing further support to Yemen, a criminal dictatorship which has a record of terrible crimes against its own people.

The response was from providing further support to Yemen, a criminal dictatorship which has a record of terrible crimes against its own people.
but america loves putting mass murderers in power--the reason was for OIL

People keep saying that the Us supports this corrupt dictator or that corrupt dictator so they deserve to be attacked. Why does the dictator himself not deserve to be attacked? Doesn't this make a bit more sense to everyone?

So much for that "diplomacy" I've been hearing so much about.

I'm sure people's really good friends in Iraq died because of The American War.

And besides what I have heard about the American Armies institunionalized racism really makes me sick. 'Sand Niggers', 'Dune Coons'.... Racists anyone?


Nice try, But I have family there, They have never even heard anything like that!

People keep saying that the Us supports this corrupt dictator or that corrupt dictator so they deserve to be attacked. Why does the dictator himself not deserve to be attacked? Doesn't this make a bit more sense to everyone?
cause the dictator was trained to be this way in the school of assassins at fort benning Ga

Nice try, But I have family there, They have never even heard anything like that!

Maybe they are deaf?
....Or just plain hateful of people of other races.

So can I go to France and blow up the base where they train their soldiers? By your logic, I can. It's a military instalation that trains people for war. OK, war may be extreme in France's case, but you get the general idea.

It would not be terrorism. It would be an act of war. Terrorism almost per definition cannot be perpetrated against military forces.

From wikipedia:
1. Terrorism is a tactic of violence that targets civilians, with the objective of forcing an enemy to favorable terms, by creating fear, demoralization, or political discord in the attacked population.

2. "Terrorism" is a pejorative characterisation of an enemy's attacks as conforming to an immoral philosophy of violence, in a manner outside of warfare, or prohibited in the laws of war.

You could of course be using the second definition wikipedia supplies, but personally I think that is an abuse of the word.

cause the dictator was trained to be this way in the school of assassins at fort benning Ga

The School of Assassins, huh... You still haven't answered my question. If they want to be free from oppression, why don't they attack the corrupt dictator? It's a very simple question.

It was an act of terrorism. If the attackers declared themselves and the nation they represent it would not be an act of terror.
I do not like racism at all, but the 'sand ******' 'camel chaser' comments although not nice are understandable. If you are asked to kill another human being it is easier to do it if you can de humanise them and some how make them different to you and yours in your mind. There are very few people that can pick up a gun be told to point at some one at random and pull the trigger without qualm or hesitation.
I agree attacks on military targets are more aceptable than on civilian targets. But this was not a uniformed group attacking a military target it was a group of terrorist.

Maybe they are deaf?
....Or just plain hateful of people of other races.

Ooooh! Ooooh! I think I know this one! It's called "America only attacks brown people." I think I saw it at snopes.com.

The School of Assassins, huh... You still haven't answered my question. If they want to be free from oppression, why don't they attack the corrupt dictator? It's a very simple question.

Well they do, haven't you seen the attacks in Arabic states over the past 2 decades, or are you just blind?

And they can see the US as the overseer, therefore removing the overseers support by making them think twice about their actions removes the basis of support the Government has.

Maybe they are deaf?
....Or just plain hateful of people of other races.


Why don't you shutup? Have you even been in Iraq? I have.

Why don't you shutup? Have you even been in Iraq? I have.

Well, I have been to Kuwait, and from what I remember my nephew telling me, I should try to hide my American identity, since those "Sand niggers" will try to sell me things at outrageous prices and won't help. (He's a Marine btw, and corrected himself later saying that it was just the slang he used).

The School of Assassins, huh... You still haven't answered my question. If they want to be free from oppression, why don't they attack the corrupt dictator? It's a very simple question.
cause theyd be killing their own guy

Well, I have been to Kuwait, and from what I remember my nephew telling me, I should try to hide my American identity, since those "Sand niggers" will try to sell me things at outrageous prices and won't help. (He's a Marine btw, and corrected himself later saying that it was just the slang he used).


Nobody I have talked to ever uses that phrase, one did and was sent home for it.

Nobody I have talked to ever uses that phrase, one did and was sent home for it.

Glad to know that, but it still stands, American soldiers use slang for their enemies. It's not like it's anything new, historically most armies have always had slang for their enemies, it's just taken a far mor offensive tone with words like "Sand ******", though I'm also told they are referred to as "Mohammed" which is akin to "Jerry".

Well they do, haven't you seen the attacks in Arabic states over the past 2 decades, or are you just blind?

And they can see the US as the overseer, therefore removing the overseers support by making them think twice about their actions removes the basis of support the Government has.

The attack on Afghanistan was justified. The other attack was Iraq. The other attacks have been...

cause theyd be killing their own guy

Are you saying that they want a corrupt dictator? Or are you saying that they're so blind that they think the dictator will go away if the US wasn't involved? Saddam hasn't been supported by the US for years and he wasn't going away.

The attack on Afghanistan was justified. The other attack was Iraq. The other attacks have been...
the attack on Iraq was Bush terrorism--how can america fight terrorism when our own president is one?

Well, I have been to Kuwait, and from what I remember my nephew telling me, I should try to hide my American identity, since those "Sand niggers" will try to sell me things at outrageous prices and won't help. (He's a Marine btw, and corrected himself later saying that it was just the slang he used).
You can't brand a country for the action of one representative unless that representative is the head of state, even then it would be harsh.
If I was asked to kill people I would probably try and think of ways of maing them different to me and mine in my head.

the attack on Iraq was Bush terrorism--how can america fight terrorism when our own president is one?

Whatever your view on Bush, answer the question.

Are you saying that they want a corrupt dictator? Or are you saying that they're so blind that they think the dictator will go away if the US wasn't involved? Saddam hasn't been supported by the US for years and he wasn't going away.
im sayin the US likes corrupt dicators that we control for the self interest of the corporate beast

im sayin the US likes corrupt dicators that we control for the self interest of the corporate beast

Now wouldn't it be something if the US controlled all of these dictators...that isn't even close to the truth. If it was, we would have long ago annexed these areas and made them states. Maybe not that blatant but there would be more resources coming to the US from the area. Compare the US of today with old, Imperialist Britain. They had control over areas. We have nothing of the sort.

You can't brand a country for the action of one representative unless that representative is the head of state, even then it would be harsh.
If I was asked to kill people I would probably try and think of ways of maing them different to me and mine in my head.

I'm not attacking the use of the terms, as I said, it's always been used, I'm simply stating that you can't say they don't use it. I don't give a damn what they call them, as long as they don't kill them for no reason.

I'm not attacking the use of the terms, as I said, it's always been used, I'm simply stating that you can't say they don't use it. I don't give a damn what they call them, as long as they don't kill them for no reason.
Ok I can agree with you on that.

Now wouldn't it be something if the US controlled all of these dictators...that isn't even close to the truth. If it was, we would have long ago annexed these areas and made them states. Maybe not that blatant but there would be more resources coming to the US from the area. Compare the US of today with old, Imperialist Britain. They had control over areas. We have nothing of the sort.
evil corporations loot all their resoruces like halliburton is doing now in Iraq

evil corporations loot all their resoruces like halliburton is doing now in Iraq


:rolleyes:

What's the point in continuing this discussion? You skirt all of the questions I've given you...

You want to see looting? Look at the stripped palaces and public buildings and private ones that the Iraqis themselves looted until they were empty. Halliburton isn't looting the country. The farthest you could go is that some parts of the company are skimming profits, which is definately terrible but far from the scale of looting. I know you hate to believe it, but Halliburton is in the business of rebuilding, not destroying. Whether or not they are doing that in the most efficient and moral way possible is another story, but they are definately aiding in the rebuilding of the country.

You want to see looting? Look at the stripped palaces and public buildings and private ones that the Iraqis themselves looted until they were empty. Halliburton isn't looting the country. The farthest you could go is that some parts of the company are skimming profits, which is definately terrible but far from the scale of looting. I know you hate to believe it, but Halliburton is in the business of rebuilding, not destroying. Whether or not they are doing that in the most efficient and moral way possible is another story, but they are definately aiding in the reuiblding of the country.

THANK YOU! That was a fair and intelligent post, You get a cookie!


http://home.att.net/~leahland/oreo.jpg

You want to see looting? Look at the stripped palaces and public buildings and private ones that the Iraqis themselves looted until they were empty. Halliburton isn't looting the country. The farthest you could go is that some parts of the company are skimming profits, which is definately terrible but far from the scale of looting. I know you hate to believe it, but Halliburton is in the business of rebuilding, not destroying. Whether or not they are doing that in the most efficient and moral way possible is another story, but they are definately aiding in the rebuilding of the country.

I know, Corporations are just so..... Compassionate!

Just look at the great way they treat their employees in third World Countries!

And thats yet another stupid analogy - Of course Halliburton will not loot the country, but they are profiting out death and the complete destruction of Iraqi Infrastructure (caused by the Americans).

I know, Corporations are just so..... Compassionate!

Just look at the great way they treat their employees in third World Countries!

And thats yet another stupid analogy - Of course Halliburton will not loot the country, but they are profiting out death and the complete destruction of Iraqi Infrastructure (caused by the Americans).

Are you done now? You have already been hammered here and now are just making pointless flames. Just leave.

I know, Corporations are just so..... Compassionate!

Some are actually, just not most.

Just look at the great way they treat their employees in third World Countries!

This relates to Iraq or the USS Cole.... how?

And thats yet another stupid analogy - Of course Halliburton will not loot the country, but they are profiting out death and the complete destruction of Iraqi Infrastructure (caused by the Americans).

I agree here, but still, Iraq ----> Cole?

My brother died in that attack!

>And thats yet another stupid analogy - Of course Halliburton will not loot the >country, but they are profiting out death and the complete destruction of >Iraqi Infrastructure (caused by the Americans).

Dangerous ground. Your doctor and dentist profit from your suffering - does that make them bad people? A company's job is to make a profit - if they do so by ending suffering, this is a good thing, not a bad one.

halliburton are politically connected war profiteers--they have a long and bloody history off of profitting from the deaths of american soldiers in unjust wars

My brother died in that attack!

Well, I am sorry for your loss, but that still does not prove whether or not the USS Cole was a justified target or not.

Ok, enough talk of Halliburton and Iraq. Get back on topic about the USS Cole.

A really good friend of mine died in that attack.
but your not saying on which side.

Ok, but the target itself was justified, it was a military warship, not innocent civilians, more guerilla tactics than terrorism.
true