NationStates Jolt Archive

A suicide bomber attacked the entrance to the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan Tuesday during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney, killing at least 14 people and wounding a dozen more. The Taliban claimed responsibility and said Cheney was the target.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070227/D8NI1LV80.html

Well, well.

I'm of half a mind to say too bad they missed.

I'm of half a mind to say too bad they missed.

Yeah, cuz it'd be great if someone you don't like got killed. :rolleyes:

Hold on...

President of Iraq nearly killed...

Now V.P. Dick Cheney nearly killed...

What if the next one isn't nearly?

Truly, I'd rather have an evil-puppet-master-Darth-Vader-esque-dude as President rather than some southern hick who is just being controlled by him anyways.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070227/D8NI1LV80.html

Well, well.

I'm of half a mind to say too bad they missed.

So you would condone an act of terrorism to achieve a selfish and, I might add, unoriginal end?

Truly, I'd rather have an evil-puppet-master-Darth-Vader-esque-dude as President rather than some southern hick who is just being controlled by him anyways.

I'm guessing you mean Palpatine, not Vader. But then your ignorance of Star Wars seems to mirror your ignorance of politics.

Yeah, cuz it'd be great if someone you don't like got killed. :rolleyes:

It's okay though, I'm pretty sure Bush stands ready to take over should Cheney ever become incapacitated.

Yeah, cuz it'd be great if someone you don't like got killed. :rolleyes:

So you would condone an act of terrorism to achieve a selfish and, I might add, unoriginal end?

It's clear both of you read what you wanted into that. I suggest you go back and read what I actually posted, not what you seem to think I posted...

It's clear both of you read what you wanted into that. I suggest you go back and read what I actually posted, not what you seem to think I posted...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070227/D8NI1LV80.html

Well, well.

I'm of half a mind to say too bad they missed.

I read it accurately.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070227/D8NI1LV80.html

Well, well.

I'm of half a mind to say too bad they missed.

I'm glad they missed.

I wonder if after something like this if the Bush administration can continue to claim that things are "improving" in Iraq or Afghanistan. But I'm sure this one "incident" won't affect the claim. I bet they feel that if they repeat themselves often enough, no matter what happens, they can believe it will be true. Maybe even convince a few other people.

Given the target, I'm sorry they missed. Sure, I'd rather see him locked away for life, but that's just not gonna happen. So him getting blown up's the lesser of evils I think.

I wonder if after something like this if the Bush administration can continue to claim that things are "improving" in Iraq or Afghanistan. But I'm sure this one "incident" won't affect the claim. I bet they feel that if they repeat themselves often enough, no matter what happens, they can believe it will be true. Maybe even convince a few other people.

If I know the Bush administration (and my friend's 18 month old could point out their tactics by now), they are going to use this to show that they need more forces in Iraq than ever to "solve" the terrorist threat then say some other bullshit that will imply that we are fighting them over there instead of here. Probably something along the lines of "They attacked the vice president in Iraq, had they ever attacked him before? No."

Given the target, I'm sorry they missed.

"I don't like him. He should die." :rolleyes:

So you would condone an act of terrorism to achieve a selfish and, I might add, unoriginal end?

Like 'shock and awe' tactics used in Iraq to instill terror in its government and people? Just to get the guy who tried to kill your papa.

Like 'shock and awe' tactics used in Iraq to instill terror in its government and people?

It's called war. Get over it.

This begs the question: how did the Taliban know Cheney was in the base?

This begs the question: how did the Taliban know Cheney was in the base?

They probably spotted the massive motorcade that would have been with him.

"I don't like him. He should die." :rolleyes:My opinion of the guy has nothing to do with it & not knowing him, I don't actually have one. He actively participates in bringing about the death of hundreds of thousands of people, however, so when stopping him in a peaceful, civilized manner isn't an option, one'd have to be a monster not to wish they hadn't missed.

On a side note, I think it's funny you by your sarcasm imply I'm the immoral one here. Because I think you are.

My opinion of the guy has nothing to do with it & not knowing him, I don't actually have one. He actively participates in bringing about the death of hundreds of thousands of people, however, so when stopping him in a peaceful, civilized manner isn't an option, one'd have to be a monster not to wish they hadn't missed.

On a side note, I think it's funny you by your sarcasm imply I'm the immoral one here. Because I think you are.

Try again.

It's called war. Get over it.

I know its called war you fool. But why is it war when done by shock and awe, hellfire missiles and daisy cutters and called terrorism when done buy blokes with beards, kalashnikovs, and IEDs.

Given the target, I'm sorry they missed. Sure, I'd rather see him locked away for life, but that's just not gonna happen. So him getting blown up's the lesser of evils I think.

:rolleyes:

This is why I have no faith in people at all anymore when it comes to politics.

Like 'shock and awe' tactics used in Iraq to instill terror in its government and people? Just to get the guy who tried to kill your papa.

Welcome to war October3.

Try again.OK. Sometimes some people are so dangerous to other people that how they're stopped is less important than that they are stopped.

Someone methodically butchering your entire family for no reason, for example, will need to be stopped before he can finish. The method in this case, is less important than effect.

Now multiply that by 50,000+ & you have the VP. He's at it full swing. So that he's stopped is far more inportant than how he's stopped.

Understand now?

I know its called war you fool. But why is it war when done by shock and awe, hellfire missiles and daisy cutters and called terrorism when done buy blokes with beards, kalashnikovs, and IEDs.

Daisy Cutters can only be dropped by C-130 Hercules Aircraft. They would not be used over civilian populations. The missiles targeted government buildings and infrastructures used by the enemy. It is not called terrorism because they were targeting legitament target.

Attacking civilians directly is terrorism.

See the difference or do you need more assistance?

I read it accurately.

Nope. You are still missing the distinction between what I poisted and what you read into what I posted.


"I'm of half a mind to say too bad they missed." =/= "Yeah, cuz it'd be great if someone you don't like got killed."

For one thing I have offered no opine on wheter I like that man or not.
For another, I absolutely did not say it would be great if they missed. Please go forth and learn the meaning of the idiom I used before putting your foot in your mouth again by assuming "to be of half a mind" equals "it'd be great". If you can actually figure out what people are on about without help, it'll be less trouble for both of us.

I know its called war you fool. But why is it war when done by shock and awe, hellfire missiles and daisy cutters and called terrorism when done buy blokes with beards, kalashnikovs, and IEDs.

I'm the fool here? Interesting. :rolleyes:

OK. Sometimes some people are so dangerous to other people that how they're stopped is less important than that they are stopped.

Someone methodically butchering your entire family for no reason, for example, will need to be stopped before he can finish. The method in this case, is less important than effect.

Now multiply that by 50,000+ & you have the VP. He's at it full swing. So that he's stopped is far more inportant than how he's stopped.

Understand now?

Oh, I understand completely that you're ignorant. I got that quite easily.

"I don't like him. He should die." :rolleyes:

Try again.

Attacking civilians directly is terrorism.

See the difference or do you need more assistance?

Apparently, they do.

Daisy Cutters can only be dropped by C-130 Hercules Aircraft. The missiles targeted government buildings and infrastructures used by the enemy. It is not called terrorism because they were targeting legitament target.

Attacking civilians directly is terrorism.

See the difference or do you need more assistance?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,968181,00.html

Maybe the coalition forces need more assistance.

See also

http://foi.missouri.edu/jouratrisk/turning.html

Nope. You are still missing the distinction between what I poisted and what you read into what I posted.


"I'm of half a mind to say too bad they missed." =/= "Yeah, cuz it'd be great if someone you don't like got killed."

For one thing I have offered no opine on wheter I like that man or not.
For another, I absolutely did not say it would be great if they missed. Please go forth and learn the meaning of the idiom I used before putting your foot in your mouth again by assuming "to be of half a mind" equals "it'd be great". If you can actually figure out what people are on about without help, it'll be less trouble for both of us.

You're right. You have failed to acknowledge that your opinion is often implied through the statements you make. The idiom you used, in conjunction with the title 'Taliban misses Cheney' and the overall tone of your post sends a message across that you, for whatever reason, are somewhat saddened that Cheney did not die. Whatever your reasons for wanting him dead, there remains that fact that you wanted hum dead, based on the implications of your post.

It's called war. Get over it.

And Cheney is a military target. Consequently, this suicide bombing was an attack against a military target, and not an act of terrorism, as terrorist acts are attacks against a civilian population.

The civilians that were killed and wounded in this attack were simply collateral damage. As disgusting and horrendous as it may be, this was not a terrorist attack.

It was war.

OK. Sometimes some people are so dangerous to other people that how they're stopped is less important than that they are stopped.

Someone methodically butchering your entire family for no reason, for example, will need to be stopped before he can finish. The method in this case, is less important than effect.

Now multiply that by 50,000+ & you have the VP. He's at it full swing. So that he's stopped is far more inportant than how he's stopped.

Understand now?

Cheney is methodically butchering 50,000+ families?

Apparently, they do.

"They"? Cluich, I used to respect you, but you seem to be resorting to that sort of non-argument debate technique recently.

You're right. You have failed to acknowledge that your opinion is often implied through the statements you make. The idiom you used, in conjunction with the title 'Taliban misses Cheney' and the overall tone of your post sends a message across that you, for whatever reason, are somewhat saddened that Cheney did not die. Whatever your reasons for wanting him dead, there remains that fact that you wanted hum dead, based on the implications of your post.

That it crossed my mind that the world may have been better off, for reasons of state, if Mr. Chenery had been assassinated, does not imply, as you and Cluich wish to suggest, that I actively and definitavely wish harm upon him for reasons of personal animosity.

Apparently, they do.

"They"? Cluich, I used to respect you, but you seem to be resorting to that sort of non-argument debate technique recently.

You're right. You have failed to acknowledge that your opinion is often implied through the statements you make. The idiom you used, in conjunction with the title 'Taliban misses Cheney' and the overall tone of your post sends a message across that you, for whatever reason, are somewhat saddened that Cheney did not die. Whatever your reasons for wanting him dead, there remains that fact that you wanted hum dead, based on the implications of your post.

That it crossed my mind that the world may have been better off, for reasons of state, if Mr. Chenery had been assassinated, does not imply, as you and Cluich wish to suggest, that I actively and definitavely wish harm upon him for reasons of personal animosity.

Apparently, they do.

"They"? Cluich, I used to respect you, but you seem to be resorting to that sort of non-argument debate technique recently.

You're right. You have failed to acknowledge that your opinion is often implied through the statements you make. The idiom you used, in conjunction with the title 'Taliban misses Cheney' and the overall tone of your post sends a message across that you, for whatever reason, are somewhat saddened that Cheney did not die. Whatever your reasons for wanting him dead, there remains that fact that you wanted hum dead, based on the implications of your post.

That it crossed my mind that the world may have been better off, for reasons of state, if Mr. Chenery had been assassinated, does not imply, as you and Cluich wish to suggest, that I actively and definitavely wish harm upon him for reasons of personal animosity.

Nice triple post Daistellia :D

Daisy Cutters can only be dropped by C-130 Hercules Aircraft. They would not be used over civilian populations. The missiles targeted government buildings and infrastructures used by the enemy. It is not called terrorism because they were targeting legitament target.

Attacking civilians directly is terrorism.

See the difference or do you need more assistance?

Well in this case it was an attack on a military base against Cheney, both acceptable targets. So this particular case can't be called a terrorist act.

Well in this case it was an attack on a military base against Cheney, both acceptable targets. So this particular case can't be called a terrorist act.

Actually, the attack against the VP could be considered an act of terrorism if he was not wearing a Military uniform at the time. If he was wearing a uniform then yes, he would be fair game, otherwise he would not be.

No argument about the attack on the base itself. That is legit.

Actually, the attack against the VP could be considered an act of terrorism if he was not wearing a Military uniform at the time. If he was wearing a uniform then yes, he would be fair game, otherwise he would not be.

No argument about the attack on the base itself. That is legit.

Does that mean when people are not wearing a uniform, they no longer become part of the military?

This implies that whenever Bush acts as Commander in Chief, he has to put on a uniform first, or else his orders would not be followed.

Actually, the attack against the VP could be considered an act of terrorism if he was not wearing a Military uniform at the time. If he was wearing a uniform then yes, he would be fair game, otherwise he would not be.

No argument about the attack on the base itself. That is legit.

Thats a none argument for starters.

According to your argument shooting a non uniformed Iraqi would be classed as terrorism. Do you mean that if the person doing the attacking is in uniform it isn't terrorism?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070227/D8NI1LV80.html

Well, well.

I'm of half a mind to say too bad they missed.

Oh. When I read the title I thought they missed him for not beeing there or something.

Does that mean when people are not wearing a uniform, they no longer become part of the military?

This implies that whenever Bush acts as Commander in Chief, he has to put on a uniform first, or else his orders would not be followed.

Sorry but he's commander and chief because that is what is written in the Constitution. He does not have to put on a uniform to exercise that capacity but he also is not a legitament target to go after unless he is wearing a military uniform.

Nice triple post Daistellia :D

Nice catch Allaghany. ;) Don't ye just love the jolt triples and misspelled names... I'm not even going to bother removing it this time.

Thats a none argument for starters.

According to your argument shooting a non uniformed Iraqi would be classed as terrorism. Do you mean that if the person doing the attacking is in uniform it isn't terrorism?

Attacking civilians directly is terrorism. The WTC attack was terrorism whereas the Pentagon attack legally was not because the Pentagon is a government/military structure.

People who are shooting at military forces are going to get shot at in return.That is not terrorism but self-defense. Bombing civilians (meaning non-government buildings) directly is terrorism.

Cheney is methodically butchering 50,000+ families?By proxy, yes. In the region of half a million dead & yet more fleeing the destruction.

Tragic, i'm sure.

Actually, the attack against the VP could be considered an act of terrorism if he was not wearing a Military uniform at the time. If he was wearing a uniform then yes, he would be fair game, otherwise he would not be.

No argument about the attack on the base itself. That is legit.

Aren't attacking the political leaders behind a war acceptable? After all, it is the politicians who vote to continue the fighting, to fund the fighting, so they are also part of the war fighting process. Political targets sound just as legitimate as military ones.

Attacking civilians directly is terrorism. The WTC attack was terrorism whereas the Pentagon attack legally was not because the Pentagon is a government/military structure.

People who are shooting at military forces are going to get shot at in return.That is not terrorism but self-defense. Bombing civilians (meaning non-government buildings) directly is terrorism.

"When the news of the Palestine Hotel attack first came, the American command said nothing until it emerged that the French TV channel, France 3, had filmed the tank aiming and firing. Then the coalition put out a series of contradictory accounts. Colonel David Perkins, commander of the Third Infantry Division's Second Brigade, said Iraqis in front of the hotel were firing rocket-propelled grenades at the tank. The division's commander, General Bouford Blount, issued a statement saying the tank had come under sniper fire from the hotel roof and had fired at the source of the shooting, which had then stopped.

Correspondents in the Palestine Hotel insisted there had been no grenades and no sniper fire. But the most telling evidence is that France 3's cameraman had started filming some minutes before the tank opened fire, and his camera's sound track records no shots whatsoever.

More puzzling was an official Spanish government statement that the coalition had actually declared the Palestine Hotel a military objective 48 hours before it was attacked and that the correspondents should have left. This was news to the correspondents, all of whom denied knowledge of any warning."


Therefore if al-Qaeda had secretly declared the world trade centre as a legitimate military target (in that the capitalist west uses taxes gained through commerce to fund military operations) the 11/09 attack was not terrorism. Therefore the war on terror is defunct?

Sorry but he's commander and chief because that is what is written in the Constitution. He does not have to put on a uniform to exercise that capacity but he also is not a legitament target to go after unless he is wearing a military uniform.

You can't have it both ways. Either he is a military target, or he is not. If the uniform, or lack of it, does not affect the legitimacy of his orders, then it does not change whether or not he is a legitimate target.

EDIT: Link for the article quoted in the post above mine:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,977702,00.html

You can't have it both ways. Either he is a military target, or he is not. If the uniform, or lack of it, does not affect the legitimacy of his orders, then it does not change whether or not he is a legitimate target.

Actually I can have it both ways because, in reality, the President of the United States is a CIVILIAN!!!

Actually I can have it both ways because, in reality, the President of the United States is a CIVILIAN!!!

I thought Bush was a member of the National Guard. Wasn't he a !st Lieutenant?

I thought Bush was a member of the National Guard. Wasn't he a !st Lieutenant?

Was being past tense just like my dad was a member of the USAFR. He's a civilian now.

Was being past tense just like my dad was a member of the USAFR. He's a civilian now.

Your selective response to arguments is strange.

Your selective response to arguments is strange.

No its not.

Yeah, cuz it'd be great if someone you don't like got killed. :rolleyes:

Were this the sullen adolescent who delivered his pizza it would be a rather reprehensible statement........... However, its that fuck and co-architect of the Iraq slaughter Dick Cheney, so its perfectly acceptable. If its good enough for Saddam to have to hang, then I see no reason why DC gets off. Shame they missed.

*snip*

No one really knows what happened at the Palestinian Hotel. Could have an attack happened from there on US troops? Yes! It very well could have happened without the journalists knowing about it.

Could it have been a military Objective. I can not answer either way.

There are still questions surrounding it so to say it happened one way or the other is just plain stupid.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070227/D8NI1LV80.html

Well, well.

I'm of half a mind to say too bad they missed.

You'd have to have a chance to hit to miss. :p

Was being past tense just like my dad was a member of the USAFR. He's a civilian now.

Your father does not currently command military forces. It is not worthwhile to compare them. Bush, in his office as President of the United States, is a civilian commanding military forces. A person can be a civilian and still be considered a valid military target. Espionage agents are civilians, but are considered valid military targets. The Shock and Awe campaign that targetted government buildings did not exclusively target military installations; it also targetted civilian institutions that were vital to the Iraqi war effort. I would argue that Bush and Cheney would be considered miltary targets even if they are civilians.

Not to mention the fact that Bush and Cheney are constantly surrounded by US Armed Forces personnel, so any attack against them would necessarily be an attack against military forces.

Well at least the attacks are stating to make sense rather than bombing a random market street or sky scraper.

Taliban: "Oh so there's a difference between white people. No wonder they're pissed lol."

What's would be scary is if the taliban only began attacking one of our political parties that the other side might support it. :eek:

No one really knows what happened at the Palestinian Hotel. Could have an attack happened from there on US troops? Yes! It very well could have happened without the journalists knowing about it.

Could it have been a military Objective. I can not answer either way.

There are still questions surrounding it so to say it happened one way or the other is just plain stupid.

You could write the president's speaches! :p

The question of cluster bombs being used in civilian areas and civilian shootings at checkpoints are still unanswered. All these things point to one possibilty; that coalitian troops knowingly shoot civilians in targetted attacks = terrorism by your standards.

Why were they targeting Dick Cheney? He's a non-entity in the grand scheme of things. If they did take him out, there would have been one hell of a backlash against the Taliban.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070227/D8NI1LV80.html

Well, well.

I'm of half a mind to say too bad they missed.

I'm of a full mind to say you're an asshole.

Why were they targeting Dick Cheney? He's a non-entity in the grand scheme of things. If they did take him out, there would have been one hell of a backlash against the Taliban.

Why aren't you posting as Allegheny County 2?

there would have been one hell of a backlash against the Taliban.

Really? What do we have that we aren't using aside from nuclear weapons?

Vice President =/= irrelevent

Really? What do we have that we aren't using aside from nuclear weapons?

Ah. I see someone is implying weapons. Please show me where I mentioned weapons :)

Vice President =/= irrelevent

He's just the back up to the President incase he gets killed. That's the only thing that Cheney is good for.

Ah. I see someone is implying weapons. Please show me where I mentioned weapons :)

What other backlash? - from the Afganis or Iraqis for killing a U.S resident?


[/QUOTE] He's just the back up to the President incase he gets killed. That's the only thing that Cheney is good for.[/QUOTE]

And therefore Next President (watch out quails and close personal friends - he's armed and dangerous!)

Ah. I see someone is implying weapons. Please show me where I mentioned weapons :)

If we threw a greater troop surge at the Taliban had Cheny die, then what would that say about 9/11? That Cheny deserves more than those 3,000 people, or how about all the u.s. civilians and contractors that have died since?



He's just the back up to the President incase he gets killed. That's the only thing that Cheney is good for.

Political figure nonetheless. Him getting blown up would shake the White house, and I garuntee you'd never see Bush outside again.

If we threw a greater troop surge at the Taliban had Cheny die, then what would that say about 9/11? That Cheny deserves more than those 3,000 people, or how about all the u.s. civilians and contractors that have died since?

Again point out where I was equating a backlash with weapons please.

Political figure nonetheless. Him getting blown up would shake the White house, and I garuntee you'd never see Bush outside again.

Care to bet?

I wish that guy who flew the Cessna into the White House in the 90s killed Bill Clinton.:rolleyes:

That's what the morons on this thread sound like. You people need to get psychiatric help NOW.

Daisy Cutters can only be dropped by C-130 Hercules Aircraft. They would not be used over civilian populations. The missiles targeted government buildings and infrastructures used by the enemy. It is not called terrorism because they were targeting legitament target.

Attacking civilians directly is terrorism.

See the difference or do you need more assistance?


I'm afraid you're wasting your breath on this one.

What backlash then? You honestly believe the American public would care for more than 10 seconds? If anything they'd be glad to see politicians, who cause but so rarely are hurt by war, get a reality check.

By targeting the VP, they show themselves to be barbarians and if they had succeeded,they would not be getting ANY SUPPORT from any civilized nation. I'm sure even Pakistan would stand up and take action if the Taliban had succeeded. There are more ways to win wars and support that do not require an increase in troop strength.

*pulls out 5 talents*

That's all I got on me :p

*takes it*

Sorry but he's commander and chief because that is what is written in the Constitution. He does not have to put on a uniform to exercise that capacity but he also is not a legitament target to go after unless he is wearing a military uniform.

WTF kind of logic and word games is that... the complete supreme military commander is not a military target, BS.

Again point out where I was equating a backlash with weapons please.

What backlash then? You honestly believe the American public would care for more than 10 seconds? If anything they'd be glad to see politicians, who cause but so rarely are hurt by war, get a reality check.

Care to bet?

*pulls out 5 talents*

That's all I got on me :p

Hes such a dick.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA AHHAHA SIMPLY HILARIOUS!................................. :|

By targeting the VP, they show themselves to be barbarians and if they had succeeded,they would not be getting ANY SUPPORT from any civilized nation. I'm sure even Pakistan would stand up and take action if the Taliban had succeeded. There are more ways to win wars and support that do not require an increase in troop strength.

By attacking a legitimate political figure they become barbarians? I thought attacking innocent civilians and even young boys (as you brought up in the other thread) was far more outrageous.

Pakistan cares about Dick Cheny? I'm outta here



*takes it*

Bastard, I was going to by a new villa outside Athens with that :mad:

You'd have to have a chance to hit to miss. :p

:D


I wish that guy who flew the Cessna into the White House in the 90s killed Bill Clinton.

Yet another who needs to learn to read, apparently. (As well as avoid flaming.)

Why were they targeting Dick Cheney? He's a non-entity in the grand scheme of things. If they did take him out, there would have been one hell of a backlash against the Taliban.

Yeah, they might bomb fuck out of the place and invade...O..Hang on....

By targeting the VP, they show themselves to be barbarians and if they had succeeded,they would not be getting ANY SUPPORT from any civilized nation.

Hang on a tic....By targeting the VP, they'd be showing themselves to have considerably more sense and selectivity than hitherto. He's a (gets the dust off) legitimate target. In fact, in a war scenario, hes a lot more legit than the poor sap in a tank or manning a road block, because the whole poxy mess is largely due to him.

I'm of a full mind to say you're an asshole.
Woah, dude - that was uncalled for!
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Flamed.gif

Actually, the attack against the VP could be considered an act of terrorism if he was not wearing a Military uniform at the time. If he was wearing a uniform then yes, he would be fair game, otherwise he would not be.

No argument about the attack on the base itself. That is legit.

We all know he would never wear a uniform. Hell, didn't his actions during Vietnam teach you anything? Cheney is part of the apparatus that sent men to war in which tens of thousands of innocent civilians have died by ones means or another? To me he hold the same role as a general with less balls. If he were to die it would be a reasonable military target. He sure as hell can order men to go and die, so why not allow him to die for his cause as well?

Actually I can have it both ways because, in reality, the President of the United States is a CIVILIAN!!!

a civilian who has the power to engage military forces in armed conflict causing massive deaths though right? So he can give orders to cause others' deaths but they cannot give orders to cause his? Sounds completely fair and logical. :rolleyes:

No its not.

no, it's not strange, it's intentional.

I'm glad they missed, if Cheney got assassinated he would go down in history as a hero. Let the Dick live out his remaining 2 years and let the scrutiny of history reveal how appropriate his first name is.

You can't have it both ways. Either he is a military target, or he is not.
Maybe he was an illegal civilian? :)

If I know the Bush administration (and my friend's 18 month old could point out their tactics by now), they are going to use this to show that they need more forces in Iraq than ever to "solve" the terrorist threat then say some other bullshit that will imply that we are fighting them over there instead of here. Probably something along the lines of "They attacked the vice president in Iraq, had they ever attacked him before? No."

errrrr...it was in Afghanistan.

This begs the question: how did the Taliban know Cheney was in the base?

That's easy. The Afghan and Pakistani intel and army are rife with AQ and talibani sympathisers.

Why were they targeting Dick Cheney? He's a non-entity in the grand scheme of things.

I don't know, maybe because he is a sensational high value target :confused:

He is a Jew and everybody knows he is the real person behind foreign policy of US in the region. Fits nicely with the all their imaginations.

If they did take him out, there would have been one hell of a backlash against the Taliban.

You mean you would have dropped some daisy cutters and blast some more huts and maim poor Afghan civilians ?

Osama and Mullah Omar are lolling at your post.

Yep, they knocked two towers off and killed 3000+ people and you still allowed them the Kunduz airlift.

I don't know, maybe because he is a sensational high value target :confused:

He is a Jew and everybody knows he is the real person behind foreign policy of US in the region. Fits nicely with the all their imaginations.

Dick Cheney is a Jew? I thought he was a methodist....

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6147150
Taliban claim Cheney was target

(Bagram, Afghanistan-AP) February 27, 2007 - A man claiming to speak for the group claims the Taliban knew Vice President Cheney would be at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan Tuesday.

A suicide bomber attacked the main entrance to the base north of Kabul, killing at least 14 people.

Why were they targeting Dick Cheney? He's a non-entity in the grand scheme of things. If they did take him out, there would have been one hell of a backlash against the Taliban.

http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/happy048.gif Bwahaha! So what would you imagine would happen, that didn't happen during the post 9/11 invasion? Do you imagine the US would go to war against them and try to hunt them down in the mountains? http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/char038.gif

You're silly :D

I dont think they knew VP Cheney was there. they have to make it look like they were targetting him.

I'm glad he's alright,but sorry to hear of those wounded and killed in the attack.

errrrr...it was in Afghanistan.

.

The Whitehouse is not too pushed on those kind of details, lets face it....

And Cheney is indeed a methodist.

The Whitehouse is not too pushed on those kind of details, lets face it....

Oh come on...it is more likely that TPH did not see it was in Afghanistan and made his comment in haste....You don't have to defend him..;)

And Cheney is indeed a methodist.

One learns a new thing every day. :p

Someone may have said this already, but I don't want anyone even getting near Bush or Cheney. The last thing the US needs is a neo-con martyr who can be trotted out every four years. You think it's bad now? Can you imagine if either of them were to be killed by a terrorist attack? "We have to stay in Iraq or else [George Bush / Dick Cheney] will have died for nothing!"

errrrr...it was in Afghanistan.
Hasn't stopped them before has it?

Oh come on...it is more likely that TPH did not see it was in Afghanistan and made his comment in haste....You don't have to defend him..;)



I thought he was alluding to the whole "get attacked by international group based in Afghanistan, end up invading Iraq" thing.......

Someone may have said this already, but I don't want anyone even getting near Bush or Cheney. The last thing the US needs is a neo-con martyr who can be trotted out every four years. You think it's bad now? Can you imagine if either of them were to be killed by a terrorist attack? "We have to stay in Iraq or else [George Bush / Dick Cheney] will have died for nothing!"

Exactly.

Someone may have said this already, but I don't want anyone even getting near Bush or Cheney. The last thing the US needs is a neo-con martyr who can be trotted out every four years. You think it's bad now? Can you imagine if either of them were to be killed by a terrorist attack? "We have to stay in Iraq or else [George Bush / Dick Cheney] will have died for nothing!"

3,160 US soldiers have already died for nothing in Iraq... They could invoke them instead.

It's called war. Get over it.

And when leaders are attacked or killed during a war, shouldn't we get over it too? ;)

You can't kill a vampire.

You can't kill a vampire.

I didn't know that blood was so fattening.

And when leaders are attacked or killed during a war, shouldn't we get over it too? ;)

Sure, after someone pays dearly for it. ;)

Actually, the attack against the VP could be considered an act of terrorism if he was not wearing a Military uniform at the time. If he was wearing a uniform then yes, he would be fair game, otherwise he would not be.
So does this mean you view the US attacks 3 years ago to capture or kill Saddam Hussein terrorist acts?
By your definition they are.

I wish that guy who flew the Cessna into the White House in the 90s killed Bill Clinton.:rolleyes:

That's what the morons on this thread sound like. You people need to get psychiatric help NOW.
How hilarious - The NS'er who rabidly defends the IDF's right to attack and kill as many ppl as possible in order to 'secure Israel's freedom' is telling others that their (possible) wishing death upon another means they're somehow mentally deranged.

We all know he would never wear a uniform. Hell, didn't his actions during Vietnam teach you anything? Cheney is part of the apparatus that sent men to war in which tens of thousands of innocent civilians have died by ones means or another? To me he hold the same role as a general with less balls. If he were to die it would be a reasonable military target. He sure as hell can order men to go and die, so why not allow him to die for his cause as well?

Ah, but you see Allegheny County forgets a salient fact. VP Cheney is a member of an established government in a high level post. By that fact the act is not of terrorism, but attempted assassination (if it is a directed attack upon the person of the Vice-President).

I'm glad they missed.

They must have been working on the same principles of certain people's posting habits.

Someone may have said this already, but I don't want anyone even getting near Bush or Cheney. The last thing the US needs is a neo-con martyr who can be trotted out every four years. You think it's bad now? Can you imagine if either of them were to be killed by a terrorist attack? "We have to stay in Iraq or else [George Bush / Dick Cheney] will have died for nothing!"
*shudders*

That's the only thing that Cheney is good for.
Other than, of course, "Energy Task Force"s and material provision for Scooter Libby, and say, erm ...


As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber.
Oh, yeah. All that insignificance must be a real burden upon one's esteem.
:rolleyes:

And Cheney is indeed a methodist.

And Rove went to the same church as Plame .. and it worked out just peachy 'twixt them.

Further, even BUSH calls the bastard "turd blossom".
Not Cheney, i don't think, since Cheney'd do the Force Death Grip on him quicker than Anakin pulled it on Amidala (though she was a stronger and nobler entity than Bush, even with as thin a character assortment as Lucas ever provided)

My opinion of the guy has nothing to do with it & not knowing him, I don't actually have one. He actively participates in bringing about the death of hundreds of thousands of people, however, so when stopping him in a peaceful, civilized manner isn't an option, one'd have to be a monster not to wish they hadn't missed.

unless one had good reason to believe that his death in that fashion would lead to hundreds of thousands more deaths. i don't believe we have such reasons, though.

unless one had good reason to believe that his death in that fashion would lead to hundreds of thousands more deaths. i don't believe we have such reasons, though.Me either, obviously. Otherwise I'd be heaving a sigh of relief.

I don't understand what was the pressing need to send 66 year old and heart-attack prone Cheney to a war zone so secretively....just to tell Musharraf to behave or else aid will be cut ?

Truly, I'd rather have an evil-puppet-master-Darth-Vader-esque-dude as President rather than some southern hick who is just being controlled by him anyways.

Bush was born in CT.

taliban schmalliban, sounds like a publicity stunt to me. pity they missed though. not that, well, it is something to idly ponder, what, if any difference to anything, and how much, had cheney successfuly been offed, would it make?

would perhapse have refocused public awairness in that direction. which is of course precisely why i'm suggesting publicity stunt. like that supposed assassination attempt against raygun when his own ratings were sagging in the polls.

much of what this administration does, or so it appears to me, is like the illusionist's hand, the one you're supposed to watch, the one you are attracted to focus on, while the other hand is doing the real bit.

a real bit in this case, rather remarkably probably resembling stabbing all of us in the back. though what the vissible hand is doing, is more often then not quite moraly outragous itself.

=^^=
.../\...

A terrorist killing Cheney would be utterly disastrous, as it would necessitate a US response.
He should just have a stroke or something.

Actually I can have it both ways because, in reality, the President of the United States is a CIVILIAN!!!

So what about when we tried to bomb Saddam, Momar, etc. who were Presidents of their given country? Weren't they civilians as well? It seemed perfectly reasonable to deem them a military target now didn't they. Your arguments are like swiss cheese you could rive a mack truck through.

Why were they targeting Dick Cheney? He's a non-entity in the grand scheme of things. If they did take him out, there would have been one hell of a backlash against the Taliban.

Why are you using both your names corny to argue on the same thread. Puppets and hacks, puppets and hacks.

Why, did Cheney leave without goodbyes? Was the only remnant of his presence a note on the bedside table and a bunch of flowers? Poor Taliban. :(

By targeting the VP, they show themselves to be barbarians and if they had succeeded,they would not be getting ANY SUPPORT from any civilized nation. I'm sure even Pakistan would stand up and take action if the Taliban had succeeded. There are more ways to win wars and support that do not require an increase in troop strength.



*takes it*

And we have never tageted heads of state in the arab world? Your hypocrisy is showing.

So what about when we tried to bomb Saddam, Momar, etc. who were Presidents of their given country?

Did the US Military intentionaly target Momar Qadafi? As to Saddam, I remember the conversation on that one. Basically it comes down to this:

If he was in a military uniform then he is a legitament target to hit. If he was not in a military uniform then it would be illegal for the President to order his death because of an executive order issued by a past president. Since we do not know if Saddam was in a Military Uniform at the time the first bombs were dropped on Iraq, I cannot answer the question anymore fully than I just did.

Weren't they civilians as well?

If not in uniform, you would be correct.

It seemed perfectly reasonable to deem them a military target now didn't they. Your arguments are like swiss cheese you could rive a mack truck through.

:rolleyes:

Why are you using both your names corny to argue on the same thread. Puppets and hacks, puppets and hacks.

Could it be that I love switching back and forth between nations? I'll tell you what I told Nazz...

stop attack a poster directly for it takes away from what you are trying to say.

I instated a new rule for myself to ignore posts that have character attacks in them for they do nothing for the person's argument.

And we have never tageted heads of state in the arab world? Your hypocrisy is showing.

Did I say we didn't target heads of state in the past? Show me where I stated that. If you can, then you can call me a hypocrite.

Did the US Military intentionaly target Momar Qadafi? As to Saddam, I remember the conversation on that one. Basically it comes down to this:

If he was in a military uniform then he is a legitament target to hit. If he was not in a military uniform then it would be illegal for the President to order his death because of an executive order issued by a past president. Since we do not know if Saddam was in a Military Uniform at the time the first bombs were dropped on Iraq, I cannot answer the question anymore fully than I just did.



If not in uniform, you would be correct.



:rolleyes:
So... if a head of state is wearing a uniform, you can kill him, but you can't if he's not? WTF? The insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan don't wear uniforms, are they not legitimate targets?

So... if a head of state is wearing a uniform, you can kill him, but you can't if he's not? WTF? The insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan don't wear uniforms, are they not legitimate targets?

Oh they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Reason being that they are not wearing uniforms (as you stated), do not have any identifying marks marking them as part of a militia.

Civilians are just that civilians, going about their daily lives trying to make living whereas terrorists are doing their level best to destabilize the country by blowing up soccer fields full of innocent kids, shopping districts full of shoppers, and mosques during prayers, and I'm sure I've left out a few other things these terrorists have done.

To be called an insurgent, you go after only military and government facilities. Once you stray from that, then you are a terrorist though I'm sure governments love to call that terrorism as well but government and military targets are indeed legal.

Civilians are just that civilians, going about their daily lives trying to make living whereas terrorists are doing their level best to destabilize the country by blowing up soccer fields full of innocent kids, .

Unless they're Palestinians, in which case its they're fault for allowing "terrorists" to hide behind them, etc and so on.

Oh they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Reason being that they are not wearing uniforms (as you stated), do not have any identifying marks marking them as part of a militia.

Civilians are just that civilians, going about their daily lives trying to make living whereas terrorists are doing their level best to destabilize the country by blowing up soccer fields full of innocent kids, shopping districts full of shoppers, and mosques during prayers, and I'm sure I've left out a few other things these terrorists have done.

To be called an insurgent, you go after only military and government facilities. Once you stray from that, then you are a terrorist though I'm sure governments love to call that terrorism as well but government and military targets are indeed legal.

You confuse me slightly here. You maintain that politicians are not legitimate targets while not wearing uniform yet you say that government buildings, the places where politicians work, are legitimate targets.

So are politicians legitimate only at work or all of the time? What if they've taken some work home with them, does that make their family home legitimate?

These are questions we need answering Corny.

So I'm just getting here--anyone accused the Democrats of cheering on the Taliban yet?

So I'm just getting here--anyone accused the Democrats of cheering on the Taliban yet?

Not yet.

Although a few people have been slated for wishing death on Cheney, apparently he's a stand-up guy whom we shouldn't judge harshly just because he's had a major hand in the deaths of >500,000 people.

Unless they're Palestinians, in which case its they're fault for allowing "terrorists" to hide behind them, etc and so on.

Wrong again. It is not the Palestinians fault that terrorists hide behind them. Most palestinians want peace. Hamas does not want peace but the total destruction of Israel. Hamas =/= all o Palestine any more than Al Qaeda =/= the entire Arab World.

Ah, but you see Allegheny County forgets a salient fact. VP Cheney is a member of an established government in a high level post. By that fact the act is not of terrorism, but attempted assassination (if it is a directed attack upon the person of the Vice-President).

I would agree. It would be more correct to call this an assassination attempt than anything else. And not a very good one at that.

I don't understand what was the pressing need to send 66 year old and heart-attack prone Cheney to a war zone so secretively....just to tell Musharraf to behave or else aid will be cut ?

Good question. I'm sure it will become apparent in the near future, if you keep your ear close to the ground. And I am sure you will, Aryavartha.

You confuse me slightly here. You maintain that politicians are not legitimate targets while not wearing uniform yet you say that government buildings, the places where politicians work, are legitimate targets.

So are politicians legitimate only at work or all of the time? What if they've taken some work home with them, does that make their family home legitimate?

These are questions we need answering Corny.

Some of those questions I cannot answer because I just flat out do not know. What I do know is that Government Buildings and military installations are legit targets under International Law. That is all I truly know.

Oh they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Reason being that they are not wearing uniforms (as you stated), do not have any identifying marks marking them as part of a militia.

Civilians are just that civilians, going about their daily lives trying to make living whereas terrorists are doing their level best to destabilize the country by blowing up soccer fields full of innocent kids, shopping districts full of shoppers, and mosques during prayers, and I'm sure I've left out a few other things these terrorists have done.

To be called an insurgent, you go after only military and government facilities. Once you stray from that, then you are a terrorist though I'm sure governments love to call that terrorism as well but government and military targets are indeed legal.

Yes. Government targets are legal. Bush and Cheney are government targets. Therefore they are legal.

Did I say we didn't target heads of state in the past? Show me where I stated that. If you can, then you can call me a hypocrite.

Thank goodness you finally answered the question. I find that I have to ask multiple times in order to get a genuine reponse from you. So if we target heads of state what makes it so bad for them to do the same? Regardless of uniform or not. The problem is that you make it so hard to not attack you personally as your ideas get detroyed so readily. You then hide behing vaveats and have truths. Someone before suggested you work for Bush as a speechwrite and you might want to look into that. As for changing back and forth between nations, to what end does that serve you? It would seem as though it only makes it look like you want to have multple voices expressing your ideas and from where I sit I call that puppet playing. You say it's wrong for these "savages" and "animals" to attack Dick Cheney then why is it all right for we "civilized" Americans to do the same. Once again you're caught in another conumdrum where you want to have things both ways. You can't have it that way as you've been told before. Yes,w e targeted Quadafi as we sent missles trough his home and the home of his family members. Who the hell do you think we were aiming for?

Did the US Military intentionaly target Momar Qadafi? As to Saddam, I remember the conversation on that one. Basically it comes down to this:

If he was in a military uniform then he is a legitament target to hit. If he was not in a military uniform then it would be illegal for the President to order his death because of an executive order issued by a past president. Since we do not know if Saddam was in a Military Uniform at the time the first bombs were dropped on Iraq, I cannot answer the question anymore fully than I just did.



If not in uniform, you would be correct.



:rolleyes:

Your arguments still are swiss. Maybe one day you can get them to some other cheese. The person who wields the power to kill by proxy in war is a legit target. I've already given examples and you ask questions like you are clueless. Yes, we intentionally targeted heads of state, what makes us better than them?

Some of those questions I cannot answer because I just flat out do not know. What I do know is that Government Buildings and military installations are legit targets under International Law. That is all I truly know.

GAWSH I missed you Corneliu. Where have you been? :confused:

Wrong again. It is not the Palestinians fault that terrorists hide behind them. Most palestinians want peace. Hamas does not want peace but the total destruction of Israel. Hamas =/= all o Palestine any more than Al Qaeda =/= the entire Arab World.


But, as you full well know, I was only taking your usual line for sarcasm value....or do you?.....

GAWSH I missed you Corneliu. Where have you been? :confused:

Anal reconstruction, plus having the blonde wig removed. I think we went too far with the wig meself...but then again....

apparently he's a stand-up guy whom we shouldn't judge harshly just because he's had a major hand in the deaths of >500,000 people.

well, he's only human. i mean, who here hasn't been personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and one of the largest population displacements in recent history? seriously guys, cut the man some slack.

GAWSH I missed you Corneliu. Where have you been? :confused:
He's been here the whole time, as Allegheny County 2

But, as you full well know, I was only taking your usual line for sarcasm value....or do you?.....

I'm not offering sarcasm when I tell you that I do not blame the Palestinians in regards to terror attacks inside Israel. I blame Hamas for that or someone else depending who take responsibility for the attacks.

He's been here the whole time, as Allegheny County 2

Do you have proof of this?

(Not saying it isn't true, I just want to see proof)