Give it a break already. If by your definition of "War Criminal" you mean a person who has killed an enemy during a war in which they feel their cause is just, then if given the opportunity, millions of a Americans right now, would gladly have you call them "war criminals", if it meant being given the opportunity to kill Osama Bin Laden, or other existent terrorists. These people, these extremists are very very real. If proof of their relentlessness in pursuit of their cause isn't already visible enough by the damage they've done, if you think these acts are demonstrative of a force whose "agressions" may "soon cease" for the sake of morality, and if the damage they've done doesn't warrant their extermination as a consequence...well, then, I don't know what else to say to you.
US Attacks Commence Against Afganistan
- Thread starter Diesel
- Start date
Give it a break already. If by your definition of "War Criminal" you mean a person who has killed an enemy during a war in which they feel their cause is just, then if given the opportunity, millions of a Americans right now, would gladly have you call them "war criminals", if it meant being given the opportunity to kill Osama Bin Laden, or other existent terrorists. These people, these extremists are very very real. If proof of their relentlessness in pursuit of their cause isn't already visible enough by the damage they've done, if you think these acts are demonstrative of a force whose "agressions" may "soon cease" for the sake of morality, and if the damage they've done doesn't warrant their extermination as a consequence...well, then, I don't know what else to say to you.
if we didn't have the "right" to bomb the people who perpetrated these crimes against us, then no one anywhere would have any right to bomb anyone, anywhere. now that would be a nice, peaceful world, but unfortunately a single extremist like Osama bin Laden would quickly overrun the happy and peaceful world. Retaliation is an entirely necessary means of self-defense, whether in this conflict or in other conflicts. I don't think there's a single conflict in world history which, when closely analyzed by people entirely removed from the situation by time, couldn't be found to contain some "war crimes"
I actually agree with you, but Osama Bin Laden, too, feels that his cause is just...
Actually, I used the term "war criminal" as the link did.
There were crimes perpetrated by people and they were found guilty by the International War Crimes Tribunal, the same group that was involved in a thing called Nuremburg.
Personally, I don't think any person or any group of people should be "exterminated as a consequence." But, that's personally, and I'm sure there are many here who would disagree with me.
Your attack on myself and my views was unwarranted, particularly for a board that prides itself on having members speak their minds. If you thought my comments were inappropriate for this particular forum, you could have just said "comments like that are more suited for Rants" and I'd have gotten the hint.
If I've offended people on the board, I apologize. I'll keep my fool mouth shut about this topic from here on in.
There were crimes perpetrated by people and they were found guilty by the International War Crimes Tribunal, the same group that was involved in a thing called Nuremburg.
Personally, I don't think any person or any group of people should be "exterminated as a consequence." But, that's personally, and I'm sure there are many here who would disagree with me.
Your attack on myself and my views was unwarranted, particularly for a board that prides itself on having members speak their minds. If you thought my comments were inappropriate for this particular forum, you could have just said "comments like that are more suited for Rants" and I'd have gotten the hint.
If I've offended people on the board, I apologize. I'll keep my fool mouth shut about this topic from here on in.
I suppose I'm trying to address a question very inherent in the fundamental concept of war and conflict.
Is a nation, a force, whatever you would like to term it -- *ever* justified in retaliating violently (using violence as a tactic, as is war) for purposes of defense? retribution? or saftety -- that is, as a preventative measure against further violence on the part of the enemy at hand? Tacitly, Does the extremity of an act of violence, and how widely its repercussions span ever change these standards?
These are just a few questions that seem to lie at the core of this heated dispute.
Is a nation, a force, whatever you would like to term it -- *ever* justified in retaliating violently (using violence as a tactic, as is war) for purposes of defense? retribution? or saftety -- that is, as a preventative measure against further violence on the part of the enemy at hand? Tacitly, Does the extremity of an act of violence, and how widely its repercussions span ever change these standards?
These are just a few questions that seem to lie at the core of this heated dispute.
Watch the animosity, folks. 
In answer to that question, KNS, yes. That's the very argument that's used to support American isolationism. Most of the rest of the free world realises that if an attack of mass-murder goes on such as this, there must be intervention to make sure it stops happening here. What happens if Al Qaeda isn't taken out? Another USS Cole? Another Nairobi and Dar es Salaam bombing? Another airliner shot down over Ukraine? Another World Trade Center bombing? If they're not stopped, where do you think they'll stop?
In answer to that question, KNS, yes. That's the very argument that's used to support American isolationism. Most of the rest of the free world realises that if an attack of mass-murder goes on such as this, there must be intervention to make sure it stops happening here. What happens if Al Qaeda isn't taken out? Another USS Cole? Another Nairobi and Dar es Salaam bombing? Another airliner shot down over Ukraine? Another World Trade Center bombing? If they're not stopped, where do you think they'll stop?
i don't think the question is whether they should be stopped or not but the method which we should be using to stop them..
Current military actions is only a short term solution. The refugee camps that are popping up in Pakistan are breeding grounds for the next generation of terrorists.. there needs to be a long term solution and there is.. education. Educate everyone.. raise their standard of living.. that is the only long term solution.. but no one wants to invest in it cuz the reward isn't immediate.
do i agree w/ the current military actions? yeah.. i do.. but i highly doubt we'll be "wiping out" terrorism.. we're just pushing the problem away and will have to deal with again in another 5-10yrs
Current military actions is only a short term solution. The refugee camps that are popping up in Pakistan are breeding grounds for the next generation of terrorists.. there needs to be a long term solution and there is.. education. Educate everyone.. raise their standard of living.. that is the only long term solution.. but no one wants to invest in it cuz the reward isn't immediate.
do i agree w/ the current military actions? yeah.. i do.. but i highly doubt we'll be "wiping out" terrorism.. we're just pushing the problem away and will have to deal with again in another 5-10yrs
Exactly.
The cost would be astronomical though, and no one in power is foresighted enough to actually do this.
So that, unfortunately, leaves the short-term, military option.
The cost would be astronomical though, and no one in power is foresighted enough to actually do this.
So that, unfortunately, leaves the short-term, military option.
Exactly. *sigh*
:no:
:no: