06-22-2015 04:39 PM
196 ... 5678
tools
  1. Scott7217's Avatar
    Some people don't want to execute these types of people because they then are recognized as martyrs. Once they're recognized as martyrs then other people want to emulate their acts, regardless of how heinous the act.
    I like how you use the word, "heinous," to describe the actions of people like the Taliban. Heinous acts, by definition, are totally reprehensible. If you cannot execute those who commit totally reprehensible acts, then whom can you execute?

    Besides, can we afford to abandon those who would stand up to the Taliban?

    For example, the Taliban tried to assassinate Malala Yousafzai for advocating education for girls. They shot her in the head, but she survived, and later won the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts. It seems to make sense to stand up against the Taliban.
    05-22-2015 04:04 AM
  2. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I highly doubt thousands of people only believe this and only this. I think they just don't want the U.S. involved in the Middle East period.
    I'm sure there's some truth to that, but we're not the only ones they are going after. There's a lot of infighting and attempts by the various groups like ISIS and Al Queda (SP?) to expand their territories. But there's also the rhetoric coming from their own leaders essentially, if not literally, saying they want us wiped of the map. If they just wanted to be left alone to fight amongst themselves, why wouldn't they simply tell us so instead of sending terrorists to fly planes into buildings?

    I believe those types of people only understand one thing, and that's force. Debating about what our involvement should or shouldn't be aside, I think any dealings with them should be focused on eliminating the threat and not just trying to talk it out. Personally, I wouldn't trust a diplomatic agreement with any of our enemies in the mid-east any less if it were written and signed in the wind blown desert sands unless there was a military option from our side to put teeth into it. If they are vowing to eliminate us, to not have our guns and missiles aimed at their backside during a peace agreement is idiocy.
    05-22-2015 07:05 AM
  3. A895's Avatar
    I'm sure there's some truth to that, but we're not the only ones they are going after. There's a lot of infighting and attempts by the various groups like ISIS and Al Queda (SP?) to expand their territories.
    The thing is that both groups rise can be attributed to, wait for it, the U.S. involvement in the Middle East. Our meddling has cause more problems than it has solved.



    But there's also the rhetoric coming from their own leaders essentially, if not literally, saying they want us wiped of the map. If they just wanted to be left alone to fight amongst themselves, why wouldn't they simply tell us so instead of sending terrorists to fly planes into buildings?
    That was Al Queda and they were doing something that was extremely unexpected and they wanted to cause fear. And they did but because of that we have Al Queda, the Democratization of the Middle East, War in Iraq and Afghanistan, domestic spying programs, tighter TSA regulations, more power in the NSA than ever before and Guantanamo bay. All of this stems from those planes going down.

    They wanted to make the U.S. fearful and we played right into their hands. So far all we have done is do what they wanted us to do.

    I believe those types of people only understand one thing, and that's force.
    That is what got us years of useless wars in the Middle East in the first place. Force alone isn't working.


    Debating about what our involvement should or shouldn't be aside, I think any dealings with them should be focused on eliminating the threat and not just trying to talk it out. Personally, I wouldn't trust a diplomatic agreement with any of our enemies in the mid-east any less if it were written and signed in the wind blown desert sands unless there was a military option from our side to put teeth into it. If they are vowing to eliminate us, to not have our guns and missiles aimed at their backside during a peace agreement is idiocy.
    Why do people thirst for war so much? Like we just left 2 of them. The US had been at war in some form or another for decades now. Like damn.

    Posted via Razr M on the Android Central App
    05-22-2015 08:43 AM
  4. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Why do people thirst for war so much? Like we just left 2 of them. The US had been at war in some form or another for decades now. Like damn.
    I'm not saying start a war. I said any peace deal needs force to back it up if they break their side of the bargain. If there's no threat of physical retaliation, then there's nothing holding back militant groups. I'd only attack as a last resort or if they initiate combat, but I wouldn't take it off the table and would be swift and deadly if it was needed.
    05-22-2015 09:50 AM
  5. Scott7217's Avatar
    I know this may seem like a radical idea, but what if we tried to figure out why they hate us and use that to diffuse them in that regard?
    The Taliban didn't like the United States supporting the Afghan Northern Alliance, which is now part of the current government of Afghanistan.

    Therefore, further appeasement of the Taliban would have to include the United States waging war against the current Afghan government, something no one is advocating.

    In any case, the brutality of the Taliban is spreading to a point where even other terrorist groups are condemning the Taliban.

    The Independent (i100) -- Taliban school attack so bad other terrorist groups have even condemned it (article link)
    05-22-2015 03:26 PM
  6. A895's Avatar
    I'm not saying start a war. I said any peace deal needs force to back it up if they break their side of the bargain. If there's no threat of physical retaliation, then there's nothing holding back militant groups. I'd only attack as a last resort or if they initiate combat, but I wouldn't take it off the table and would be swift and deadly if it was needed.
    I say give everyone else a shot, IS and Al Qaeda pose no immediate threat to the United States. Everyone who is asking for help can go somewhere else for help. People want to complain about tax money going to frivolous stuff all the time, but everyone is scared of not saying the Defense budget needs to get cut. Something like over $700 billion went to defense last year.

    I'm tired of tax money going to wars and defense we obviously don't need.

    Posted via Razr M on the Android Central App
    05-22-2015 03:30 PM
  7. A895's Avatar
    The Taliban didn't like the United States supporting the Afghan Northern Alliance, which is now part of the current government of Afghanistan.

    Therefore, further appeasement of the Taliban would have to include the United States waging war against the current Afghan government, something no one is advocating.

    In any case, the brutality of the Taliban is spreading to a point where even other terrorist groups are condemning the Taliban.

    The Independent (i100) -- Taliban school attack so bad other terrorist groups have even condemned it (article link)
    No need to appease anyone. Just get out if the Middle East entirely and let them figure it out.

    Posted via Razr M on the Android Central App
    05-22-2015 03:32 PM
  8. Scott7217's Avatar
    No need to appease anyone. Just get out if the Middle East entirely and let them figure it out.
    I would argue that getting out of the Middle East would be equivalent to appeasement. That exactly what the Taliban wants.
    05-22-2015 03:39 PM
  9. anon8126715's Avatar
    I like how you use the word, "heinous," to describe the actions of people like the Taliban. Heinous acts, by definition, are totally reprehensible. If you cannot execute those who commit totally reprehensible acts, then whom can you execute?

    Besides, can we afford to abandon those who would stand up to the Taliban?

    For example, the Taliban tried to assassinate Malala Yousafzai for advocating education for girls. They shot her in the head, but she survived, and later won the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts. It seems to make sense to stand up against the Taliban.
    I bet if you asked Malala if she would like to see the Taliban killed, you would be surprised by her answer.
    05-22-2015 06:24 PM
  10. A895's Avatar
    I would argue that getting out of the Middle East would be equivalent to appeasement. That exactly what the Taliban wants.
    It's what we should do. What do we gain by spending money, time, effort, and even lives by meddling over there?

    Posted via Razr M on the Android Central App
    05-22-2015 06:28 PM
  11. A895's Avatar
    I bet if you asked Malala if she would like to see the Taliban killed, you would be surprised by her answer.
    Yeah, she wouldn't violence. Violence gets meet with more violence then more death, more effort, more time, more money, and lives lost.

    Posted via Razr M on the Android Central App
    05-22-2015 06:29 PM
  12. Scott7217's Avatar
    I bet if you asked Malala if she would like to see the Taliban killed, you would be surprised by her answer.
    I look forward to meeting Malala Yousafzai and asking her.

    For now, I think the best approach is to prevent terrorists like the Taliban from committing heinous acts like shooting female students in the head or splashing their faces with acid.

    If the issue is merely about the death penalty, then imprisonment is an option, as I have already mentioned.
    05-23-2015 02:07 AM
  13. Scott7217's Avatar
    That's correct, and besides, it's fun to pick on Christians and their hypocritical ideology.
    The Taliban follows Islam, but you already knew that.

    By the way, President Obama is a Christian. I suppose you think he follows a hypocritical ideology.
    05-23-2015 02:22 AM
  14. Scott7217's Avatar
    Lets see, the Crusades, Slavery, attempting to ban gay marriage and healthcare, and insisting that women be "obedient" to their husbands. Do you have the same appeasement for Christians that he might have for the Taliban?
    I wouldn't appease any group that has members locked up in Guantanamo Bay.
    05-23-2015 02:27 AM
  15. A895's Avatar
    The Taliban follows Islam, but you already knew that.

    By the way, President Obama is a Christian. I suppose you think he follows a hypocritical ideology.
    Christians are one of the most hypocritical religious groups. They aren't excused by anything. Islam extremists take a different reading of the Quran, and ignore other parts similar to Christians.

    Posted via Razr M on the Android Central App
    05-23-2015 05:37 AM
  16. Scott7217's Avatar
    Christians are one of the most hypocritical religious groups. They aren't excused by anything.
    Do you remember if President Obama made any campaign promises about prosecuting war criminals? If he made a promise and didn't fulfill it, that would also make him a hypocrite, which may or may not be related to his Christian religion.
    05-23-2015 07:23 AM
  17. A895's Avatar
    Do you remember if President Obama made any campaign promises about prosecuting war criminals? If he made a promise and didn't fulfill it, that would also make him a hypocrite, which may or may not be related to his Christian religion.
    Obama doesn't act by religion, he never did. Otherwise he wouldn't be pro gay rights. Christians are hypocrites, a lot of them. They cute only parts of the bible that furthers their own beliefs while ignoring others.

    http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Thi..._You_Do_Anyway

    Tattoos, shellfish, and football are all not allowed in the bible. Don't see anyone pushing anti-football rhetoric.

    Posted via Razr M on the Android Central App
    05-23-2015 08:48 AM
  18. JnEricsonx's Avatar
    If people are serious about justice, they will go after war criminals no matter where they live.

    In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if President Obama turned George W. Bush over to an international tribunal to answer for war crimes.

    What I don't understand is the delay. You would want a trial as soon as possible to interview witnesses while their memories are still fresh and evidence is readily available.

    I don't see how waiting is better.
    If that happened, there'd be a mass attack on the president I believe, and I don't mean with words.
    05-24-2015 06:33 PM
  19. Scott7217's Avatar
    If that happened, there'd be a mass attack on the president I believe, and I don't mean with words.
    I think if the majority of the people in the United States truly believed that George W. Bush was guilty of war crimes, they would have no problem with President Obama ordering for Bush's arrest.
    05-26-2015 07:20 PM
  20. anon8126715's Avatar
    I wouldn't appease any group that has members locked up in Guantanamo Bay.
    You deflected my question, are you appeasing Christians for their barbaric behaviors of the past?
    05-26-2015 11:34 PM
  21. anon8126715's Avatar
    I look forward to meeting Malala Yousafzai and asking her.

    For now, I think the best approach is to prevent terrorists like the Taliban from committing heinous acts like shooting female students in the head or splashing their faces with acid.

    If the issue is merely about the death penalty, then imprisonment is an option, as I have already mentioned.
    Many religions oppress women, as well as other classes. How we deal with such groups is what defines us as a society.

    The Taliban follows Islam, but you already knew that.

    By the way, President Obama is a Christian. I suppose you think he follows a hypocritical ideology.
    He's a Christian? I thought he was a Muslim? And which hypocritical ideology are you referring to, his Christian/Muslim based one or his affiliation with the U.S. government?
    05-26-2015 11:38 PM
  22. Scott7217's Avatar
    It's what we should do. What do we gain by spending money, time, effort, and even lives by meddling over there?
    We will probably end up establishing a long-term military presence in the Middle East to help preserve the peace. We have already demonstrated that in other parts of the world with our bases in Germany, Italy, and Japan.
    06-04-2015 06:46 PM
  23. A895's Avatar
    We will probably end up establishing a long-term military presence in the Middle East to help preserve the peace. We have already demonstrated that in other parts of the world with our bases in Germany, Italy, and Japan.
    Germany, Italy, and Japan agent the MIDDLE EAST though. Do you more realize the fundamental impact we had on the region negatively? Or how much different the political, economic, and social environment is compared to those other countries?

    Posted via the Android Central App
    06-05-2015 04:31 AM
  24. A895's Avatar
    For the curious:

    http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/geor...sn_syndication


    A good read on why Obama's approval earns don't man jack when you talk about Bush.

    Posted via the Android Central App
    06-05-2015 06:31 PM
  25. Scott7217's Avatar
    Germany, Italy, and Japan agent the MIDDLE EAST though. Do you more realize the fundamental impact we had on the region negatively? Or how much different the political, economic, and social environment is compared to those other countries?
    We don't worry about aggression from Germany, Italy, or Japan these days. It's a good model to consider for the Middle East as well. We can certainly tailor our approach to account for cultural differences.

    As for the fundamental impact on the Middle East, it probably depends on whom you ask. For example, people who were involved with Saddam Hussein's political party or the Taliban aren't happy, but I don't see anyone calling for the restoration of either one.
    A895 likes this.
    06-07-2015 03:45 AM
196 ... 5678

Similar Threads

  1. volume control on a bush tablet
    By AC Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-27-2015, 12:42 AM
  2. Hi'm George!
    By George Wilkie in forum New to the Forums? Introduce Yourself Here!
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-02-2014, 03:42 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD