Wars

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Osama fucked up, just like Hitler fucked up... Unless he meant to kill the innocents he was hiding behind just like Hitler did 🤔

What was the future of war Hitler mentioned again ?
Who had more class: Hitler because he humbled himself or Osama because he didn't
What I'm asking is: did Hitler mean to kill his own people, just like Osama obviously meant to kill his own people?

You really have no idea what you are talking about! Do you? If you did, it would only expose the true depth of your knowledge and understanding. But I guess, even a gibberish response, is better than, "Well, you too".
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
You don't like the fact Osama killed his own people 🍔
What people are you talking about? Afghanis, Saudis, Pakistanis, Iraqis? Or, do you mean the volunteers who joined Al Qaeda to jtake part in his Jihad against the US? People who are willing to die for their beliefs.

Are we not sacrificing our own troops in an impossible war, that we have been fighting for 19 year? With over a half million civilians alone dead over 19 years, surely we must know if we are winning or not. More gibberish!
 

MilesAway

Bongalong
What people are you talking about? Afghanis, Saudis, Pakistanis, Iraqis? Or, do you mean the volunteers who joined Al Qaeda to jtake part in his Jihad against the US? People who are willing to die for their beliefs.

Are we not sacrificing our own troops in an impossible war, that we have been fighting for 19 year? With over a half million civilians alone dead over 19 years, surely we must know if we are winning or not. More gibberish!
So, did Osama kill his own people or not?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
And you accuse others of not answering questions 🙄😬😬😬😬😬😬
Okay then lets start over. You stated a fact about me, without evidence.("You don't like the fact Osama killed his own people"). How do you know this is true? You don't!! You avoided every question that I asked. The number of innocent victims killed, is ISIS and Al Qaeda stronger today than 19 years ago, that this is unwinnable war, that ignoring state's sovereignty can create a slippery slope, the consequences of our actions, and other more pertinent relevant questions.

So, ignoring all these question, you asked me a loaded presumptuous question, did bin Laden kill his own people? And even though I answered your question, you still claimed that I was not answering the question.

What people are you talking about? Afghanis, Saudis, Pakistanis, Iraqis? Or, do you mean the volunteers who joined Al Qaeda to jtake part in his Jihad against the US? People who are willing to die for their beliefs.".

This means NO!! He didn't. These people willingly sacrificed themselves for the cause. Voluntarily, on their own, and without coercion. Now, I wonder if you could comment on my points as well? Or, will there be just more of the same feign ignorance and avoidance questions?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Shell, our initial response to 9/11 - the invasion of Afghanistan and pursuit of bin Laden and Al Qaeda - was supported by the Congress, the U.N., and NATO. The world supported the right of our country to defend itself.



Iran would like Iraq to fully align with them. Iran knows that we played a crucial role in saving Iraq from ISIS. They know that we are assisting Iraq with training of government forces and that we are providing intelligence and lethal support against surviving ISIS cells. This assistance and support of the Iraqi government translates into influence, and Iran wants the U.S. to have no influence in Iraq. Iran wants Iraq to be stable, but not truly self-determining and independent. Iran wants to Iraq to be malleable to their priorities and positions on things. The more that Iran could make Iraq their puppet state, the happier they would be.

To answer your question, there is no reason why Iraq would want to train their troops in Europe or the U.S. as long as the U.S. is willing to do it in Iraq. What I was suggesting was a way to get our troops out of Iraq while still offering our training services to Iraqi government forces.

Our interest in Iraq? Not allowing ISIS to regenerate. Stability. If possible, positive relations. We should not force, but offer an alternative to becoming Iran's puppet state.



As far as I know, it relates to terrorism.

But what is acceptable and what isn't as far as violating a country's sovereignty to go after international terrorists takes into account something that you are missing. How many countries can you think of whose governments have knowingly sheltered the radical islamic terrorists whose organization attacked us on our soil? I can think of only three. Afghanistan pre-2001, Pakistan, and Iran. I can't think of any in South America, Africa, Europe, or Asia other than those three. Those three nations stand out as being in contempt of the almost universal view that these terrorists should not be protected by a government.

You did not see a worldwide hue and cry when we invaded Afghanistan.

Nor did you see it when we entered Pakistan and killed bin Laden.

Nor did you see it when a U.S.-Israeli operation killed al-Masri, Al Qaeda's #2, in Iran.

The conclusion I draw is that world opinion lies with the belief that sometimes the violation of a country's sovereignty is justifiable. It appears to me that the judgement of the world is that governments can invite that sort of thing by their own bad behavior - behavior that violates the sensibilities and norms of the rest of the world.

The way you frame it sounds as if I think the U.S. may willy-nilly invade anyone. I don't, and you are reminding me again of why I voted for Trump instead of Hillary. Clearly, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both believed that governments that are far weaker militarily than we are should simply obey us, or else we would take them out by force. I never agreed with that, and I never agreed with their criminal actions against Libya and Syria.



Would you believe a couple of unnamed sources who said that Soleimani and Iran were behind the rocket attack on our troops? You have asked for proof of that. You are right that double standards are a bitch, and I would think you would demand proof before you would believe that Israel killed that scientist in Iran, just as you demand proof that Soleimani was behind attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq.

That would be consistent, wouldn't it?

I'm not saying Israel didn't do it. Maybe they did. They have done it before, and they have motive. What I am saying, however, is that if some other entity did it, they can shift blame to Israel, and everyone will believe it.

Seth
Seth, I have read your post in its entirety. It is disturbing, and is certainly NOT a place I want to be. I have truly misjudged you, and we will just have to agree to disagree.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Seth, I have read your post in its entirety. It is disturbing, and is certainly NOT a place I want to be. I have truly misjudged you, and we will just have to agree to disagree.
We agree on some very important things, however.

Unnecessary interventionist wars,
Withdrawal of forces from Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan,
Tulsi Gabbard,
Congressional authority for war.

A few differences between us are that I will not condemn my country for defending itself, nor will I give any legitimacy to those who would attack her. I also will not condemn my country for pursuing an international terrorist group that has attacked us, including action in countries that are acting like international outlaws. And finally, I am not going to deny my country the right of legitimate self defense because of every past sin or injustice going back generations.

Seth
 

MilesAway

Bongalong
Okay then lets start over. You stated a fact about me, without evidence.("You don't like the fact Osama killed his own people"). How do you know this is true? You don't!! You avoided every question that I asked. The number of innocent victims killed, is ISIS and Al Qaeda stronger today than 19 years ago, that this is unwinnable war, that ignoring state's sovereignty can create a slippery slope, the consequences of our actions, and other more pertinent relevant questions.

So, ignoring all these question, you asked me a loaded presumptuous question, did bin Laden kill his own people? And even though I answered your question, you still claimed that I was not answering the question.

What people are you talking about? Afghanis, Saudis, Pakistanis, Iraqis? Or, do you mean the volunteers who joined Al Qaeda to jtake part in his Jihad against the US? People who are willing to die for their beliefs.".

This means NO!! He didn't. These people willingly sacrificed themselves for the cause. Voluntarily, on their own, and without coercion. Now, I wonder if you could comment on my points as well? Or, will there be just more of the same feign ignorance and avoidance questions?
You should go teach at the University of NSW: I hear they employ your kind of bullshit!
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
We agree on some very important things, however.

Unnecessary interventionist wars,
Withdrawal of forces from Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan,
Tulsi Gabbard,
Congressional authority for war.

A few differences between us are that I will not condemn my country for defending itself, nor will I give any legitimacy to those who would attack her. I also will not condemn my country for pursuing an international terrorist group that has attacked us, including action in countries that are acting like international outlaws. And finally, I am not going to deny my country the right of legitimate self defense because of every past sin or injustice going back generations.

Seth
Seth, we are NOT defending anything. We are offending. Everything we have done since 9/11, has been offence. Defending would have been shooting down the planes that were attacking us on 9/11. For the last 19 years, we have been engaged in payback, as global police. You can't go on foreign soil, arrest and kill its citizens, and claim that we are just defending our soldiers. The US is NOT been under any imminent or immediate attack by anyone, since 9/11. Why are you clinging to this illusion? Will we be defending ourselves indefinitely?

If countries choose not to cooperate with the US, you don't sanction them, call them international outlaws, tell other countries not to trade with them, kill their leaders, provoke war, cause damage and destruction, or steal and control their natural resources. You simply respect their sovereignty, and try some diplomacy.

Al Qaeda and ISIS are all over the world. Just look them up in Wiki. They are growing despite anything, and everything we have done. If you believe in Tulsi's message, I can't understand your logic at all. She is talking about working WITH countries, not for countries to work for us.

You are an enabler. I love everything my country stands for. But, I hate everything that it is, and is becoming. You just don't see the obvious, and you never will. Cognitive dissonance is very powerful.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Seth, we are NOT defending anything. We are offending. Everything we have done since 9/11, has been offence. Defending would have been shooting down the planes that were attacking us on 9/11.
Shell, that's just like saying that if we were defending when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we would have shot down their planes. (We did shoot down a couple.) But, it's like you're saying that after Pearl Harbor we embarked on an offensive war against Japan.

So let's parse this out a little.

When we say "self defense/defensive" or "offense/offensive", I think we are actually talking about 2 different but related things.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. declared war on Japan because Japan had attacked our Navy and killed over 2300 service members and civilians. In the big picture, the war we waged against Japan was an act of self defense. I realize that at the time of the attack relations between the U.S. and Japan had deteriorated, but we were not at war with Japan until after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Japan committed the offensive act, and the U.S. responded. Our reason for war was defensive, not offensive.

But the manner of war we waged was offensive. We didn't wait on our shores for them to come back; we went after them in an offensive manner.

It's easy to draw a parallel with our war against Al Qaeda.

For the last 19 years, we have been engaged in payback, as global police. You can't go on foreign soil, arrest and kill its citizens, and claim that we are just defending our soldiers.
We were defending our people, Shell, not just soldiers. 3000 people were killed on 9/11, mostly civilians.

The US is NOT been under any imminent or immediate attack by anyone, since 9/11. Why are you clinging to this illusion?
8 years later, on Christmas day, Al Qaeda unsuccessfully attempted to bring down a U.S. civilian airliner using a bomb. They had provided the bomb to an AQ terrorist who hid it in his underwear.

Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011. Between 9/11 and the present the U.S. has killed many AQ leaders.

Bin Laden underestimated the U.S. response to the 9/11 attack ...

"It is clear that he, and al-Qaeda as a whole, underestimated the US response to the 9/11 attacks.

One of bin Laden’s former close confidants told Al Jazeera that bin Laden and al-Qaeda thought the US would just do its usual bombing runs against their camps in Afghanistan, but not go as far as invading the country and occupying it.

“The invasion of Afghanistan was a total disaster for us,” said the confidant, who spent years with bin Laden in Afghanistan but now lives in his native country in the Middle East."



To suggest that our people are not safer as a result of our ongoing war against AQ is simply not supported by the facts. The truth is, they thought we were a paper tiger. We have amply demonstrated to them that they were wrong. We have shown them that it is not worth it to attack us.

Will we be defending ourselves indefinitely?
I don't think it is necessary to occupy middle eastern countries to defend ourselves. I think we should leave Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. If we leave Afghanistan, we have to accept that the taliban will quickly overrun the feckless and corrupt Afghan Army, and the taliban will once again rule Afghanistan. Hopefully, they will have learned, and they will not repeat the mistakes of the past, understanding that what happened to them before can happen again if they incur our wrath because of another AQ attack against America launched by AQ leaders headquartered in their country.

If countries choose not to cooperate with the US, you don't sanction them, call them international outlaws, tell other countries not to trade with them, kill their leaders, provoke war, cause damage and destruction, or steal and control their natural resources. You simply respect their sovereignty, and try some diplomacy.
I agree with that except when we must act in self defense to an actual attack. I will agree with what you said with respect to Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Our invasion of Afghanistan was necessary, however.

Al Qaeda and ISIS are all over the world. Just look them up in Wiki. They are growing despite anything, and everything we have done. If you believe in Tulsi's message, I can't understand your logic at all. She is talking about working WITH countries, not for countries to work for us.
"There is not one, but two wars that are being waged in Syria. First is the war to defeat ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other jihadist groups. Its a war against terrorist groups that have declared war upon America, and it's a war that we must win." - Tulsi Gabbard

The war she was talking about was an actual war that was being waged with bullets and bombs. I have absolutely no doubt that President Gabbard would much prefer to work WITH other countries on terrorism rather than to occupy them or to commit troops to long, endless wars. No doubt. None. We agree on that! Where I think you're wrong about her is to think that Tulsi would never engage any war ever. I would trust Tulsi Gabbard to have good judgement. She would keep the U.S. out of useless, unnecessary wars. But she has never indicated that she wouldn't use the military if necessary to protect the people of the U.S. "It's a war we must win", she said.

You are an enabler. I love everything my country stands for. But, I hate everything that it is, and is becoming. You just don't see the obvious, and you never will. Cognitive dissonance is very powerful.
I am going to resist the temptation to characterize you using disrespectful words. Let's keep our conversations on topic. Let's debate the issues. Those issues are far more important than you or me. If we see things differently, so be it.

Seth
 

MilesAway

Bongalong
Shell, that's just like saying that if we were defending when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we would have shot down their planes. (We did shoot down a couple.) But, it's like you're saying that after Pearl Harbor we embarked on an offensive war against Japan.

So let's parse this out a little.

When we say "self defense/defensive" or "offense/offensive", I think we are actually talking about 2 different but related things.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. declared war on Japan because Japan had attacked our Navy and killed over 2300 service members and civilians. In the big picture, the war we waged against Japan was an act of self defense. I realize that at the time of the attack relations between the U.S. and Japan had deteriorated, but we were not at war with Japan until after they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Japan committed the offensive act, and the U.S. responded. Our reason for war was defensive, not offensive.

But the manner of war we waged was offensive. We didn't wait on our shores for them to come back; we went after them in an offensive manner.

It's easy to draw a parallel with our war against Al Qaeda.



We were defending our people, Shell, not just soldiers. 3000 people were killed on 9/11, mostly civilians.



8 years later, on Christmas day, Al Qaeda unsuccessfully attempted to bring down a U.S. civilian airliner using a bomb. They had provided the bomb to an AQ terrorist who hid it in his underwear.

Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011. Between 9/11 and the present the U.S. has killed many AQ leaders.

Bin Laden underestimated the U.S. response to the 9/11 attack ...

"It is clear that he, and al-Qaeda as a whole, underestimated the US response to the 9/11 attacks.

One of bin Laden’s former close confidants told Al Jazeera that bin Laden and al-Qaeda thought the US would just do its usual bombing runs against their camps in Afghanistan, but not go as far as invading the country and occupying it.

“The invasion of Afghanistan was a total disaster for us,” said the confidant, who spent years with bin Laden in Afghanistan but now lives in his native country in the Middle East."



To suggest that our people are not safer as a result of our ongoing war against AQ is simply not supported by the facts. The truth is, they thought we were a paper tiger. We have amply demonstrated to them that they were wrong. We have shown them that it is not worth it to attack us.



I don't think it is necessary to occupy middle eastern countries to defend ourselves. I think we should leave Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. If we leave Afghanistan, we have to accept that the taliban will quickly overrun the feckless and corrupt Afghan Army, and the taliban will once again rule Afghanistan. Hopefully, they will have learned, and they will not repeat the mistakes of the past, understanding that what happened to them before can happen again if they incur our wrath because of another AQ attack against America launched by AQ leaders headquartered in their country.



I agree with that except when we must act in self defense to an actual attack. I will agree with what you said with respect to Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Our invasion of Afghanistan was necessary, however.



"There is not one, but two wars that are being waged in Syria. First is the war to defeat ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other jihadist groups. Its a war against terrorist groups that have declared war upon America, and it's a war that we must win." - Tulsi Gabbard

The war she was talking about was an actual war that was being waged with bullets and bombs. I have absolutely no doubt that President Gabbard would much prefer to work WITH other countries on terrorism rather than to occupy them or to commit troops to long, endless wars. No doubt. None. We agree on that! Where I think you're wrong about her is to think that Tulsi would never engage any war ever. I would trust Tulsi Gabbard to have good judgement. She would keep the U.S. out of useless, unnecessary wars. But she has never indicated that she wouldn't use the military if necessary to protect the people of the U.S. "It's a war we must win", she said.



I am going to resist the temptation to characterize you using disrespectful words. Let's keep our conversations on topic. Let's debate the issues. Those issues are far more important than you or me. If we see things differently, so be it.

Seth
How many days later did Hitler declare war on America?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
leave people family members out of any argy bargy please or you'll cop a enforced holiday

Stay out of this dumb-dumb! The poster had asked me a loaded presumptuous question. It assumes the answer in question to be true. Namely, that Bin Laden kills his people. It is loaded because no matter how I answered it, I would still tacitly be agreeing that Bin Laden kills his people. I used the standard comeback for these types of loaded questions, "When did you stop beating your wife?" No matter how you answer the question, it will still imply that you have beaten your wife. That is why I asked, "What people are you talking about?"

I couldn't care less what he does with his wife or husband! It was never personal or any of my business. Or, are you just projecting?

After all the shit, insults, profanity, and total disrespect that you post on this forum, YOUR fake moral/righteous indignation, is the ultimate in hypocrisy. So go back to the children in your sandbox troll, and mind your own business.

Every time I respond to your mind-numbing nonsense, I need a holiday just to heal, and get back some of the lost time and energy, that I've wasted on a completely closed mind. I have no idea how you could be a moderator for anything. But it is what it is. So do whatever you want, because that is all you CAN do to me. Besides, its Christmas, and I can use the holiday, scrooge!
 
Last edited:

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Shell, that's just like saying that if we were defending when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, we would have shot down their planes. (We did shoot down a couple.) But, it's like you're saying that after Pearl Harbor we embarked on an offensive war against Japan.

Seth please. The attack on Pearl Harbor was and act of war. And yes we had every right to defend ourselves. Even going to Japan. No problem there. So tell me Seth, what country was responsible for attacking us on 9/11? What country shall we wage war with? Are you trying to equate our defending ourselves against an entire COUNTRY committing an act of WAR, to a group of individuals committing an act of terrorism? There are no parallels between a war between countries, and a war between a group of individuals and a country. What is the difference between domestic terrorism and Islamic terrorism, legally? Both groups are criminals, and should be treated as criminals. The are NOT soldiers following the orders of a country.

Seth be reasonable. Is it our goal to kill every last person who belongs to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Isis, and all other terrorist groups in the world? How many more years, or generations will this war take? How many more body bag will it take, a half million more? What will it take for us to feel safe again? 19 more years?


The rest is the same John Wayne, Chuck Norris, Sgt. York, Team America, might is right, fantasy rhetoric, that I thought you were above parroting. I totally disagree with you. I think after 19 years we have proven that we are not to be messed with. So, why are we still there?

We need to stop this madness. Fighting a war that we can't win. As I've said before, this war will end when people get tired of the mounting body bags. Just like in Viet Nam. The ideology behind a war, is not the same as the reality of war.
 
Last edited:
Top