Terrorism is an evil (and largely cowardly) act. The number of innocent lives taken in these acts doesn't make them more or less evil.

I'm not sure how to answer that (in that I don't know if I agree or disagree with that)...it's hard to measure evil.

bbauska

I'll respond to your post in it's entirety later, but my off the cuff response is that we should have justice...but have justice against whom?

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have nothing to do with justice, because the people who were killed there mostly had nothing to do with the attack on pearl harbor. You are making the same mistake that Dan did...conflating the people of Japan at large (who did not participate in the attack on Pearl Harbor) with the government and military of Japan (which did).

No, the people of Japan at large have no culpability for the attacks on Pearl Harbor, any more than the people in the WTC have no culpability for the US wars, occupations, blockades in the Middle East.

You have a view that you are not responsible for anything that happens in the US.

A little strong [any] but I see your meaning. Tell me, in what way AM I responsible for the violent actions taken by the US government?

Did you vote? Did your lack of vote coupled with many others place a person in power who does not espouse your views? As Danivon says, it is complicity.

Obama has been decent as far as the military so far by ignoring virtually every campaign promise, lets not forget that. His pledge to always work with other nations? We went and took out OBL without discussing it with Pakistan. I am not saying it was wrong, however it is yet another broken campaign promise, how has he distanced himself from Bush as far as military issues go? That was maybe the single biggest issue he ran on and what is the result? Same thing!

and these guys are trolling, they have been for years, no way they believe the crap spit out, they want a reaction only.

Tom,

Your repeated claim that I don't believe what I'm saying is both incorrect and irrelevant. Mid you want you can pretend that I'm just playing devils advocate for sake of discussion. But I'll once again assure you that I believe every word I've said.

If my way of thinking is too extreme for you, then feel free to ignore this thread. But if anyone is trolling this thread, its you. To claim that, after all these years of my espousing these exact same views, that I don't honestly believe them is pretty absurd.

GMTom wrote:Obama has been decent as far as the military so far by ignoring virtually every campaign promise, lets not forget that. His pledge to always work with other nations? We went and took out OBL without discussing it with Pakistan. I am not saying it was wrong, however it is yet another broken campaign promise, how has he distanced himself from Bush as far as military issues go? That was maybe the single biggest issue he ran on and what is the result? Same thing!

Tom, on this specific campaign promise, you are way off. During debate #2 with McCain, here's Obama detailing how he would take out high value terrorist targets in Pakistan if he had actionable intelligence and Pakistan was unwilling or unable to do the job. By the way, check out McCain wandering around while Obama is talking ... it brings back memories.

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz- ... ence-video

For more fun, here's a clip of Hillary criticizing Obama during the primaries for saying that he would bomb Pakistan .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23392577/ns ... cision_08/

And here's a direct quote from that link:

"Let me make this clear: There are terrorists holed up in those mountains, that murdered 3,000 Americans," said Obama during the counterterrorism address.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-valued terrorist targets and if President Musharraf will not act, we will."

And here's Obama in 2007 saying that he would do it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 0#23391860

He did follow his promise on this one. Maybe it's a coincidence ...

Vincent, to your point on never voting on the issue: Obama said he would do this ... he received a majority of the votes ... and then he did what he said. This is representative democracy actually working. Representative democracy is usually more ambiguous than that.

In terms of morality, just a tidbit from today's New York Times. When the helicopter malfunctioned, the soldiers had to destroy it. Even though time was of the essence (as the Pakistan air force was now on alert), the soldiers took the time to make sure that all of the surviving women and children (about 20 of them) were in a safe part of the compound so that they were not injured while the helicopter was destroyed. We aren't perfect, but contrast this to terrorist policy of deliberately killing innocents.

Ray Jay wrote:Vincent, to your point on never voting on the issue: Obama said he would do this ... he received a majority of the votes ... and then he did what he said. This is representative democracy actually working. Representative democracy is usually more ambiguous than that.

In terms of morality, just a tidbit from today's New York Times. When the helicopter malfunctioned, the soldiers had to destroy it. Even though time was of the essence (as the Pakistan air force was now on alert), the soldiers took the time to make sure that all of the surviving women and children (about 20 of them) were in a safe part of the compound so that they were not injured while the helicopter was destroyed. We aren't perfect, but contrast this to terrorist policy of deliberately killing innocents.

Maybe you should double check your math on that. How can you maintain that Osama was killing innocents if Obama was carrying out a collective will? If Vince is suppose to get the @#$! out the US if he won't share in the blame then how do you (all) maintain there are innocents?

Ray Jay wrote:

GMTom wrote:Obama has been decent as far as the military so far by ignoring virtually every campaign promise, lets not forget that. His pledge to always work with other nations? We went and took out OBL without discussing it with Pakistan. I am not saying it was wrong, however it is yet another broken campaign promise, how has he distanced himself from Bush as far as military issues go? That was maybe the single biggest issue he ran on and what is the result? Same thing!

Tom, on this specific campaign promise, you are way off.

Way to research, RJ. I had the same recollection when I read the comment about broken campaign promises, but was too lazy to go find the video. Glad you're less lethargic.

very good, I stand corrected but wonder how he can claim to insist we work with others and then do this, again, I am happy he did and I am happy I was wrong as far as this goes.
.

bbauska wrote:Did you vote? Did your lack of vote coupled with many others place a person in power who does not espouse your views? As Danivon says, it is complicity.

No,I didn't vote. But since when does disassociating oneself from an organization make one responsible for what that organization does?

Ray Jay wrote:Vincent, to your point on never voting on the issue: Obama said he would do this ... he received a majority of the votes ... and then he did what he said. This is representative democracy actually working. Representative democracy is usually more ambiguous than that.

In terms of morality, just a tidbit from today's New York Times. When the helicopter malfunctioned, the soldiers had to destroy it. Even though time was of the essence (as the Pakistan air force was now on alert), the soldiers took the time to make sure that all of the surviving women and children (about 20 of them) were in a safe part of the compound so that they were not injured while the helicopter was destroyed. We aren't perfect, but contrast this to terrorist policy of deliberately killing innocents.

When pressing a case against a criminal, you look at the crime...not all the nice things the criminal did before or after the crime. I'm glad to hear that they took care to avoid additional civilian deaths. The does not absolve them of any crimes they may have admitted.

When you say "we aren't perfect", what this means in practice is "sometimes members of our organization kill innocent people. However, these people should not be held responsible for this because people in our organization also do good things."

theodorelogan wrote:

bbauska wrote:Did you vote? Did your lack of vote coupled with many others place a person in power who does not espouse your views? As Danivon says, it is complicity.

No,I didn't vote. But since when does disassociating oneself from an organization make one responsible for what that organization does?

You have the power to change. It is the lethargic and uncaring who gripe afterwards for what they get that make me laugh at their own foolishness.

I continue to celebrate, smile, dance (not so well) and cheer for the death of OBL. A wonderful thing the death of a terrorist is. Even sweeter when the terrorist is the likes of OBL. Ok, gotta run, I have a new dance I've been wanting to try out, I call it the "Ha Ha OBL Your Dead, @#$! You Very Much"

bbauska wrote:

theodorelogan wrote:

bbauska wrote:Did you vote? Did your lack of vote coupled with many others place a person in power who does not espouse your views? As Danivon says, it is complicity.

No,I didn't vote. But since when does disassociating oneself from an organization make one responsible for what that organization does?

You have the power to change. It is the lethargic and uncaring who gripe afterwards for what they get that make me laugh at their own foolishness.

A truly stingy criticism from a man that voted for some Constitutional candidate whose name he likely can't remember without looking it up.

GMTom wrote:Obama has been decent as far as the military so far by ignoring virtually every campaign promise, lets not forget that. His pledge to always work with other nations? We went and took out OBL without discussing it with Pakistan. I am not saying it was wrong, however it is yet another broken campaign promise, how has he distanced himself from Bush as far as military issues go? That was maybe the single biggest issue he ran on and what is the result? Same thing!

and these guys are trolling, they have been for years, no way they believe the crap spit out, they want a reaction only.

Really who cares about a campaign promise when this secret mission in Pakistan shines light on the fact that Pakistan is basically a failed state or at least large parts of it are controlled by openly hostile entities. If you can' trust an supposed ally to help catch the face of 9/11 or at least don't tip him off to a raid then what does that say about the true state of affairs over there, as opposed to the flowery diplomatic language it's usually coated in.