Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[Tomahawk]

I bet deep down they believe it because they're stupid farging sheep

[Rome]

The Iraq War was the one of history's most egregious acts of terror.  So was Vietnam.  Until we stop sponsoring it ourselves, we should really shut the farg up about terrorism. 

[Sgt PSN]

The Iraq War was the one of history's most egregious acts of terror.  So was Vietnam.  Until we stop sponsoring it ourselves, we should really shut the farg up about terrorism. 

False.  While I would certainly agree that both were completely unnecessary and a wasteful use of time, money, resources, and lives, neither even remotely qualifies as an act of terrorism.     

As for defeating terrorism, it's not likely to ever happen because the only real way to defeat it is to change the way people think.  In order to eradicate religious terrorism, you'd have to magically convince the entire world's population that religion is not real.  Literally every single person. Good luck with that.

And even if you could pull that off, there would still be political and ideological terrorism to deal with.  And if you managed to squash that, then some new form of terrorism would sprout up....perhaps a radical group of fashion experts looking to rid the world of turtlenecks and the countries that allow them to be worn.  Or a misguided group of food aficionados who go around blowing up Applebee's and Olive Garden in order to rid the world of zesty, unimaginative chain food.  People will always find a cause to get radical about.  The only real way to handle it is to respond with counter-strikes at them as directly as possible with the use of strongly reliable intel and highly trained and efficient counter-terrorist response teams, not occupy an entire farging country.

[Diomedes]

https://gfycat.com/SpecificEsteemedFlies

[PhillyPhreak54]

lolol

When is the last time she let him get a piece? When their kid was conceived?

[Sgt PSN]

I can't help but wonder if she silently hates herself.

[Diomedes]

God I hope so.

[Tomahawk]

The Iraq War was the one of history's most egregious acts of terror.  So was Vietnam.  Until we stop sponsoring it ourselves, we should really shut the farg up about terrorism. 

False.  While I would certainly agree that both were completely unnecessary and a wasteful use of time, money, resources, and lives, neither even remotely qualifies as an act of terrorism.     

As for defeating terrorism, it's not likely to ever happen because the only real way to defeat it is to change the way people think.  In order to eradicate religious terrorism, you'd have to magically convince the entire world's population that religion is not real.  Literally every single person. Good luck with that.

And even if you could pull that off, there would still be political and ideological terrorism to deal with.  And if you managed to squash that, then some new form of terrorism would sprout up....perhaps a radical group of fashion experts looking to rid the world of turtlenecks and the countries that allow them to be worn.  Or a misguided group of food aficionados who go around blowing up Applebee's and Olive Garden in order to rid the world of zesty, unimaginative chain food.  People will always find a cause to get radical about.  The only real way to handle it is to respond with counter-strikes at them as directly as possible with the use of strongly reliable intel and highly trained and efficient counter-terrorist response teams, not occupy an entire farging country.

How many Iraqi and Vietnamese civilians caught a case of collateral damage? I bet it was more than the 3,000 or so people killed in the WTC attack. Way more civilians than that were killed in Japan from nuclear bombs.

[Diomedes]

Rome is not expressing a fringe view.  There are literally billions of people who look upon the United States as, effectively, a state sponsor of terrorism.   They have good evidence to support the claim that the United States has always used violence against innocent people for political gain. 

We have in recent years attempted to limit civilian death but they were targets from the earliest days and memories don't re-start every generation.  Insofar as it was known that the invasion of Iraq would result in mass civilian deaths, and that regrettable consequence was deemed acceptable, I think people can be forgiven for arguing that the U.S. are basically just terrorists themselves.

[Rome]

The US's misadventures in the Middle East and Southeast Asia are prime examples of state sponsored terror. 

It's not even a question.  We murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.  We have their blood on our hands.  Those wars weren't just.  They didn't attack us first.  They weren't fought out of self preservation.  They were unprovoked acts of terror. 

There's simply no disputing that.  Wrap them up in the flag all you want but that's the truth. 

[Diomedes]

What is the difference between targeting innocent civilians a la 9/11, and tolerating "civilian casualties" as the vastly superior invader of an unnecessary war?

[Rome]

I think the main difference is we as the supposed good guys take steps to avoid killing civilians whereas al Queda and the like use fear as their primary weapon.   

Also - tell the citizens of Dresden and Tokyo we did our best to avoid killing civilians. 

Now to be fair the Axis powers had it coming and were far more brutal, but we set upon a course after Pearl Harbor to kill first and ask questions later.  That's also the truth.  Just look at our latest military arms sale to the house of Saud. 

Tell me that isn't at least a little bit insane and suicidal. 

[PhillyPhreak54]

NBC News has confirmed the Post report that Trump asked Coats and Rogers to say there was no collusion, a request they found inappropriate.

Hmmmm...keep digging his grave

[Eagles_Legendz]

I think the main difference is we as the supposed good guys take steps to avoid killing civilians whereas al Queda and the like use fear as their primary weapon.   

Also - tell the citizens of Dresden and Tokyo we did our best to avoid killing civilians. 

Now to be fair the Axis powers had it coming and were far more brutal, but we set upon a course after Pearl Harbor to kill first and ask questions later.  That's also the truth.  Just look at our latest military arms sale to the house of Saud. 

Tell me that isn't at least a little bit insane and suicidal.

I don't think anyone argued they tried to avoid civilian casualties in Tokyo and Dresden.  I also would avoid attempting to make any correlation to current events to what occurred in WW2 and the reasons for those decisions.

Also, there is a very obvious and objective difference between things like Iraq and Vietnam and ISIS/Al Qaeda.   When you are specifically targeting, torturing, and killing noncombatants, that puts you in different territory from an ethical perspective. 

The argument should be one of magnitude.  At what point do the sheer number of people killed (mostly) unintentionally by US invasion overtake a much smaller magnitude of civilians killed purposefully.  If you want to argue the US is a bad actor on the international stage due to numbers, that's a debate worth having.  Trying to directly equate American actions to ISIS/Al Qaeda based on the actual underlying conduct cheapens the overall point.

[Rome]

Our military did exactly that in My Lai.  In fact My Lai was only one of dozens of atrocities perpetrated by us.  And what about the rendition programs of just the last 15 years?   The systematic abduction, torture and murder of thousands of so-called terrorists by our hand?

We are in it up to our eyeballs.