I said that certain people are silly for certain reasons.Originally Posted by The Redneck
Could you at least have let me see what he said first?
I said that certain people are silly for certain reasons.
People, People... U've got to understand that this is also an issue of National Security, now ive been one of the most outspoken people against the war in Iraq and on the poor handling in the war on terrorism, but that doesnt change the fact that there are people out there who want to get into the United States and kill U.S. citizens. And what better way than the Mexican border where thousands successfully cross every day.
EVERYONE who enters this country must be throughly backround checked, and documented. We have many enemies. And someone from outside the country running around serially killing people, or stealing poses a serious problem for law enforcement.
Yeh when the pilgrims came they didnt have to do all that, but times have changed. Its a new game now, and if we want to make it to the next level with the maximum amount of lives, we have to take steps to ensure we arent going to be hit.
While i understand that there might be harmful people going through the borders, i would expect that Mexico being not as economically stable and good as the USA, most people would want to come over and start new lives for their children like most immigrants. I dont know why they dont do it legally though.
I would also expect that most "Terrorists" to not aim for civilians, since that is just stupid. I would expect them targeting government buildings and the sort since many of them do not agree with the way America is doing things(which may or may not affect them). And frankly, sometimes i feel America asks for enemies.
I went through the airport security thing when i went to Hawaii for my Senior trip and it was pretty tight i say security and all. But i feel that documentation and etc will just be an excuse for them to raise our taxes for protection fees. Which of course i bet isnt all used for that purpose. Plus there are tons of people that serially kill people and run around free domestically i dont feel its fair to just target and point at the illegal immigrants only.
I agree however that government officials should do their jobs and guard the border if they dont want illegal immigrants and if they are able to do that, this wouldnt even be a problem. I feel they arent doing their jobs and this is just a result...and if they are doing it maybe not well enough. It should have never IMO come to normal people dealing with this.
There are several replies, to Th Redneck especially, which I'm itching to post but are off topic & am forcing myself not to. I'm not ignoring or dodging this thread or your statements, please don't think I am. I just think it has strayed from the topic somewhat & we are hijacking the post. Acknowledging that you are hijacking it but still hijacking it is just as bad. As for the topic, I've said my piece, anymore would be repeating myself & preaching to the deaf.
Nevertheless it is a very big world and everyone has varied opinions, it's what I love (and sometimes loath) about the human race, and as long as your opinion does not infringe on another's freedom, safety or feelings & you can back it up with thought and consideration I hold it in the greatest respect, even if it opposes mine.
By definition, if they were t do that, they would not be terrorists. In order to be a terrorist you must attack civilians or civilian infrastructure. The attacks on the World Trade Center were terrorist attacks, the attacks on the pentagon, technically were not terrorist attacks.I would also expect that most "Terrorists" to not aim for civilians, since that is just stupid. I would expect them targeting government buildings
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
Nothing about civilians specifically..=/ I still dont see why you want to attack pointless civilian homes. If you really are anti-american, you aim for something bigger, not my neighbor's house.
That truly is odd lionx. It wasn't even a year ago when the dictionary said that terrorism was only used on civilians. Now the dictionary says something completely different.
Actually, that definition of "terrorism" is correct, but you've got to use logic as well. What had more of an impact on America, the destruction of the World Trade Center towers or the attack on the Pentagon? (By the way, since they hijacked a plane full of innocent American civilians, yes, that was still terrorism.) Of course the WTC towers had more of an affect on the everyday American, not only because more people died, but because it was an attack on civilians, whereas the Pentagon at least runs some military operations. Soldiers in Iraq die all the time, but the only thing that makes the news is when a civilian contractor gets killed--why is that? It's because soldiers are military, and they volunteer for that job knowing that they are targets to any and all of our enemies.
If a country is your enemy, you attack their military, period. You don't attack their civilians, you attack their military--sometimes civilians are in the wrong place at the wrong time, that's war. In the War on Terror, the United States has not intentionally target a civilian area or building. Everything the U.S. has attacked has been a military/insurgent target. That's because we're a civilized military. Throughout history, most military leaders (I say "most", mind you) try to stay AWAY from civilians because, obviously, engaging civilians would serve no purpose but breed hate and harm the reputation. Four of the U.S. Army's seven "Army Values" are Loyalty, Respect, Honor, and Integrity--attacking the civilian populace would violate all of these values.
Simply put, civilians are more comfortable with soldiers dying than they are with other civilians dying. The best way to get the attention of the civilian populace is to, obviously, attack the civilian populace. As for terrorism being used to influence governments, we already saw it when the people of Spain got scared and tossed their election shortly after the Madrid train bombings of 11 March.
Attacking military targets is at least understandable. Attacking civilian targets is inexcusable.
That is untrue. My local news station reports, albeit briefly, on every soldier that dies in Iraq. They don't go into great detail about every soldier, but that would be nearly impossible. The amount of dead soldiers to dead contractors is far greater. (And for obvious reasons)Soldiers in Iraq die all the time, but the only thing that makes the news is when a civilian contractor gets killed--why is that?
Agreed.Attacking military targets is at least understandable. Attacking civilian targets is inexcusable.
I highly doubt American troops did not kill civilians. Wasnt there like over 100,000 civilians in Iraq that died like from somd kind of news i heard a year-ish ago? Forget, but i highly doubt American troops wont kill Iraq civilians (and may or may not give "oops" as an excuse ._.)
But yes if the definition has changed from a year ago then it is odd...i dont see why there should be a change.
He means that we do not directly target them for the hell of it. (And for good reason. Thats the quickest way to lose a war.)I highly doubt American troops did not kill civilians. Wasnt there like over 100,000 civilians in Iraq that died like from somd kind of news i heard a year-ish ago? Forget, but i highly doubt American troops wont kill Iraq civilians (and may or may not give "oops" as an excuse ._.)
Well, depending on who you ask, I'm sure some people will tell you that those eeevil Americans and their cohorts slaughtered millions of innocent civilians. As far as I know, the number of civilian deaths in Iraq from Coalition activity is FAR below 100,000. In the beginning of the war, some people (mainly liberals who were against the war, mind you) "predicted" tens of thousands of American troops dead, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead. You may be thinking of that. As for Iraqi civilians, though, I would doubt anything beyond, say, 20,000.
American troops do not target civilians. Just as nik0tine said. (Wait a minute. We agree AGAIN?!? Damn.) If civilians get in the way, or happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, every possible countermeasure is used to ensure their safety--but, again, it's war, and bad things do happen, obviously. If a civilian picks up a rifle and starts shooting at Coalition Forces, he is no longer a civilian, and we are fully allowed to shoot him.
Many believe that up to 100,000 civilians have been killed due to the war. (As far as I know, that doesn't only mean bombs, but the after effects as well. [What those after effects would be I don't know]Well, depending on who you ask, I'm sure some people will tell you that those eeevil Americans and their cohorts slaughtered millions of innocent civilians. As far as I know, the number of civilian deaths in Iraq from Coalition activity is FAR below 100,000. In the beginning of the war, some people (mainly liberals who were against the war, mind you) "predicted" tens of thousands of American troops dead, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead. You may be thinking of that. As for Iraqi civilians, though, I would doubt anything beyond, say, 20,000.
As far as I know, the amount that has actually been "counted" physically is somewhere between 17 and 19 thousand. However, this ONLY includes being killed by coalition forces themselves. Bombs, bullets, shrapnel, etc. However, anything other than this is not counted. I guess, for instance, if a bomb shut off the water supply to a town, and people died from dehydration, they would not be included in the body count.
Ahhh i see UP TO...@_@ It makes sense now. I agree that many do not purposefully aim at civilians..at least i certainetly hope not.
That's why we don't target infrastructure like water lines unless it's against a strictly enemy target, not going to a civilian neighborhood. And "up to" 100,000 have been killed due to the war, including "after effects"? More people have water, electricity, phones, and sewers than have for the past thirty years, how could that be the cause of more deaths of the Iraqi civilians?
Posting Permissions
