Quote :

"I'm going to weep for mankind."

This, from the guy who thinks that what the people of Afghanistan really need is a return of the Taliban.

7/26/2010 2:10:33 PM

Wait. What? What the fuck?

If someone, presumably an American citizen, is advocating for the release of classified info and subversion, what the fuck makes you think they wouldn't be all for it with China or Russia? Who ever said that?

That's the problem with your posting. You fabricate shit right out of thin air.

[Edited on July 26, 2010 at 2:14 PM. Reason : .]

7/26/2010 2:12:51 PM

^ So, where are those documents. I like to review them for potential war crimes and other wrongdoing.



[Edited on July 26, 2010 at 2:15 PM. Reason : I'm actually making a point. You're just not quick enough to get it.]

7/26/2010 2:14:26 PM

Quote :

"My morals are not dependent on geography"

Prove me wrong. Oh wait you can't because of a combination of nature and nurture. Osama Bin Laden as a baby grew up to be the Osama Bin Laden we know today which means there exists factors that led to his morals developing differently than the way yours and mine did. Unless you think people are born with morals. Or that morals are universal facts we learned right and others have yet to discover.

you'd probably say killing another human being is wrong. unless it's for a good reason. of which there are infinite numbers.

Quote :

"You may be surprised to learn that the same conditions that are conducive to human flourishing in the United States are in fact the same conditions that are conducive to human flourishing everywhere, even on the other side of the globe."

so let me get this straight, you believe that human flourishing is done BEST by people in the United States? or would you not agree that there is any number of conditions which humans would "flourish" in? I'm not even sure what you mean by flourish, do you mean economically? Is our collective waistline increase a good sign of our level of nourishment as a country? Please define how you believe the US is flourishing above all other nations.

7/26/2010 2:14:32 PM

^3 You assume the person in question holds his positions with any degree of thoughtfulness.

Quote :

"Prove me wrong."

I promise I can find you a person in every country on this planet that thinks democracy and liberty are morally superior to tyranny and slavery. So yes, morality is universal in the sense that it is not restricted by geography or any other superficial distinction, like race or ethnicity.

Quote :

"so let me get this straight, you believe that human flourishing is done BEST by people in the United States? or would you not agree that there is any number of conditions which humans would "flourish" in? ... Please define how you believe the US is flourishing above all other nations."

Happiness, dignity, health, longevity, prosperity, and culture (to name a few) are all indicators of human flourishing, and all of them are infinitely more abundant in liberal democracies than under the totalitarian, superstitious, nihlistic regimes like the Taliban, or the corrupt regimes supported all over the globe by China.



[Edited on July 26, 2010 at 2:34 PM. Reason : ]

7/26/2010 2:14:58 PM

Quote :

"^ So, where are those documents. I like to review them for potential war crimes and other wrongdoing. I'm actually making a point. You're just not quick enough to get it."

7/26/2010 2:16:33 PM

uhhh, no one has leaked them to wikileaks yet? What the hell are you talking about?

You had a point??



[Edited on July 26, 2010 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

7/26/2010 2:18:14 PM

^ My point is self-evident.

7/26/2010 2:19:16 PM

Oh, ok!

7/26/2010 2:22:04 PM

^ Okay, I'll spoon-feed it to you.

Quote :

"America deserves to be subverted."

smc

This appears to be the attitude of many here and elsewhere. Yet, those same anti-American subversives ignore the atrocities committed on a daily basis by some of the countries I listed and others.

I mean, does anyone care about the former Burma? No?! Yet, they are one of the most brutal and murderous regimes in the world.

[Edited on July 26, 2010 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .]

7/26/2010 2:24:24 PM

Right. And of course, that's not at all what you originally posted in response to smc. In fact, you were quite clear in your response. Why do smc and other like-minded individuals feel that other countries should not have their classified documents leaked? (something he never asserted)

But, changing your tune after the fact is par for the course for you. Let's not let it derail this thread.

[Edited on July 26, 2010 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

7/26/2010 2:36:58 PM

Criticizing Burma would require some knowledge of it, plus, it's way sexier to lob flippant criticisms at the US these days.

7/26/2010 2:37:40 PM

^^ Incorrect.

Quote :

"I'm actually making a point. You're just not quick enough to get it."

^ Fair enough.

7/26/2010 2:44:10 PM

Sexy Death to America

7/26/2010 2:44:38 PM

^^Everyone here understands the point you're trying to make. The problem is that it's based entirely on your own baseless assumptions about a claim no one has made.

7/26/2010 2:46:42 PM

US drone attacks in Pakistan's tribal areas increase
July 23, 2010

Quote :

"Missile attacks by US drones in Pakistan's tribal areas have more than trebled under the Obama administration, research by the BBC Urdu service shows."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10736525

Weekend of Pakistan drone attacks leaves 35 dead
Pakistan's border area has seen frequent drone attacks
July 26, 2010

Quote :

"Nineteen people died in three US drone strikes in north-west Pakistan on Sunday, a day after a similar raid killed 16 others, say local officials."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10758876

Should documents about these attacks be leaked?

^ Incorrect.

[Edited on July 26, 2010 at 2:47 PM. Reason : I'm sure all those killed in the drone attacks at issue were "guilty" of something, right?]

7/26/2010 2:46:43 PM

And what a wonderful point you've inadvertently made (yet again) for all of TSB to read.

Though I'm not sure why we all keep failing to remember the lesson.

7/26/2010 2:48:02 PM

^ I'm sorry that it took you so long to get my points. But don't get mad at me about it.

7/26/2010 2:49:47 PM

The only reason I ever want American soldiers invading Burma is when Burma both supports and enacts the murder of American civilians. Same goes for Afghanistan. Now someone will try and say that I am endorsing the murder of Burmese civilians but there's a clear difference between saying "i support murder in Burma" and "i support the US protecting itself above all else, even if it means other civilians in other nations are unable to protect themselves from their own countrymen". Burma isn't a problem for the US, until it is. The Taliban was not a problem in Afghanistan after we first invaded, except we never left and then they were again.

Quote :

"Mazari Sharif fell November 9, trigger a cascade of provinces falling with minimal resistance. Many local forces switched loyalties from the Taliban to the Northern Alliance. On the night of November 12, the Taliban retreated south from Kabul. On November 15, they released eight Western aid workers after three months in captivity. By November 13 the Taliban had withdrawn from both Kabul and Jalalabad. Finally, in early December, the Taliban gave up Kandahar, their last stronghold, dispersing without surrendering."

This was in 2001. We should have been out by the end of 2002 at the latest. Despite what business interests might tell you, it's actually possible to help a country rebuild without having a large military presence there and at this point it's counterproductive and selfperpetuating as our military is the ONLY reason the Afghan govt we put in place still exists.

7/26/2010 2:55:27 PM

Canadian government told families that these four soldiers died while engaging enemy.

The leaked reports say it was actually friendly fire. Whoops, just a little white lie.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/26/wikileak-afghanistan-canada-soldiers.html


[Edited on July 26, 2010 at 11:15 PM. Reason : .]

7/26/2010 11:14:50 PM

Quote :

"One of the soldiers' mothers said she believes the military. "The vehicle that he was in was hit by an RPG — that's a rocket-propelled grenade — and some of the shrapnel from it hit the turret and some of the shrapnel from the turret hit him in the neck. He bled to death," Avril Stachnik told The Canadian Press in an interview in Waskatenau, Alta. "One of Shane's best friends was with him at the time and that's what he told me as well," she said."

7/27/2010 12:57:37 AM

Quote :

"and some of the shrapnel from it hit the turret and some of the shrapnel from the turret hit him in the neck."

yeah i read that about 5 times before i went...possible, not likely

7/27/2010 9:54:33 AM

Quote :

"You acted shamefully on 17 April 2002 over Tarnak Farms, Afghanistan, exhibiting arrogance and a lack of flight discipline. When your flight lead warned you to "make sure it's not friendlies" and the Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft controller directed you to "stand by" and later to "hold fire," you should have marked the location with your targeting pod. Thereafter, if you believed, as you stated, you and your leader were threatened, you should have taken a series of evasive actions and remained at a safe distance to await further instructions from AWACS. Instead, you closed on the target and blatantly disobeyed the direction to "hold fire." Your failure to follow that order is inexcusable. I do not believe you acted in defense of Major Umbach or yourself. Your actions indicate that you used your self-defense declaration as a pretext to strike a target, which you rashly decided was an enemy firing position, and about which you had exhausted your patience in waiting for clearance from the Combined Air Operations Center to engage. You used the inherent right of self-defense as an excuse to wage your own war."

-Lt Gen Bruce Carlson, USAF at the trial of two pilots that annihilated a dozen Canadians in Afghanistan in 2002. To be fair though, they were high on military-issued amphetamine "go pills".

[Edited on July 27, 2010 at 10:02 AM. Reason : Don't worry, he wasn't sent to prison. The above reprimand WAS the punishment.]

7/27/2010 10:00:13 AM

Quote :

"I believe the list of superpowers is US Russia China India EU and Brazil (Really? Hmm didn't know that) "

I think that you're confusing a list of potential superpowers with current superpowers.
Russia - comparatively weak economy for their size. They have a rusting navy, aging air force, and an underequipped army. They have little ability to project their power in a significant way outside of their immediate region.

China - They'll likely become the next superpower but they arent there yet. They continue to quell internal uprisings and their economy is largely based on an undervalued currency. Their military is huge and advancing technologically but they have a primarily brown water navy with little ability to project that power much farther than their immediate region.

India - Much the same as china with a developing military and they are making advances in their naval projection capabilities. They contend with the instability that comes with having a huge population of uneducated and poor citizens.

European Union - The fact that it takes a conglomorate 27 countries to even be considered for superpower status should be telling enough. The EU at its core is nothing more than an economic alliance that has ventured into other areas. They have no standing military to project their power as a cohesive unit. The diplomatic power is growing but each member state still ultimately looks after their own interests in this realm. and perhaps the biggest reason why the EU is not a superpower: any significant decision requires the concensus of all 27 member nations.

Brazil - They may be a regional hegemon but are nowhere close to being considered a superpower.

[Edited on July 30, 2010 at 9:04 AM. Reason : 0]

7/30/2010 9:03:29 AM

Quote :

"The only reason I ever want American soldiers invading Burma is when Burma both supports and enacts the murder of American civilians. Same goes for Afghanistan. Now someone will try and say that I am endorsing the murder of Burmese civilians but there's a clear difference between saying "i support murder in Burma" and "i support the US protecting itself above all else, even if it means other civilians in other nations are unable to protect themselves from their own countrymen". Burma isn't a problem for the US, until it is. "

This sums up my foreign political views. If they are not killing american citizens or are not causing severe economic disruptions, than it should not be an AMERICAN PROBLEM.

I do not support genocide or humanitarian oppresive regimes. I though do not think its our job to play world police. Many times we use these oppresive regimes as an excuse to oust the current leader for a new one that will be more friendly for US business but no necessarily better for the citizens of the country. If the UN or NATO wants to get involved to stop a country that is using ethic cleansing than we can help the cause. Otherwise, this is not a US problem.

I do not want my tax monies or my friends in the military getting blown up fixing someone else's issue.

7/30/2010 9:19:29 AM

Soaked in narrow-minded nationalism though it may be, your rather provincial moral reasoning still provides justification for our continued efforts to exterminate the Taliban, since they were absolutely implicated in the 9/11 attacks and continue to kill Americans (many of whom are merely providing development and humanitarian services) on a daily basis.

7/30/2010 9:29:45 AM

Quote :

"Soaked in narrow-minded nationalism though it may be, your rather provincial moral reasoning still provides justification for our continued efforts to exterminate the Taliban, since they were absolutely implicated in the 9/11 attacks and continue to kill Americans "

I never said otherwise...

7/30/2010 9:32:48 AM

Quote :

"there's a clear difference between saying "i support murder in Burma" and "i support the US protecting itself above all else, even if it means other civilians in other nations are unable to protect themselves from their own countrymen""

That's true. There is a difference between saying "I support murder" and "I won't prevent murder if it requires using force". One proclamation is evil, the other is just insipid and cowardly.

[Edited on July 30, 2010 at 10:56 AM. Reason : Because sinister is defined by M&W as "singularly evil". Who knew.]

7/30/2010 10:53:06 AM

Quote :

"yeah i read that about 5 times before i went...possible, not likely"

What's unlikely about injuries from spalling? That's what happens.
I mean, shrapnel hitting the turret probably didn't cause spalling...I'm sure the RPG hit the turret, and then shrapnel/spalling hit him in the neck.

Quote :

"they were high on military-issued amphetamine "go pills"."

I've taken "go-pills." They are infinitely better than being sleepy, fatigued, and not alert. This argument of blaming go-pills for friendly fire or any other fuck-up is stupid and tired.

7/30/2010 11:14:20 AM

Well hell let's start selling them at the 7-11 on the streetcorner then.

[Edited on July 30, 2010 at 11:40 AM. Reason : No, really, where I can buy some of these?]

7/30/2010 11:37:35 AM

Guess we should start selling M-16s and every other tool the military uses at 7-11 then.

You can get amphetamines with a prescription. Just tell em you're ADHD.

7/30/2010 12:54:27 PM

I was under the impression that the military was moving more toward use of Modafinil as go-pills instead of amphetamines.

7/30/2010 7:37:28 PM

They should just go after a Red Bull sponsorship.

7/30/2010 7:50:43 PM

Quote :

"To be fair though, they were high on military-issued amphetamine "go pills". "

7/30/2010 8:00:35 PM

7/30/2010 8:38:51 PM

Wikileaks has released a 1.6GB encrypted file title "Insurance". It is assumed this is their entire unreleased library of mid-east military atrocities. If Assange is assassinated or their facilities destroyed, they will probably release the password and let their volunteers finish releasing the data.

7/31/2010 12:04:07 AM

Why would they not go ahead and just release this?

7/31/2010 1:14:10 AM

Because they haven't had time to redact names I suppose. I'd imagine they don't trust anyone at this point other than a core group of a couple dozen

[Edited on July 31, 2010 at 11:44 AM. Reason : The US Government is welcome to release the documents first.]

7/31/2010 11:43:35 AM

lol - so his insurance policy is to release names and get people killed

what a fuckwad

7/31/2010 6:04:28 PM

Quote :

"Taliban Says It Will Target Names Exposed by WikiLeaks The U.S. military has already accused WikiLeaks of having "the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family" on its hands after leaking 92,000 classified documents. The Taliban has now confirmed it is poring through the documents, and intends to hunt down and punish any suspected spies named. Britain's Channel 4 News interviewed a Taliban spokesperson named Zabihullah Mujahid by telephone. "We are studying the report," he said, referring to the documents, available online, some containing the names, tribes, and family information of Afghan informants. "We knew about the spies and people who collaborate with U.S. forces," he continued. "We will investigate through our own secret service whether the people mentioned are really spies working for the U.S. If they are U.S. spies, then we know how to punish them." ...."

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/30/taliban-says-it-will-target-names-exposed-by-wikileaks.html

7/31/2010 6:27:15 PM

U.S. Military Becomes Jealous; Vows to Kill Informants First

Only a complete idiot would cooperate with americans. They've been through this before, they know we'll leave them high and dry like all the rest. The taliban, on the other hand, aren't going anywhere. They may not be pleasant, but they're a sure bet in the long term.

[Edited on July 31, 2010 at 6:50 PM. Reason : .]

7/31/2010 6:43:41 PM

Longest War in American History

We've Already Lost

The Military is the Last to Know

Our Empire is Crumbling

7/31/2010 7:16:50 PM

^^^ Yep. And Julian Assange has already written off anyone who might be killed as a result of the leaks in question as "collateral damage." What a pompous d-bag.

If anyone is killed as a result of the leaks, those responsible for the leaks should receive the death penalty. I have no problem with this whatsoever.

7/31/2010 8:36:27 PM

All responsibility rests on the entity that started the war.

7/31/2010 9:04:25 PM

so....the taliban and al queda?



[Edited on August 1, 2010 at 12:10 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2010 12:10:28 AM

No, us, silly. 9/11 was an isolated criminal act.

8/1/2010 12:12:30 AM

Quote :

"That's true. There is a difference between saying "I support murder" and "I won't prevent murder if it requires using force". One proclamation is evil, the other is just insipid and cowardly. "

i didnt say if it requires using force, i said if its not involving a fellow countryman of mine. other countries are free to destroy themselves, we just can't allow them to take us with them.

8/1/2010 12:18:07 AM

^^
10/10.

8/1/2010 12:44:58 AM

American citizen detained at airport, questioned about political views and volunteering for wikileaks, his encrypted laptop was seized, not provided with access to lawyer, released hours later, death to america.

8/1/2010 1:27:13 AM

Quote :

"The civilian also said that the Army had offered him “a considerable amount of money if I were to keep my ear to the ground and be an in with them with WikiLeaks.” He said that he had turned the Army down and that he had no connection to WikiLeaks. The other civilian also said in an interview on Friday that he had no connection to WikiLeaks. "

[Edited on August 1, 2010 at 12:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2010 12:52:19 PM