RIP Chris Kyle

[EyepodI]

Why would the 'Ruskies' have used surface to air missiles in Afghanistan?

Did they think expect Mujahedin to be moving around on flying carpets?

They shot enough russian helicopters out of the ****** skies do you think they chucked rocks at them?

Who financed their rock chucking? Surely not our old friend Brzezinski and his clan?

 

[Gackt]

Missing the point. Just because what he did may or may not have been morally justifiable does not mitigate the fact that he does not deserve to be disrespected in such a way.

Forgive me, for I was not referring to any of the discussion that has taken place - simply the point that was made about him serving his country usually given as a sign of goodness, or being worthy of respect.

I was more interested in whether that makes the person's actions justifiable.

That depends on the justification and the ethical framework in which they are made.

Of course, there's much more to it than the simple idea of serving one's country. Serving one's country doesn't make you worthy of respect nor disrespect.

 

[EyepodI]

http://vimeo.com/10724030

 

[Jason2]

As long as the 'majority' think it's ok, does that make something right?

 

[SHEDDER1uk]

Wondering what the 2 most vocal posters nationality is.

 

[EyepodI]

Wondering what the 2 most vocal posters nationality is.

If you mean me English by birth Irish by blood

 

[Gackt]

As long as the 'majority' think it's ok, does that make something right?

History says no.

 

[Robosapien]

Soldiers are no hero's. The WWII ones were, but today's troops are not.

I don't agree
I have respect for them for what they went through, but I don't regard them as heroes.
For me, remembrance is not about glorification but to serve as a poignant reminder that we should ensure something like that never happens again.

 

[LOAM]

This is one of the weirdest threads I've read.

I think its quite telling that his own organisation hoped to help soldiers with PTSD and suggests that he himself has suffered. It's sad that it seems he was killed by someone he was trying to help.

Anyways, RIP. Who am to judge.

 

[Robosapien]

Rogue Nations being one of those risk factors.

Educate me. What is a Rogue Nation? I ask because the U.K. invaded Iraq despite some considerable protesting by the general public at the time (although conceivably not the majority I suppose, even though they were pretty big protests)...

 

[Robosapien]

As long as the 'majority' think it's ok, does that make something right?

There's no such thing as right or wrong. When it comes to war the issue of ethics and assigning moral values is an extremely complicated one.

 

[Robosapien]

Dont bring religion into this, thats a sure fire way to start a war!

 

[Shayper]

Just came back to this thread. Lol, is all i can say.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Jason2 and EvepodI.

I would watch this film.

 

[Shayper]

Jason2 and EvepodI.

I would watch this film.

Only if Tarantino directs.

There's a reason for that

 

[Danthus]

Didn't take long for the trolls to arrive. He done what was asked of him by his country and did it very well.

So did the Nazis.

 

[estebanrey]

There was no such discussion until you introduced it. The discussion was relating to the death of a renowned sniper, not whether our presence in Afghanistan makes the UK safer or not

Which means you are either being deliberately disingenuous (i.e. trolling), blind or there's something wrong with your browser...

He did what he had to do so dribbling idiots can have the freedom to post whatever moron pops in their brain on the Internet.

Yeah, because killing a bunch of insurgents in a far away country really makes me safer. Thanks mate.

I rest my case.....

You don't even have a case.

It doesn't make your country any more dangerous...

If he didn't do those things the country may be a lot worse off..

From what i've recently read about him he was a very skilled individual who will be missed by many..

What country would be worse off? The guy was a US sniper and was tasked with dealing with insurgents in Afghnistan and Iraq, it had no bearing on the security of the UK. You should be more afraid of getting struck by lightning than the boogeyman terrorists.

I disagree as obviously one thing leads to another and I guess that missions carried out abroad would have a bearing on what goes on here regarding national security. It must be linked. It's like during the world wars where operations abroad had a direct Bearing on how safe this country remained etc.

Nope, why do you think cells are created? You don't import manpower you recruit citizens of whatever country you plan to attack, same goes for the actual explosive equipment.. it's all homegrown.
Like I said... occupying these countries makes no goddamn difference hwen it comes to preventing terrorist attacks and that has always been a guise for the ignorant.

..all of which came before my post and was the line of debate I was joining. So no, I did not 'introduce' the topic at all.

, although I concede that you did go on in your second paragraph to make this point, although I am not sure that you can argue what might have happened had we left Afghanistan to its own devices

No but that's pretty weak counter because obviously you can never prove what may have happened if X or Y hadn't happened in any scenario.

However what we can do is look at the stated motivations of the people who have carried out subsequent attacks and most, if not all, cite our involvement in Afghanistan as motivating factor for them.

I questioned the rather emphasised "Funny how we'd had no Islamist terrorism in the UK until AFTER we went to Afghanistan/Iraq then isn't it?" in your original post.....it was and remains inaccurate.

Inaccurate in YOUR opinion.

Anyway, I'm sick of this. Erase it from your brain, pretend I never said that bit and imagine it says "Funny how we had a lot less Islamist Terrorist activity in the UK before we invaded Afghanistan/Iraq" instead because I'm bored of it now and as said the point I was making was that we are a lot more exposed to it now than before, thus suggesting the notion that we are now safer isn't water tight.

I did not claim that you stated such a thing either

Yes you did, I don't know how you can argue against direct quotes of yours, once again, let's look at what was actually said instead of you just saying what I said without any citation.........

All the examples you cited were not terrorist attacks in the sense that the target was the indiscriminate killing of the general British public (like as with 7/7 for example) but rather highly political targeted attacks.

the idea that Islamist Terrorism is not politically motivated just illustrates how little you understand what Islamism is.

..clearly you are saying that I stated that terrorism can't be political motivated. I've never claimed this and you know it.

Let me try and breakdown your error for you in simple terms to see if it will sink in this time. Let's say we were looking at a picture of an animal and you said it was a dog. I reply 'It's not a dog but more like a crocodile with fur'. That doesn't equal me saying 'dogs don't have fur'. That is directly analogous to what happened here and again as a linguist I'm surprised you aren't aware of non-sequiters (or rather can't see when you've made one).

You've committed a logical fallacy from reading my post and won't admit your mistake. Shame.

, I stated that politically motivated assassinations by recognised islamist groups are still terrorism which you implied they were not

No I didn't, please provide evidence for this claim.

No, did you miss the point that it makes your original statement inaccurate.

No. I thought that was clear from my original response to it. We're going round in circles here.....

for example in 1983, on 26 December a bomb went off outside Marks and Spencer injuring two that was the responsibilty of the Abu Nidal Organisation, an Islamic terrorist with links or involvement with various other Islamist organisations and state sponsored islamic terrorism.

That's the first example you've given that's within the context of the original claim.

..why are you willfully ignoring half the stuff I say?

 

[Castiel]

Lol....you know what you said and the mistakes and errors you made....invent semantic arguments all you like. You made a statement, I pointed out the error..you made a totally fallacious semantic argument to cover it up

As for the political motivation and assassination issues, you know what you stated and trying to say that you did not imply that the examples I gave were not really terrorism is again simply you inventing a fallacious argument to cover up your error

Dont worry...in future I will ask you exactly which context and clarification before responding...just so you dont have to go to such lengths to alter your opinion later to suit whatever errors are pointed out to you.

 

[estebanrey]

Lol....you know what you said and the mistakes and errors you made...

Shame you don't share the same skill eh?

 

[Shayper]

So did the Nazis.

And a lot of them were forced into it through propaganda. Again, it's the leaders to be blamed.