IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: Consider this ...
But this thread was always about bombing Afghans during Ramadan. I know that.

Its not always obvious.

So if we who are on the same side can't see eye-to-eye about the importance of some sensible handling of the Ramadan period, how the f*** do you imagine Muslims elsewhere can see any US justification for continuing bombing during Ramadan.

"Sensible handling"? That's what its about. There's no "sensible handling".

The fact its Ramadan shouldn't affect our plans much. Slightly, yes. But not much.

Muslims elsewhere can see any US justification for continuing bombing during Ramadan.

The requirements for the US to stop the attacks have been quite clearly laid out.

Doesn't that worry you ? -

Nope. The issue is, as I keep telling you, irrelevent. There aren't any fence sitters who will be changed one way or the other.

Doesn't it smell like the OBL trap ?.

Nope.

Are you not concerned about how volotile Pakistan is ?

Not really.

Is killing Taliban troops so important to you that all caution gets cast aside ?

Continuing the US mission is important to me. I'm not casting caution aside, you're the one who will castrate the US mission.

And why? So we bomb the MINUTE that Ramadan is over, and THOSE people being killed is "better"?

I'm very against killing people in such situations. But "stopping" during Ramadan means more of their civilians will likely die later, as they have more time to shield behind them. Stopping means possibly more attacks on the US.

Again, we didn't stop on Japanese holidays during WWII. The point of war is you *don't* get to choose the time and place, often. Furthermore, *we're already hamstrung* by our notions of "justice" and things like "fair treatment".

You've yet to show *any* plausible reason that "stopping" during ramandan - until somebody kills hundreds more Americans (or anybody else) is logical at all. Because its not. So its a holiday. *How does that change *anything**? How is it better when we kill civilians during non-holidays?

Addison
New Re: stick to the facts


"
Is killing Taliban troops so important to you that all caution gets cast aside ?

Continuing the US mission is important to me. I'm not casting caution aside, you're the one who will
castrate the US mission.

And why? So we bomb the MINUTE that Ramadan is over, and THOSE people being killed is "better"?

I'm very against killing people in such situations. But "stopping" during Ramadan means more of their
civilians will likely die later, as they have more time to shield behind them. Stopping means possibly
more attacks on the US.



1) I have reminded you repeatedly (but you keep ignoring it) that I always argued to keep bombing hitting going after OBL & terrorists.
Why do you bluntly keep writing that I want all bombing stopped - when it is clear I never once suggested it ??

2) I said we should stop bombing near civillian areas during Ramadan & highlighted the massive disorder already underway with 100,000s of innocent civillians fleeing. You put up a pathetic case for 100 civillian casualties due to the precision bombing but never responded to the
collateral issue of these people's plight during winter and the image seen by other countries if bombing was impacting civillians during Ramadan.

3) I highlighted the instability in nearby countries - you have told us what you think of that & I'm now not at all surprised.

Cheers

Doug




"
New I'm not the one moving away from them
1) I have reminded you repeatedly (but you keep ignoring it) that I always argued to keep bombing hitting going after OBL & terrorists.
Why do you bluntly keep writing that I want all bombing stopped - when it is clear I never once suggested it ??
2) I said we should stop bombing near civillian areas during Ramadan & highlighted the massive disorder already underway with 100,000s of innocent civillians fleeing.


Those two are exclusive.

If the Taliban/terrorists aren't near civilian areas, then we wouldn't be bombing near there.

We're not bombing civilians just to *do* it - you imply that we *are*.

That's the facts. The airstrikes and commando raids are - for all evidence - avoiding civilian casualties.

Therefore, there's no reason to *change* anything - and *you* are advocating that.

3) I highlighted the instability in nearby countries - you have told us what you think of that & I'm now not at all surprised.

I'm not worried about it.

More importantly, you *did not* explain how *not bombing targets near civilian areas would *decrease that instablity*.

You're pulling isolated (and sometimes exclusive ideas) and attempting to make a stand with them.

Addison
New Re: wrapping up

Just want to wrap this thread up from my end. It is obvious to me we have not enjoyed this interaction nor learned from each other. We don't even seem to have been able to agree to disagree. We haven't managed to reach an end where we can see each others point-of-view and respect it. That has been a dissapointment to me and I take it as my failure to adequately convey my views & to see yours clearly.

I do consider discussing these issues to be very valuable and constantly rediscover the satisfaction when we here can put differing views and respect them as well as debate them. Occasionaly such discussions can seem to lead nowhere as it appears to me this line has.

Irrespective of this outcome I trust we can debate other issues in the future and manage to earn each other's respect no matter if we disagree.

Cheers

Doug
Good minds are extremely valuable to other good minds
New Re: wrapping up
Just want to wrap this thread up from my end. It is obvious to me we have not enjoyed this interaction nor learned from each other.

No, Doug, we've not.

Mainly because you've started with something I consider to be somewhat illogical - and are expecting me to agree with you 1/2 way.

Your insisting I'm a bloodthirsty killer didn't help, either. :)

In short:

We're not *targeting* civilians *now*. You've yet to explain how that should change during Ramadan.

The people who are "on the fence" won't be influenced by Ramadan - and most people have already made up their mind.

So insisting that it will make Pakistan fall is irrelevent....

And so no, there's no agreeing to disagree. Whether we bomb or not is utterly irrelevant, and there's *no* upside to not bombing. In order to agree to disagree, you'd have to show me where there is one.

Though I appreciate your tone, I think its unnecessary, but thanks for the polite wrap up.

Addison
New Re: wrapping up - another try

I was trying to reach out. My post didn't try to lay blame at either your or my feet other than my failure to make myself better understood - my fault!.

I won't respond the the new points raised as they are not making the thread any clearer nor helping us understand each other better. Probably achieve the opposite.

Let us both hope that we can do better on other topics. Let this one die a natural well earned death.

Cheers

Doug

New Retch out?
If you start with illogical premises, you reaching out doesn't make me want to hold out my hand so you can pull me into your twisted pit of viprous snarled logic.

1+1 = 2. If you say differently, there's no amount of reaching out or meeting halfway. There are many things that are, indeed, black and white with no shades of grey in between.
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
New Ah.. the 1+1 certain logic of the unwarranted kewl buttinski
New Re: Retch out?
Go screw yer boots (grin)

Cheers

Doug
     November 17th deadline for military action - (bluke) - (112)
         Re: November 17th deadline for military action - (addison) - (10)
             Sensitivity is very important here - (Steven A S) - (9)
                 I don't think so. - (addison) - (8)
                     But what of sensitivity toward Islam itself? - (marlowe) - (6)
                         Ah, the tolerance of the man. - (Silverlock)
                         Missing the point - (hnick)
                         Other ways to look at it.. - (addison) - (3)
                             I'm presuming that we can keep an eye on the situation... - (marlowe) - (2)
                                 Problem is... - (addison) - (1)
                                     I can't parse it any better than that either. - (Ashton)
                     I see the fence sitters as - (Steven A S)
         Re: November 17th deadline for military action - (rsf) - (40)
             Tend to agree. Remember the Tet Offensive? - (drewk) - (39)
                 Thank you for reading my mind. - (jb4)
                 Fool me twice, shame on me. - (marlowe) - (37)
                     Re: Fool me twice, shame on me. - (addison) - (36)
                         Re: Wakeup call: So many missing the point - (dmarker2) - (35)
                             !Vietnam - (kmself) - (30)
                                 Re: Not the same debate ??? - (dmarker2)
                                 Death toll majority non-citizens? - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                     Wikipedia - (kmself) - (1)
                                         The numbers are in flux. AP story. - (Another Scott)
                                 Where thugs come from - (Silverlock) - (4)
                                     Yep. But not as late as the 20th century - (admin) - (3)
                                         to google or not to google - (Silverlock) - (2)
                                             My own faulty memory... - (admin) - (1)
                                                 Vaguely remember a movie about this - (Silverlock)
                                 Tremendous analogy! - (jb4) - (1)
                                     Cancer - (kmself)
                                 You make me look moderate by comparison! - (marlowe) - (17)
                                     Its a common sense approach. - (addison) - (16)
                                         Re: who is the 'they' you write of ? - (dmarker2) - (15)
                                             They is somewhat fluid, depending on context. - (addison) - (14)
                                                 Re: I think you have lost sight of who - (dmarker2) - (13)
                                                     No, its not I with the lost sight. - (addison) - (12)
                                                         Re: Springing Bin Laden's trap - (dmarker2) - (11)
                                                             Re: Springing Bin Laden's trap - (addison) - (10)
                                                                 Re: Consider this ... - (dmarker2) - (9)
                                                                     Re: Consider this ... - (addison) - (8)
                                                                         Re: stick to the facts - (dmarker2) - (7)
                                                                             I'm not the one moving away from them - (addison) - (6)
                                                                                 Re: wrapping up - (dmarker2) - (5)
                                                                                     Re: wrapping up - (addison) - (4)
                                                                                         Re: wrapping up - another try - (dmarker2) - (3)
                                                                                             Retch out? - (wharris2) - (2)
                                                                                                 Ah.. the 1+1 certain logic of the unwarranted kewl buttinski -NT - (Ashton)
                                                                                                 Re: Retch out? - (dmarker2)
                                 OT: thugs. And comments. - (Another Scott)
                             Getting into possible Godwin territory, but... - (jb4) - (3)
                                 Also, Nazism wasn't backed by an ancient and venerable... - (marlowe)
                                 Re: Getting into possible Godwin territory, Headfirst !!! - (dmarker2)
                                 Point of order. Godwin. - (Ashton)
         Good time - (JayMehaffey) - (2)
             We'll have a great advantage in winter though. - (admin) - (1)
                 Possibly. - (addison)
         Re: November 17th deadline for military action - (gtall) - (56)
             Re: It is simpler than that - (dmarker2) - (55)
                 Less simple. - (addison) - (8)
                     Re: 'they' - yet again - (dmarker2) - (7)
                         No. - (addison) - (6)
                             No. No No - (dmarker2) - (5)
                                 Alas, I'm afraid that in US - it will likely be about - (Ashton)
                                 Re: No. No No - (addison) - (3)
                                     Re: No. No No - (dmarker2) - (2)
                                         Re: No. No No - (addison) - (1)
                                             Re: No. No No - (dmarker2)
                 Re: It is simpler than that - (gtall) - (45)
                     Re: Cant even you see ... - (dmarker2) - (44)
                         You're not seeing something very important. - (addison) - (1)
                             Re: maybe we are honing in on something here - (dmarker2)
                         Re: Cant even you see ... - (gtall) - (22)
                             Heh.. luck? - (Ashton)
                             Re: Cant even you see ... - (dmarker2) - (20)
                                 Ashton has a kernel of a good idea ... - (gtall) - (19)
                                     Heh.. nice lateral pass near the (endzone?) - (Ashton) - (3)
                                         Re: Heh.. nice lateral pass near the (endzone?) - (gtall) - (2)
                                             I'm *certain* that you know my fav academia quote (!) - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                 Re: I'm *certain* that you know my fav academia quote (!) - (gtall)
                                     Re: Greatly enjoyed that ... - (dmarker2) - (14)
                                         Re: Greatly enjoyed that ... - (gtall) - (13)
                                             OK.. Spike Jones! (In Der F\ufffdehrer's Face)____:-\ufffd - (Ashton) - (12)
                                                 Re: OK.. Spike Jones! & the city slickers - beetlebomb - (dmarker2) - (3)
                                                     Re: OK.. Spike Jones! & the city slickers - beetlebomb - (gtall) - (2)
                                                         Also, Car Talk on NPR - "Click & Clack the Tappit brothers" -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                                                         They seemed closest that.. '50s Murican culture could abide - (Ashton)
                                                 Dinner music for people who aren't really hungry - (wharris2) - (7)
                                                     Re: Ear candy for the noise hungry - (dmarker2) - (6)
                                                         Re: Ear candy for the noise hungry - (wharris2) - (5)
                                                             Re: Ear candy for the noise hungry - (dmarker2) - (4)
                                                                 Re: Ear candy for the noise hungry - (wharris2) - (3)
                                                                     Re: We live in interesting times - (dmarker2) - (2)
                                                                         cackle - (wharris2) - (1)
                                                                             Re: cackle - (dmarker2)
                         Human Shields, Information Warfare - (kmself) - (18)
                             Is there reason to believe US means to stifle al-Jazeera? - (Ashton) - (5)
                                 Yes - (kmself) - (4)
                                     No less disturbing, for being so utterly unsurprising :[ -NT - (Ashton)
                                     What? - (addison) - (2)
                                         Well.. both are still in bizness - (Ashton)
                                         Mahr was publicly censured, Onion commented on it - (kmself)
                             Re: A well argued and reasoned case - thanks - (dmarker2) - (11)
                                 I think you're missing something. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                     Re: I think you're missing something. - (dmarker2)
                                 Taliban troops - (kmself) - (8)
                                     Re: Taliban troops - US invasion ? - (dmarker2) - (5)
                                         Occupation - (kmself) - (4)
                                             Re: Occupation - (wharris2) - (2)
                                                 Bosnia - (kmself)
                                                 Kosovo - (Arkadiy)
                                             Occupation update: SF Chron, US to base ops in Afghanistan - (kmself)
                                     Who is going to deal with these refugees? - (bluke) - (1)
                                         Changes like a kaleidoscope daily.. - (Ashton)

Shown here is a tranquil scene in the north woods. A beaver has just completed its dam, two black bears forage for food, a swallow-tailed butterfly flutters in the foreground, a loon swims quietly by, and a kingfisher searches for a tasty fish.
162 ms