Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

BSUTOP25

Trivia Question: Of the 7 countries we are actively bombing the hell out of, how many of them invaded or preemptively attacked the United States?

How many of the seven countries we're bombing the fuck out of have invaded or attacked the United States?   

21 members have voted

  1. 1. How many?



Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Fangdog said:

Every Government with al Qaeda, ISIS citizens including the Trade Center twin towers

So why aren't we bombing the hell out of Saudi Arabia? 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Because the royal family is worth 1.3 trillion.

And a good amount of that gets funneled to the Clinton Foundation. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

we agree

To an extent.  The Taliban was born through anti soviet jihad and still exists in that same spirit.  If you drew a ven diagram of Islamists and Jihadists the Taliban would fall in the overlapping circles.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hugh Jiddump said:

I don't need to explain what my country is doing to foreigners like you. And even if I did feel like it, there would be no point. You are not allowed to be honest on this subject. 

#MoveAlongNigel

As I actually promote and support the Constitution of the United States of America, I'm far more American than an authoritarian extremist like you. And let's not get into "honesty" as your repressed homosexuality is quite evident. I truly wish you would come out of the closet someday as I'm worried you're going to eventually commit a hate crime. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

We're not "bombing the hell" out of any country currently.  Maybe you should rephrase the question. The last country  "we bombed the hell" out of was probably North Vietnam, possibly Iraq in Gulf War1 might qualify.

 

 

In 2016 alone, the United States dropped an estimated 26,172 bombs in seven countries, (including Pakistan and Afghanistan), according to the Council of Foreign Relations. This estimate is thought to be on the low-end as each single “strike” can involve multiple bombs, according to the Pentagon’s definition. In Barack Obama’s last year in office, the US dropped 3,028 more bombs than in 2015.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@SDSUfan

"a Taliban fighter, Commander Abdullah, explained to me recently. “It creates nothing but widows and destruction. But Jihad is different. It is our moral obligation to resist you foreigners.” 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-fergusson/taliban-religion_b_885161.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

In 2016 alone, the United States dropped an estimated 26,172 bombs in seven countries, (including Pakistan and Afghanistan), according to the Council of Foreign Relations. This estimate is thought to be on the low-end as each single “strike” can involve multiple bombs, according to the Pentagon’s definition. In Barack Obama’s last year in office, the US dropped 3,028 more bombs than in 2015.

You need some perspective. This what bombing the hell out of a country looks like.

 

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

You need some perspective. This what bombing the hell out of a country looks like.

 

So what's your point? Mine is that we shouldn't be involving ourselves in countries or cultures that don't want us there and we're doing it in most of them without justification or an end game. We're not going to bomb them into freedom and liking us. The more we bomb and invade that region, the more "extremism" we'll face.

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

You need some perspective. This what bombing the hell out of a country looks like.

 

You need some perspective on reality.   We don't use dumb bombs anymore, carpet bombing a forest in Vietnam or Laos is far less effective then a laser guided bomb or a drone launch.

You have just proven again you are too ignorant to understand and participate in this conversation.

Typical of IRLs you are still stuck decades behind in failed wars that have nothing to do with the present other then because of you we will probably make the same mistakes we did before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

So what's your point? Mine is that we shouldn't be involving ourselves in countries or cultures that don't want us there and we're doing it in most of them without justification or an end game. We're not going to bomb them into freedom and liking us. The more we bomb and invade that region, the more "extremism" we'll face.

"without justification" is a value judgement. Presidents of both parties as well as many others with specific knowledge have deemed them justified. The  courts have determined that they are legal. Reasonable people can disagree, One would think that our political leaders wouldn't simply engage targets randomly and I can assure that they don't.

I've addressed the false notion that killing extremists creates more extremists. The statistics don't support this notion.

The video is simply to show what "bombing the hell" out of a country looks like. The point of building smarter weapons, targeting and delivery systems. the billions of dollars we've spent doing so. the doctrine by which we fight wars and the care we take when we actually attacking a target indicates that as a country. we do not attack and kill other humans in a feckless or haphazard fashion. When we do so it's about protecting the interests of the US and it's citizens. Whether or not other countries want us there or not is beside the point and I'm pretty sure nobody thinks we can bomb people into liking us.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

You need some perspective on reality.   We don't use dumb bombs anymore, carpet bombing a forest in Vietnam or Laos is far less effective then a laser guided bomb or a drone launch.

You have just proven again you are too ignorant to understand and participate in this conversation.

Typical of IRLs you are still stuck decades behind in failed wars that have nothing to do with the present other then because of you we will probably make the same mistakes we did before.

You are a child.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SDSUfan said:

"without justification" is a value judgement. Presidents of both parties as well as many others with specific knowledge have deemed them justified. The  courts have determined that they are legal. Reasonable people can disagree, One would think that our political leaders wouldn't simply engage targets randomly and I can assure that they don't.

I've addressed the false notion that killing extremists creates more extremists. The statistics don't support this notion.

The video is simply to show what "bombing the hell" out of a country looks like. The point of building smarter weapons, targeting and delivery systems. the billions of dollars we've spent doing so. the doctrine by which we fight wars and the care we take when we actually attacking a target indicates that as a country. we do not attack and kill other humans in a feckless or haphazard fashion. When we do so it's about protecting the interests of the US and it's citizens. Whether or not other countries want us there or not is beside the point and I'm pretty sure nobody thinks we can bomb people into liking us.

So three things ...

First, just because both parties sign off on bombings doesn't mean they're justified. There is little evidence to support their effectiveness or an apparent end game. Are we simply going to accept that we're in a perpetual state of war? Or do you not define bombing and invading foreign countries as war? 

Second, have you ever researched the motives of extremists from that region? Have you ever stopped to wonder what motivates them to join a group like ISIS? Let me tell you, it's not because of the paid time off and health insurance benefits. It's also rarely because their religion compels them to. It's largely because radicals have used the invasions, bombings, and foreign interventions to recruit young men who have little hope and feel as if they're being invaded by a foreign power. 

Lastly, the video is comparing apples to oranges. Like Bluerules said, rules of engagement have changed. But the poor justifications excuses for bombing and invading haven't. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

How does it feel to be too stupid to have an intelligent conversation with a child?

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

I rest my case

8 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

So three things ...

First, just because both parties sign off on bombings doesn't mean they're justified. There is little evidence to support their effectiveness or an apparent end game. Are we simply going to accept that we're in a perpetual state of war? Or do you not define bombing and invading foreign countries as war? 

Second, have you ever researched the motives of extremists from that region? Have you ever stopped to wonder what motivates them to join a group like ISIS? Let me tell you, it's not because of the paid time off and health insurance benefits. It's also rarely because their religion compels them to. It's largely because radicals have used the invasions, bombings, and foreign interventions to recruit young men who have little hope and feel as if they're being invaded by a foreign power. 

Lastly, the video is comparing apples to oranges. Like Bluerules said, rules of engagement have changed. But the poor justifications excuses for bombing and invading haven't. 

So who has to sign off before a bombing is considered justified if not our duly elected representatives, you, me?

As to evidence of their effectiveness, is the intended target dead? If so, the attack was effective. 

I think we all have our opinions as to what makes a Jihadist. What they are discovering in Syria is that many are in some way mentally disturbed, many others are recent converts to Islam and become Jihadists in order to "prove" their faithfulness, others are irreligious young men who have rediscovered their " faith" on the Internet. Young men born into the religion and are active in their faith  tend to adhere to the religion as they are taught it by their parents and Imam. Those teachings by and large are more mainstream. 

I understand times weaponry and doctrine have changed. Fully aware as a matter of fact.  That's what makes the phrase "bombing the hell" out of a country inaccurate, basically inflammatory  rhetoric.  We can, and if necessary  will bomb the hell out of a country. We would do it to destroy a country's infrastructure  and ability to defend itself and wage war. What we are now doing isn't that. We are instead using small yield missiles to take out very specific targets in very specific cases. As I said, reasonable people can disagree as to whether this is an approach that's effective and or moral.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”

-Richard Feynman

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

-P.J. O’Rourke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SDSUfan said:

I rest my case

So who has to sign off before a bombing is considered justified if not our duly elected representatives, you, me?

As to evidence of their effectiveness, is the intended target dead? If so, the attack was effective. 

I think we all have our opinions as to what makes a Jihadist. What they are discovering in Syria is that many are in some way mentally disturbed, many others are recent converts to Islam and become Jihadists in order to "prove" their faithfulness, others are irreligious young men who have rediscovered their " faith" on the Internet. Young men born into the religion and are active in their faith  tend to adhere to the religion as they are taught it by their parents and Imam. Those teachings by and large are more mainstream. 

I understand times weaponry and doctrine have changed. Fully aware as a matter of fact.  That what makes the phrase "bombing the hell" out of a country inaccurate, basically inflammatory  rhetoric.  We can, and if necessary still bomb the he'll out of a country. We would do it to destroy a country's infrastructure  and ability to defend itself and wage war. What we are now doing isn't that. We are instead using small yield missiles to take out very specific targets in very specific cases. As I said, reasonable people can disagree as to whether this is an approach that's effective and or moral.

Okay dude, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the merits of war, efficacy of attacks, motive for joining an extremist cause, and what constitutes bombing the hell out of something. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BSUTOP25 said:

So three things ...

First, just because both parties sign off on bombings doesn't mean they're justified. There is little evidence to support their effectiveness or an apparent end game. Are we simply going to accept that we're in a perpetual state of war? Or do you not define bombing and invading foreign countries as war? 

Second, have you ever researched the motives of extremists from that region? Have you ever stopped to wonder what motivates them to join a group like ISIS? Let me tell you, it's not because of the paid time off and health insurance benefits. It's also rarely because their religion compels them to. It's largely because radicals have used the invasions, bombings, and foreign interventions to recruit young men who have little hope and feel as if they're being invaded by a foreign power. 

Lastly, the video is comparing apples to oranges. Like Bluerules said, rules of engagement have changed. But the poor justifications excuses for bombing and invading haven't. 

I think you kind of oversimplified motivations for radicalization, especially ISIS.  It is a lot more intricate and involved than "The Koran calls for Jihad" or "America created them".

 https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/why-people-join-isis/419685/

http://www.zwemercenter.com/sample-post-with-a-title/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I think you kind of oversimplified motivations for radicalization, especially ISIS.  It is a lot more intricate and involved than "The Koran calls for Jihad" or "America created them".

 https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/why-people-join-isis/419685/

http://www.zwemercenter.com/sample-post-with-a-title/

Sure, my response was simplified but with all due respect, I don't think so many young men in that region would be so willing to sign up for jihad if we weren't meddling in their affairs and destabilizing their homelands. We've been dicking around with the Middle East for the better part of 50 years now and haven't done much to improve things. I'd even say we've made things worse.

Something else to consider ... say for instance if a foreign power were to do some of the same shit in Idaho that we've been doing in the Middle East for half a century, don't you think it would breed resentment and extremism? I could pretty much guarantee there would be resistance and likely violence. 

A lot of these guys just simply don't have a way of life worth living or a purpose so they get lured in by radicals. I believe the Atlantic article kinda backs that up. 

bsu_retro_bsu_logo_helmet.b_1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BSUTOP25 said:

Sure, my response was simplified but with all due respect, I don't think so many young men in that region would be so willing to sign up for jihad if we weren't meddling in their affairs and destabilizing their homelands. We've been dicking around with the Middle East for the better part of 50 years now and haven't done much to improve things, I'd even say we've made it worse.

Something else to consider ... say for instance if a foreign power were to do some of the same shit in Idaho that we've been doing in the Middle East for half a century, don't you think it would breed resentment and extremism? I could pretty much guarantee there would be resistance and likely violence. 

A lot of these guys just simply don't have a way of life worth living or a purpose so they get lured in by radicals. I believe the Atlantic article kinda backs that up. 

Well sure, when you live in an impoverished area with an enemy you can point to unwholesome ideologies can take root and be hard to combat.  See Nazi Germany.

Lot's of blame to go around for the disaster in the ME.  We have our fair share, so do the Russians.  So do the European nations that divided up that part of the world after the dissolution of the Ottoman empire post WW1.  Don't forget the House of Saud or the secular wing nuts that took power.  Hell you can even put some blame on the Ottomans for letting their empire decay for hundreds of years and refusing to compete with Europe, so that when they empire dissolved the people were impoverished and destitute.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...