Somali Terrorists/Pirates Murder The Four Americans

[westwall]

It's not a tune pal. We left because we weren't allowed to fight. It's pretty simple the UN said you may not fire on anyone unless you are 100% positive you will hit them and only them. So we sent in a Marine FAST unit and they hit 100% of the time so the UN made us take them out, so we said OK and left. It was that simple, the UN didn't want us killing their "technicals" so we left.

It's people like you who claim that we didn't really lose in Vietnam.

But war has both a political and military component.

American is dominate in one area; but sadly lacking in the other.

Sun Tzu wrote about it back in the 6th century BC

Maybe it should be mandatory reading for our politicians and generals.

So they will be on the same page for the next war.

I've read Sun Tzu and A Book of Five Rings as well as Clauswitz et all. The US most certainly did lose in Vietnam and we should have never been there. The politicians sent us there and then refused to let us fight the war properly. That is the fault of the politicians, not the military or the US.

When we were allowed to fight it properly the fighting was finished in 11 days, it's called Operation Linebacker II and we destroyed the North Vietnamese ability to defend itself. It was launched because Nixon wanted us out and the Vietnamese wouldn't release the POWs. So we said Ok this is what happens when we don't have to fight with a blindfold on and one hand tied behind our backs.

I am quite happy to discuss military history for any time from the present day all the way back to Harun al-Rashid or back to Marius if you prefer. I know it quite well.

 

[Ropey]

I said you blame others for their deaths. You do.

Link to the post in which I stated or implied that the pirates were guiltless.

Now I am what?

Misrepresenting my position. Again.

Link to where I said you said they were guiltless. Blame does not have to mean total guilt. Don't black and white me Kalam. That does not work.

You seek to soften the guilt with external blame.

Well?

 

[Sunni Man]

Something in return. An eye for an eye Kalam. That's what this is for me. Now do you understand. Two way discussion is give and take. Islam, you and Sunni Man seem to have little understanding of this concept. So, when you minimize, I point it out. When you obfuscate, I clarify. When you belittle, I jeer. When you take out of context I insert more context, even if you don't like it or agree with it since I post for the forum to read, not simply you and that's not trolling. That's quid pro quo.

As you do, so shall be done to you Kalam. That's why it seems I can produce decent discussion with some others, but not much with you. Even less with Sunni Man. And even less with georgie boy. I'm a Tanakh kind of guy.

Now do you get it?

Yea, Ropey, what we all get is that you are so full of B.S. that it is running out of your ears.

 

[Kalam]

Quid pro quo.

You may think that all the Muslim acts worldwide are just isolated events having nothing to do with the Islamic ideology. I however, disagree with you, and most strongly for on the ground we see the acts all over the world. Is some power trolling Muslims worldwide Kalam? They are simply victims of events? They are candles in the wind? Just as there is no controlling entity for Islam, there is no controlling entity for those against Islam. Islam seems not to fit in. I see proof of this everywhere. You see to extend blame on others for this proof everywhere. That's simply claptrap to me Kalam.

I attempted to address these perception of yours by introducing the topic of the first Chechen War in another thread, but you dropped off a load of propagandistic nonsense instead of actually responding to the simple, uncontroversial question I posed. This is the sort of behavior that makes me doubt that you have any interest in actual discussion.

Something in return. An eye for an eye Kalam. That's what this is for me. Now do you understand. Two way discussion is give and take. Islam, you and Sunni Man seem to have little understanding of this concept. So, when you minimize, I point it out. When you obfuscate, I clarify. When you belittle, I jeer. When you take out of context I insert more context, even if you don't like it or agree with it since I post for the forum to read, not simply you and that's not trolling. That's quid pro quo.

As you do, so shall be done to you Kalam. That's why it seems I can produce decent discussion with some others, but not much with you. Even less with Sunni Man. And even less with georgie boy. I'm a Tanakh kind of guy.

Now do you get it?

No, and your portrayal of yourself as some sort of paragon of honesty who valiantly exposes my diabolical machinations has me wondering whether or not you're actually being serious. If I felt the need to obfuscate to defend my position then I wouldn't have taken it in the first place. "Minimizing" is a matter of perception so I don't really care about that. Of course I think that some things and events are less important than you do and vice-versa.

My view of your ability to engage in meaningful discussion isn't based on your exchanges with others; I don't really read those.

 

[Kalam]

Link to where I said you said they were guiltless. Blame does not have to mean total guilt. Don't black and white me Kalam. That does not work.

You seek to soften the guilt with external blame.

I hold these individuals responsible for committing a crime and support punishing them. At the same time, I acknowledge that they were able to commit this crime in the first place because of conditions brought about by other actors. You apparently do not.

 

[HUGGY]

Link to where I said you said they were guiltless. Blame does not have to mean total guilt. Don't black and white me Kalam. That does not work.

You seek to soften the guilt with external blame.

I hold these individuals responsible for committing a crime and support punishing them. At the same time, I acknowledge that they were able to commit this crime in the first place because of conditions brought about by other actors. You apparently do not.

If you REALLY want to go off topic you can blame water rights wars the Ethiopians suffer under as the real pressure that is causing them to migrate to Samolia. But that isn't what this thread is about now is it?

An update! US sources are saying that the Somalis taken prisoner on the hijacked yacht might be brought here for a trial.

 

[Ropey]

Link to where I said you said they were guiltless. Blame does not have to mean total guilt. Don't black and white me Kalam. That does not work.

You seek to soften the guilt with external blame.

I hold these individuals responsible for committing a crime and support punishing them.

If you REALLY want to go off topic you can blame water rights wars the Ethiopians suffer under as the real pressure that is causing them to migrate to Samolia. But that isn't what this thread is about now is it?

An update! US sources are saying that the Somalis taken prisoner on the hijacked yacht might be brought here for a trial.

At the same time, I acknowledge that they were able to commit this crime in the first place because of conditions brought about by other actors. You apparently do not.

Bring them in and try them, Kalam's acknowledgment of extenuating circumstances and events notwithstanding. And that will be left up to the judges to assign degrees of guilt.