Support the troops but not the war?

[IAmZamzam]

You can hide behind the less specific meaning to the word "conflict" but that doesn't change the fact that it was almost always the American side starting the actual war, making the initial move that acted as the official first battle or whatever. There's hardly been a single nation in history who hasn't had some claim to some kind of conflict pre-existing the actual war (which of course they're never, ever responsible for themselves): if there wasn't one then there would be no reason to go to war. Nor is it very honest to use a war that started between two other countries before Uncle Sam butted in as an excuse: it's still butting in, when not having been physically attacked themselves by either side before that.

 

[Darth Ultor]

I don't think Switzerland ever fought a war. They guard the Pope with spears and just hold the bank accounts of every criminal and terrorist organization in the world.

 

[جوري]

.. is a form of Tribalism. LOL

Which you're very much a willing participant.. born and bred-- enjoy!

 

[Zafran]

You can ignore the conflicts in which the details are hazy. But there are many, many conflicts in which one would have to be deliberately blind to ignore the facts. For example, the Korean War. Sure, the US took a side, but not until after the conflict between the UN-Supported Korea and the China-Supported Korea started fighting.

Vietnam was another situation in which the US involved themselves after the fact. (You can of course argue the wisdom of these moves in retrospect, but the fact of the matter is, the US didn't start these conflicts.

Also, the Gulf War in 1991. Iraq invaded Kuwait. That's how it started.

Not to mention all of the additional places in which the US deploys troops into situations where there is civil unrest, like Africa. The US didn't start those either.

The US had no right to intervene in all if these wars mentioned - they frankly have nothing to do with the US. So whats the US doing there in the first place other then expanding the empire.

 

[MustafaMc]

I do not believe the 911wasaninsidejob.com crowd and anyone who does is either a tool or just looking for reasons to complain about the US.

In that case, why don't you refute the scientific evidence calling into question the 'official' story as detailed on ae911truth.org a website hosted by architects and engineers.

The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.

 

[ICYUNVMe]

The US had no right to intervene in all if these wars mentioned - they frankly have nothing to do with the US. So whats the US doing there in the first place other then expanding the empire.

Hey, if it were me, I would have let all of these other countries rot. I don't care. But I'm not the president. As I said, you can challenge the wisdom of those decisions, but that wasn't the point. My post was in response to the poster who said that America "starts" all of the wars.

 

[جوري]

who said that America "starts" all of the wars.

Zionists should be given some credit in that too..
here is very recommended reading by Miles Copeland-- for those who prefer proper analyses over mass hysteria!

 

[noorseeker]

What if I dont support the war , but support the taliban

tut tut ,now now ,that would make me a sympathiser of terror, cant have that now.

How do you support people that have killed women and children .

 

[IAmZamzam]

In that case, why don't you refute the scientific evidence calling into question the 'official' story as detailed on ae911truth.org a website hosted by architects and engineers.

The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:

1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front
10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.

Not that again!!

I don't want to bother, just read this.

 

[GuestFellow]

Based on that, I do think it is possible to support the troops but not the war.

I disagree.

Being against the troops means you want them to fail, and in the context of war, that usually means death or imprisonment. And people who support the troops do not want to see that happen.

This does not explain how it is possible to support the troops but not the war. In order for a soldier to survive he must follow the orders he receives, otherwise he will be in trouble. He must fight the ''enemy'' in order to succeed thus fulfilling the objectives of the war. How is this not supporting the war?

And while joining the military is voluntary, not following through with orders once you join can be very damaging.

Following orders has consequences too.

Four Hours In My Lai

They are not the ones who orchestrate the plans.

No one said the soldiers orchestrated the plans. However, the soldiers do put the plan into practice. These soldiers are responsible to some extent.

The whole thing depends just what you mean by 'support'.

Yes, that is a good starting point.

There is no contradiction in opposing a war while hoping that if it proceeds casualties are kept to a minimum, be they civilian or military.

Yes, most people want the war to end quickly with casualties kept at a minimum.

I support the war in Afghanistan or rather what our original mission was: to capture bin Laden and cripple al-Qaeda. I do not believe the 911wasaninsidejob.com crowd and anyone who does is either a tool or just looking for reasons to complain about the US.

I think people are naive to beelieve the US planned a massive invasion of Afghanistan to capture one man and to defeat a small group of men known as Al Qaeda. A country of such strategic importance...how can the US miss such a golden opportunity.

I said ORIGINAL mission, not CURRENT. Now we're just dealing with the Taliban. The Taliban were never our enemy. They were a regime that made the Saudi Royals seem humane, but they were never a threat. We did what we had to do. We got the man who actually planned the attacks (Khalid Sheikh Muhammad) and he will be dealt with accordingly. We destroyed the al-Qaeda training camps. We should not linger there any longer than necessary. Afghanistan does not forgive foreign military presence.

Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was water-boarded. The majority of people would admit to anything while be tortured. I would not accept evidence that came from torture.

Nationalism.. which Einstein summed best in his 'Nationalism is an infantile disease' one should gauge in a war out of necessity paying attention to proper ethics of warfare not to attain personal goals, not to subjugate other people not to steal the wealth of nations but to establish justice. I don't expect that any western nation really has any understanding of that, they're all driven by greed love of self and personal interests.. today I was marveling about a news clip I saw of this British journalist mocking the Taliban and their poppy fields.. how soon they forget a sovereign nation which they forced into opium trade?

I agree.

Hey, if it were me, I would have let all of these other countries rot.

How nice of you.

How do you support people that have killed women and children .

It does not happen to them, so they don't care.

 

[جوري]

It does not happen to them, so they don't care.

That actually sums it up quite well.. so long as they're far far away from this they don't give a dam n. Civilians are 'war casualties' looting national treasures hardly gets a noble mention.. entire economies collapsing is only a plus.. so long as they can fill their bellies with beer and bacon.. Only when their own economies start collapsing and their job market crashes do they feel a little bite, which of course can be fast remedied by invading another foreign nation and stealing its wealth, justifying it with all sorts inane slogans.. 'freedom fries' '711' pickled pork feet.. whatever new thing they feel suddenly passionate about!

 

[MustafaMc]

Not that again!!I don't want to bother, just read this.

How do you explain the super high technology explosive, nano-thermite, and its signature residue, micro-spherules of elemental iron, in the WTC dust?

 

[YusufNoor]

Not that again!!

I don't want to bother, just read this.

Muslims are innocent of 9-11, NIST is a part of the Commerce Department. google Kevin Jones.

IF you prefer to believe kaffirs INSTEAD of Muslims:

the 9-11 commission Report was brought to you by Condi Rice's best friend, Phil Zelikow; a DE FACTO member of the Bush Administration.

n 1989, in the George H. W. Bush administration, Zelikow was detailed to join the National Security Council, where he was involved as a senior White House staffer in the diplomacy surrounding the German reunification and the diplomatic settlements accompanying the end of the Cold War in Europe. During the first Gulf War he aided President Bush, National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and Secretary of State James Baker in diplomatic affairs related to the coalition. He went on to co-author, with Condoleezza Rice, the book Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft , an academic treatment of the politics of reunification, which was published in 1995

In late 2000 and early 2001, Zelikow served on President Bush's transition team. After George W. Bush took office, Zelikow was named to a position on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board [PFIAB], and worked on other task forces and commissions as well. He directed the bipartisan National Commission on Federal Election Reform, created after the 2000 election and chaired by former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, along with Lloyd Cutler and Bob Michel. This Commission's recommendations led directly to congressional consideration and enactment into law of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.[4]

i would try to convince you, but perhaps you favor some government agency...

you know...instead of the TRUTH!

inna lillahi wa inna lilayhi rajiun

:wa:

 

[GuestFellow]

Please lets not turn this into a 9/11 debate.

 

[جوري]

i would try to convince you, but perhaps you favor some government agency... you know...instead of the TRUTH!

It would be rather low to stoop down to that same level of the all too frequent jibes our dear brother aims at Muslims on board or at large.. but sometimes you wonder where his head and priorities are?!

 

[MustafaMc]

Please lets not turn this into a 9/11 debate.

I understand your point, but I couldn't let slide this post without replying:

I support the war in Afghanistan or rather what our original mission was: to capture bin Laden and cripple al-Qaeda. I do not believe the 911wasaninsidejob.com crowd and anyone who does is either a tool or just looking for reasons to complain about the US.

However, can anyone reasonably 'support the troops' in Afghanistan and Iraq and the unmanned killer drones in Pakistan without going back ultimately to 9/11?

 

[Ansariyah]

Theres no distinction betweeen a Government & Its troops. Cause at the end of the day the troops are fighting in the name of that goverment, they're all joined as one. There are alot of people out there who think that being a soldier is a cool thing, we see it in movies, on the news. Theres just this general 'hero' image thats attached to a man in uniform. People can be senseless Patriots. They dont know what goes on in the real world, n honestly alot of them dont care. They rather cheer for their 'men in uniform' same way they cheer for their fav football team.

 

[YusufNoor]

It would be rather low to stoop down to that same level of the all too frequent jibes our dear brother aims at Muslims on board or at large.. but sometimes you wonder where his head and priorities are?!

i've shown much of the evidence of the truth of 9/11 to MANY, MANY non-Muslims. NONE believe the Bush Administrations lies any more!

some of the 1st words my mom asked me when she came to visit were, "what do you think of them wanting to build a Mosque at ground zero?" i replied, "let me show you a few things. THEN you tell me if you want to ask me the same question!"

all my mom could say was, "I wished I kept my Canadian citizenship!" she was actually quite horrified at the truth. she was near tears when watching Indira Singh.

and she DID NOT repeat the question!

the wars in Asia were planned BEFORE 9/11, for oil, drugs and $$$. AMERICA is turning into NAZI Germany [if not already there]. how can you support people murdering innocent people?

the troops are brainwashed, like most Americans. their goal? democracy? hardly! if they were pro-democracy, they'd try to to establish it it HERE! they are convinced that they need to kill Muslims and eradicate Islam.

but they are kuffar. that makes them easy to brainwash. a Muslim should know better! we are REQUIRED to seek the truth!

if Muslim CHOOSES to remain brainwashed, how do we get him/her to "stop drinking the fluoridated water?" eh?

shame on Muslims who deny the truth!

 

[IAmZamzam]

This does not explain how it is possible to support the troops but not the war.

And yet I've already explained that:

The idea behind the expression, "I support the troops but not the war," is that there is no better way possible to support the troops than to protest their inclusion in a war that needlessly puts their lives at stake.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Why do people find it so hard to accept that "Muslims" really did hijack and crash those planes? Do they think it's the first time that people have done horribly unIslamic things in the name of Islam? Is everyone who accepts this unpleasant truth automatically brainwashed by the U.S. government? Really? Even though I have explained repeatedly, even in this very thread, how much I can't stand the U.S. government? I gave you a source and there are plenty more where that came from, feel free to ask or, for that matter, to look them up yourself. I wonder how many more Muslims would side with those who insist that the moon landing was fake had Neil Armstrong been a fanatic from a Middle Eastern country who gave a speech on the moon about American civilians everywhere needing to die.