The War On An Unpleasant Emotion
-
Just want to let you know you don't have to be afraid anymore.
The War on Terror
terror |ˈterər|
noun
1 extreme fear : people fled in terror | [in sing. ] a terror of darkness.
• the use of such fear to intimidate people, esp. for political reasons : weapons of terror.
• [in sing. ] a person or thing that causes extreme fear : his unyielding scowl became the terror of the Chicago mob.
• ( the Terror) the period of the French Revolution between mid 1793 and July 1794 when the ruling Jacobin faction, dominated by Robespierre, ruthlessly executed anyone considered a threat to their regime. Also called reign of terror .
2 (also holy terror) informal a person, esp. a child, who causes trouble or annoyance : placid and obedient in their parents' presence, but holy terrors when left alone.
So, why don't we just say: The War On Extreme Fear. That makes sense, right?
fear |fi(ə)r|
noun
an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat : drivers are threatening to quit their jobs in fear after a cabby's murder | fear of increasing unemployment | he is prey to irrational fears.
• archaic a mixed feeling of dread and reverence : the love and fear of God.
• ( fear for) a feeling of anxiety concerning the outcome of something or the safety and well-being of someone : police launched a search for the family amid fears for their safety.
• the likelihood of something unwelcome happening : she could observe the other guests without too much fear of attracting attention.
Wait, now we find out something else here. Fear is an emotion? Holy shit, no way! Well, that explains a lot to me here.
So we are actually fighting: The War On An Unpleasant Emotion. Ok, so what is next, the War On Smells that offend Billy Crystal? How the hell do people think that this is a good "war" to be fighting? Why isn't this war being fought here in the States? There was this guy today that pulled out in front of me. I felt fear for my life at that moment. Does that in fact make him a terrorist? By the New Oxford American Dictionary standards, he is. But he may just be a normal guy, that has a family and a mortgage, and job.
Am I the only one who is upset by this? I mean, emotions never change. They are absolute, and are clear cut. I apologize for not having a point to this, but I just came to this realization laying here, and thought I would comment on it. -
QUOTE (Evestay @ Aug 6 2008, 05:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>fine by me if you want to call it something else- ie the war on radical islamists
Wars against religion are just awesome. Don't you agree?
/nothing personal, I just chose you as my heckle-target a while ago.
-
QUOTE (ANunes @ Aug 7 2008, 05:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Tell that to the [hundred thousand] non-radical Muslims that are dead because of this stupid fucking war.
It appears you were missing a key component of your sentiment. -
That's a misleading question, though. It doesn't really matter who pulls the trigger when responsibility for the entire situation clearly lies in the hands of one party (us). We fucked up, they took advantage of the situation, and as a result, our bombs and their IEDs are killing thousands of innocent people.
-
And there's no shortage of families that have been completely annihilated by our contractors because they didn't stop at a checkpoint. You can justify it however you want but if some foreign military put shit up on your street and your neighbors got merked by SAW's you wouldn't accept "they didn't stop at the checkpoint" as an excuse.
-
QUOTE (ANunes @ Aug 8 2008, 08:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>And there's no shortage of families that have been completely annihilated by our contractors because they didn't stop at a checkpoint. You can justify it however you want but if some foreign military put shit up on your street and your neighbors got merked by SAW's you wouldn't accept "they didn't stop at the checkpoint" as an excuse.
How about they were complete fucking morons for not stopping at a checkpoint? Would you rather the soldiers just let the car pass not knowing who is in it or what their intentions are? Let them drive it into a barracks and detonate a car bomb?
-
Nope. But your straw man is impressive. I bet it feels good to knock it down. Actually I think the soldiers acted completely within the terms of engagement. You asked who killed more non radical Muslims. Court says it doesn't matter, and I said I think we killed plenty of innocents. In fact, we've killed more innocents than Al-Qaeda did on 9-11. Many many times more.
There's no way to really qualify HOW they died, and we're not even interested enough in it to try and find out how MANY are dead. But because we're there there are (in conservative estimates) just under a hundred thousand dead Iraqi civilians.
I understand it's hard for our soldiers to make some of the choices they are forced to make every day. The kid you rescue from a firefight might have a bomb strapped to his chest by his "uncle". blah blah. Our soldiers are doing a hell of a job over there, and they are partly responsible for the reduced violence in the region. (Along with the BILLIONS of dollars we've bribed local militias with to stop shooting at Americans)
I don't really appreciate your attitude though. The whole "fuck em" thing doesn't fly so well with me. I'm sure that's what the radicals over there say about the 3k innocent Americans that died in THEIR attacks. "Collateral damage." or "They are responsible for letting things get this bad" or some other such bullshit. I'm kind of offended at your dismissal of their loss by calling them fucking morons. -
How is that a dismissal of their loss? They're morons for not stopping, just like people are morons for smoking or for driving drunk. You KNOW that it's bad for your health, yet you do it anyway. Not stopping at a checkpoint full of warnings, stop signs and men waving guns is stupid. Yes, it is a shame that people have died in such a manner. Sad for both the people that died and the soldiers that were forced to shoot them. But being sad doesn't change the fact that the people were morons for getting themselves killed in such a way. I'd say the same thing about that drunk driver hitting a tree or the guy that chain smoked for 40 years and died of cancer. Fucking morons.
-
QUOTE (ANunes @ Aug 11 2008, 10:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It's dismissive because ... oh wait, you're a douche. Never mind. Carry on.
That's it? Way to degenerate the conversation into 3rd grade mannerisms. -
I believe you're the one who first started name calling. Not at me, but at fucking VICTIMS. Let's check...QUOTEHow about they were complete fucking morons
yep. Way to degenerate the conversation into 3rd grade mannerisms and then try to justify it as a legitimate discourse, and THEN try to blame me for thinking you're being a cock. -
"Plenty of 'tarded people go on to lead totally kick ass lives. My sister was 'tarded and now she's a pilot."
If the checkpoints designed to keep people safe are resulting in more people getting shot because they "didn't stop" (which I trust 100% of the time is the case [yeah effing right]) than they are saving, then maybe the checkpoints shouldn't be there?
And the only way to deal with people who roll through a checkpoint at 15-20 mph is to pump their car full of lead?
I. Don't. Buy. It.
If they were seriously intent on causing trouble wouldn't they barrel through so fast the guards wouldn't be able to get 60-100 bullets through their doors?
And what the fuck did Iraq do to us to deserve this crap anyway?
I have hundreds more reasons to be pissed about our presence there, the checkpoint bullshit is one of them. -
"General Petraeus hails SAS after Iraq success over al-Qaeda car bombers"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle4499952.eceQUOTE“They have helped immensely in the Baghdad area, in particular, to take down the al-Qaeda car bomb networks and other al-Qaeda operations in Iraq’s capital city, so they have done a phenomenal job in that regard,” he told The Times in an interview at his office in Baghdad’s fortified green zone.
On one occasion, SAS troops rented a pink pickup truck, stripped off their body armour to blend in better with the local population, jumped behind the wheel and drove through the traffic to catch a key target.
So yes, suicide car bombers did exist, and yes, I believe checkpoints were a necessary nuisance. -
QUOTE (ANunes @ Aug 12 2008, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>"Plenty of 'tarded people go on to lead totally kick ass lives. My sister was 'tarded and now she's a pilot."
If the checkpoints designed to keep people safe are resulting in more people getting shot because they "didn't stop" (which I trust 100% of the time is the case [yeah effing right]) than they are saving, then maybe the checkpoints shouldn't be there?
And the only way to deal with people who roll through a checkpoint at 15-20 mph is to pump their car full of lead?
I. Don't. Buy. It.
If they were seriously intent on causing trouble wouldn't they barrel through so fast the guards wouldn't be able to get 60-100 bullets through their doors?
And what the fuck did Iraq do to us to deserve this crap anyway?
I have hundreds more reasons to be pissed about our presence there, the checkpoint bullshit is one of them.
Name another way to stop a car bomb intent on blowing up the checkpoint and the soldiers managing it. Ask them nicely?
You stick checkpoints at places with clearly defined lanes of fire and plenty of warning for the people manning the checkpoint. For that reason, and the fact that the most basic rifle carried by US Soldiers and Marines in Iraq has a rate of fire around 13 rounds a second, then only a few seconds would be more then enough time for a hand full of soldiers to put 100 rounds into the car. -
That's a perfect solution ANunes. Have our soldiers use deployable spike strips. Spike Strips are perfect and have been used in the US for a long time. The only downside? - they work about 20% of the time. The other 80% works about as follows - 40% the person "avoids" the strip, 20% the officer "fails to deploy correctly" and 20% the person decides he doesn't give a fuck and drives straight toward the officer deploying the strip. I don't know why you sympathize so much with those that only want to kill our soldiers but I as a trained US soldier know that if someone with an unknown intention drives through a checkpoint, I am going to shoot to kill. Checkpoints are VERY well signed and NOT easy to miss.
After reading countless of your posts it appears you try to jump on any anti-Bush bandwagon available and most are just inconsequential. If you're such a Bush-hater, please for the rest of our sakes just ask Gov to make a specific group for you so we can easily ignore your retarded attacks. Personally, I enjoy reading liberal, conservative, democratic, republican, and any other posts as long as they have a decent way to defend their position.
Unfortunatelly ANunes seems to only listen to the Jewish liberal media who report only the one side of the war that helps their causes. That's why he seems to defend the moronic Obama so faithfully.
Open your minds and learn what's REALLY happening around the world.
Respite -
QUOTE (Respite @ Aug 14 2008, 12:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>That's a perfect solution ANunes. Have our soldiers use deployable spike strips. Spike Strips are perfect and have been used in the US for a long time. The only downside? - they work about 20% of the time. The other 80% works about as follows - 40% the person "avoids" the strip, 20% the officer "fails to deploy correctly" and 20% the person decides he doesn't give a fuck and drives straight toward the officer deploying the strip. I don't know why you sympathize so much with those that only want to kill our soldiers but I as a trained US soldier know that if someone with an unknown intention drives through a checkpoint, I am going to shoot to kill. Checkpoints are VERY well signed and NOT easy to miss.
After reading countless of your posts it appears you try to jump on any anti-Bush bandwagon available and most are just inconsequential. If you're such a Bush-hater, please for the rest of our sakes just ask Gov to make a specific group for you so we can easily ignore your retarded attacks. Personally, I enjoy reading liberal, conservative, democratic, republican, and any other posts as long as they have a decent way to defend their position.
Unfortunatelly ANunes seems to only listen to the Jewish liberal media who report only the one side of the war that helps their causes. That's why he seems to defend the moronic Obama so faithfully.
Open your minds and learn what's REALLY happening around the world.
Respite
I'll let Andrew defend himself, but I have to comment about the latter portion of your post:
At least from the words you've chosen to use here, it just sounds like you're the polar opposite of what you're accusing Andrew of being (which isn't a compliment). "The Jewish liberal media"? "The moronic Obama"? Did you just grab sound bites from Bill-O? -
As much as I semi-disagree with Andrew, I don't see how he's not properly defending his position. He doesn't want people to die. People are dying. People are being killed because they run a checkpoint, and how many of these people are actually terrorists? Not the majority. More importantly, what happens when they start shooting up cars filled with explosives? Good idea.
He's simply saying that shooting the shit out of anything that doesn't completely follow your orders (American cops with tasers, anyone?) is a terrible way of going about things (It is) and there has to be an alternate solution. Just because his idea isn't perfect doesn't completely invalidate his opinions.
Also, Respite, "the moronic Obama" and "The Jewish liberal media"? Really? Is that the best you could come up with? -
I'm sorry Andrew. You are wrong. Seriously, what is wrong with you. Your shit's all retarded.QUOTE (ANunes @ Aug 12 2008, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>"Plenty of 'tarded people go on to lead totally kick ass lives. My sister was 'tarded and now she's a pilot."
The quote is: "Now, there are plenty of tards out there living really kick ass lives. My first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now."
Come on! You should know better.
On to the actual issue.
I find it hard to believe that the checkpoints are costing more lives than they are saving. If you have a source on this one, please link it. I agree with you that shooting at people blowing the checkpoint is not the best way to handle things. I don't agree that we should just drop the checkpoints. If we can find a better way to guard the area until we move our troops out, lets do that, but as far as I know, this is the best we got.
Spike strips is a good idea. If they only work 20% of the time, you just didn't have to resort to firing at a car the times that it did work. There is no reason to not implement other tactics before shooting at them. -
Generation Kill. Good show. Supposed to be a great book.
That wasn't a real checkpoint though. That was just a quickly made blockade of the road.
While I can't saw for certain because I'm not there, from speaking to friends of mine that have been over there, the soldiers don't just start shooting up any car that drives toward them. They do try to give fair warning before letting loose. If nothing else, warning shots of tracers should be a pretty clear message.
The problem with spike strips is they stop everything. Checkpoints don't want to stop everything. They only want to stop the cars that aren't supposed to get through, usually anything that isn't a military vehicle. Trying to say you just deploy the spikes when a car approaches means you have to have someone outside the checkpoint to deploy them, opening them up to enemy attack. Its a good approach, but it isn't practical. -
I'll have you know there is plenty of bush bashing going on that I don't partake in at all. And that's the end of that reply.
I don't have any numbers for the efficiency or accuracy with the checkpoints. Frankly they don't really exist. But I won't presume what they have to say. Merely that if we're looking at 5 carbombs to 1 family then I'm fine with that. Do the best you can to minimize the risk to civilians and that's square. If it's more like 1 to 1? Maybe I'm less keen on that then.
Does anybody know any numbers?
And of course my suggestion is nonsense, but it wasn't intended as a real solution, just a symbol for the investigation into better solutions than overwhelming force.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!