It's ok, I'm sure all the civilians that were killed in the ensuing aftermath would have become terrorists eventually anyway.

Chunk of shrapnel barely missed their heads. No sound.

*brief

This video has been flagged as being less than 1 minute in length - declared brief by RedSky.

>> ^KnivesOut:
It's ok, I'm sure all the civilians that were killed in the ensuing aftermath would have become terrorists eventually anyway.


Don't worry, they've got plenty of children and family members who will certainly become terrorists after the infidels killed their parents. It's their duty to their family and to allah to offer themselves as a sacrifice and take as many of the godless sinners with them as possible.

Whoa.

i'm pretty sure this is a dupe. also, notice the shrapnel that hit the wall right before the cameraman dropped.

>> ^KnivesOut:
It's ok, I'm sure all the civilians that were killed in the ensuing aftermath would have become terrorists eventually anyway.


So, a building is proven to be a legitimate military target by the massive quantity of explosives stored in it, and every resulting casualty should be blamed on the Americans. Yeah, that sounds about right...

The building full of explosives was just sitting there until we dropped a missile into it. Maybe there's better ways to empty a building full of explosives?

I don't even know if there were casualties, honestly, I was just trying to be smarmy, but thanks for getting defensive about it.

>> ^KnivesOut:
The building full of explosives was just sitting there until we dropped a missile into it. Maybe there's better ways to empty a building full of explosives?
I don't even know if there were casualties, honestly, I was just trying to be smarmy, but thanks for getting defensive about it.


I guess it's something about war and people dying that brings out my more serious side and leaves my sense of humor a little lacking.

Maybe there's better ways to empty a building full of explosives?


Great advice, you need to phone the military up right away, I'm sure it just never occurred to them.

I can be smarmy too if you like.

*brief

Video is already flagged brief - ignoring brief request by ant.

0:02 - Smarmy grin on the soldier's face.

wicked

>> ^KnivesOut:
It's ok, I'm sure all the civilians that were killed in the ensuing aftermath would have become terrorists eventually anyway.


They will be now.

That is insane and scary.

>> ^honkeytonk73:
Chunk of shrapnel barely missed their heads. No sound.


I'd give you the transcript, but I don't know how to write down the sound of one shitting one's pants. (?)

Smarmy. Smarmy. Smarmy.

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^KnivesOut:
It's ok, I'm sure all the civilians that were killed in the ensuing aftermath would have become terrorists eventually anyway.

So, a building is proven to be a legitimate military target by the massive quantity of explosives stored in it, and every resulting casualty should be blamed on the Americans. Yeah, that sounds about right...


1) If you can't separate your intended target from the civilians nearby then it's not a legitimate target.
2) Is there a legitimate military target in an illegitimate war? Why are we there again?

Looked like there were other houses right next to the one they bombed. I hope those were insurgent safe houses too.

>> ^alizarin:
1) If you can't separate your intended target from the civilians nearby then it's not a legitimate target.


You really can't separate the war from the civilians. Besides, the USAF has come a long way since the days where it would bomb civilian targets on purpose. The firebombing of Dresden, nuking Japan, napalming villages in Vietnam, etc.

>> ^bcglorf:

Maybe there's better ways to empty a building full of explosives?

Great advice, you need to phone the military up right away, I'm sure it just never occurred to them.
I can be smarmy too if you like.


Oh you're right. I should be duly impressed by how fucking awesome it is to blow shit up in the middle of a suburban neighborhood. Go our team! Boo terrorists!

>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^bcglorf:

Maybe there's better ways to empty a building full of explosives?

Great advice, you need to phone the military up right away, I'm sure it just never occurred to them.
I can be smarmy too if you like.

Oh you're right. I should be duly impressed by how fucking awesome it is to blow shit up in the middle of a suburban neighborhood. Go our team! Boo terrorists!


Maybe you haven't heard but the majority of the explosives stored like this cache usually end up in an automobile and explode in the middle of a marketplace somewhere. Better one big explosion in the attackers home than multiple ones at targets the attacker picked. In the mess that is a war this is still a win, that doesn't have to make it happy, just less sad than the alternative.


illegitimate war?

I'd love to hear someone explain what a 'legitimate' war might look like or consist of.

Legitimate war: a war that is undertaken based on unilateral agreement by a society of nations, and for humanitarian reasons. See "WW2".

Illegitimate war: a war that is undertaken on a lie. See "WMD"s.

Did you love that?

>> ^KnivesOut:
Legitimate war: a war that is undertaken based on unilateral agreement by a society of nations, and for humanitarian reasons. See "WW2".
Illegitimate war: a war that is undertaken on a lie. See "WMD"s.
Did you love that?


I do love seeing someone finally brave enough to try.

I wonder if you have a name for wars that do not fall under either category, what are we to call all of those? You can't define legitimate and illegitimate separately, you must define one, and the other is simply everything that isn't the first:

Legitimate wars are by your definition and illegitimate wars are all the others.
OR
Illegitimate wars are by your definition, and legitimate wars all the others.

Your trying to set your definitions up so you can have your cake and eat it to. Legitimate and illegitimate are the opposite of one another in the English language. You'd seem to like to talk about three types of wars Legitimate,Illegitimate and those that are neither. Don't redefine English to fit your purposes, use the appropriate word to describe what you really mean.

>> ^KnivesOut:
Legitimate war: a war that is undertaken based on unilateral agreement by a society of nations, and for humanitarian reasons. See "WW2".
Illegitimate war: a war that is undertaken on a lie. See "WMD"s.
Did you love that?


I think you mean multilateral, not unilateral. The war we have was a unilateral decision.

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^KnivesOut:
Legitimate war: a war that is undertaken based on unilateral agreement by a society of nations, and for humanitarian reasons. See "WW2".
Illegitimate war: a war that is undertaken on a lie. See "WMD"s.
Did you love that?

I do love seeing someone finally brave enough to try.
I wonder if you have a name for wars that do not fall under either category, what are we to call all of those? You can't define legitimate and illegitimate separately, you must define one, and the other is simply everything that isn't the first:
Legitimate wars are by your definition and illegitimate wars are all the others.
OR
Illegitimate wars are by your definition, and legitimate wars all the others.
Your trying to set your definitions up so you can have your cake and eat it to. Legitimate and illegitimate are the opposite of one another in the English language. You'd seem to like to talk about three types of wars Legitimate,Illegitimate and those that are neither. Don't redefine English to fit your purposes, use the appropriate word to describe what you really mean.


I've said exactly what I mean, that this is an illegitimate war. Blowing up shit in a neighborhood is bad. You're the one defending the war as somehow being righteous or necessary. I don't believe that it is either. If we weren't there in the first place, there wouldn't have been a building full of explosives for us to blow up.

I've said exactly what I mean, that this is an illegitimate war.
And without defining what is meant by illegitimate war nobody knows what you are saying. I can only assume you mean the following then:
An illegitimate war is a war that is undertaken on a lie.
A legitimate war is then, by definition, everything else.

If we can agree on that as a foundation we can actually discuss the issue rather than getting half way in and changing the semantics.


Blowing up shit in a neighborhood is bad.
But it's better than letting the attackers blow up multiple neighborhoods with every effort to maximize the damage, that would be much worse.

You're the one defending the war as somehow being righteous or necessary. I don't believe that it is either
War is bad, but sometimes in our world not fighting a war is worse. Like ignoring dictators that have repeatedly committed genocide against their own people, annexed their neighbors and absorbed them as part of their state, provided international terrorists with not only safe haven, but government offices, and have actively pursued and established WMD programs and successfully hidden them from international inspections. Sometimes not going to war is worse than going to war.


If we weren't there in the first place, there wouldn't have been a building full of explosives for us to blow up.
Pining for the good old days are we? There would instead have been one of the most oppressive dictators in the world carrying out routine executions against all those even suspected of lacking loyalty to him. Like anyone unfortunate enough to born a Kurd, or to spill coffee on a newspaper with Saddam's picture on it. He was even efficient enough that the family was billed for the execution of their loved one that they were forced to watch and applaud. I have trouble thumbing my nose at the Americans the way you seem to.

I like peanut butter and strawberry jam on my toast...

... but, to stay on topic..., I really don't think they knew there were explosives stored in the house - otherwise, they would have been more prepared. Therefor, in my opinion, the arguing is pointless. Just say Whoa... - We can all agree on that much can't we?

Edit: Do terrorists win if we all start fighting amongst ourselves?

>> ^bcglorf:

Maybe there's better ways to empty a building full of explosives?

Great advice, you need to phone the military up right away, I'm sure it just never occurred to them.


Let's say there was a building stacked full of explosives in an american city, would they just shoot a missile at it?

Didn't any of you guys see that one CSI where the bad guy's son murdered a neighborhood kid and when they went looking through the house they found that refrigerator full of homemade liquid explosives?! And Grissom was all OH MAN I SEE A BLOODY KNIFE LIKE RIGHT HERE NEXT TO THE FRIDGE and the ATF or FBI or WTF ever dude was all OH MAN NO YOU CAN'T GRAB IT BECAUSE WE'LL ALL BLOW UP!!!!! AND THEN THEY BLEW UP THE HOUSE.

Remember?! The whole house! Right in the middle of the neighborhood! BOOM! And that was in AMERICA and it was on TV so it HAD to be how the really do stuff in real life!

>.> Seriously, it's a fscking war. What good is bickering about whether it's legitimate or not? If you're for it, yay go team! If you're not, don't go. It doesn't make a lick of difference if you argue on the internet about the fscking war! That's what private messages are for, dammit.

Here's my thought's on the video: Seems dangerous, glad I'm not there!

>> ^bcglorf:
War is bad, but sometimes in our world not fighting a war is worse. Like ignoring dictators that have repeatedly committed genocide against their own people, annexed their neighbors and absorbed them as part of their state, provided international terrorists with not only safe haven, but government offices, and have actively pursued and established WMD programs and successfully hidden them from international inspections. Sometimes not going to war is worse than going to war.

So, in that case the US should unilaterally invade:

North Korea
China
Iran
Syria
Cuba
Burma/Myanmar
Most of Africa, including Sudan

It seems to me that it isn't the US's responsibility, nor within the US's authority to be judge, jury, and executioner for the governments of other nations.

In theory, I'm not opposed to using our military to fight injustice, I just don't think what we did with Iraq ever had anything to do with liberating the Iraqi people. I also don't think terrorism is something you use the military to fight, nor do I think our main focus should be toppling the governments of other countries -- it seems that's more likely to create the kind of violent chaos that terrorism thrives on.

I'm a bit more sympathetic towards using military to police the creation/sale/use of nuclear weapons, but I'm not sure in the long run how effective we're going to be at keeping nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands (i.e. the hands of anyone who would use them), even if we blow up every suspected nuclear facility in the world. But that's really an aside, neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have any nukes.

*fire

Adding video to channels (Fire) - requested by kulpims.