You still don't get it. Of course things were hit other than the desired targets--that's inevitable in war. Showing that non-military targets were hit is about as relevant as showing the moon is gray.
-
Features
Creepy Jill Stein: Gushes over Putin and Russian support for human rights in video from Red Square in Moscow
- Thread starter Axulus
- Start date
You still don't get it. Of course things were hit other than the desired targets--that's inevitable in war. Showing that non-military targets were hit is about as relevant as showing the moon is gray.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
No, you still don't get it. Of course I realize that showing that non-military targets were hit is about as relevant as showing the moon is gray. It should be obvious to a rational reader that I realize that. Of course that has nothing to do with my question. My question in this part of the exchange was whether you think the targets of the nuclear bombs were only military factories, rather than military factories + other stuff, including the civilian population. Your reply is that the question is irrelevant. Okay, so my answer is:Loren Pechtel said:
Given that you claim that the nuclear bombs were not terrorist attacks, it seems that you think they weren't terrorist attacks regardless of whether, in addition to military targets, there were civilian targets (else, my question would not be irrelevant). Either way, the existence of military targets among the targets gets the attacks classified as non-terrorist.
Is that correct?
So, for example, if IS detonated a nuke in Washington D.C., in order to kill the POTUS (who is the commander in chief of the US armed forces), and to kill as many civilians as they can kill, you would classify their action as not a terrorist one, because there was a military target?
If that's not your position, then how is my question irrelevant?
In addition to that, you're ignoring my other points, such as the fact that the UK targeted civilians in WW2, or my reply to your claim that the Saudi behavior isn't terrorism because the Saudis believe they are punishing a guilty party.
Bloody hell. Sigh. You have no idea what you are talking about.
TCM was promoted and at great extent created by Mao.
TCM is no medical school of though and methods it us just anything that was done or known prior to modern medicine. Of course there where smart people that got one or two thibgs right but that doesnt mean that TCM is anything but any bullshit that people believed in.
lpetrich
Contributor
Looking at a certain person's arguments here, those arguments seem like something often attributed to Communists by their opponents, that they believe in an ethic of "one must break eggs to make an omelet".
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
...and I'm assuming that when you say "non-military targets were hit" you mean "things that weren't military targets were hit", because if you mean that it's irrelevant whether some targets that were not military but civilian targets, were hit, that would be irrelevant too (i.e., whether they were hit would be irrelevant), but it would imply that the US was targeting civilians, which seems to be relevant, unless you also demand the intent to instill fear - given that you deny that there was such intent.
Then why do you keep bringing it up?
Exactly.
If "kill as many civilians as they can" is part of the target list it's terrorism.
The Saudis are punishing a party that is guilty by their laws. You may disagree with the laws but that doesn't make it terrorism.
Created by Mao? My FIL was trained in TCM--before the time of Mao.
Pointing out that it's what was known before modern medicine doesn't mean it's useless. It has a long history of practitioners passing on their knowledge of what works. This is nowhere near as good as a proper double-blind study (TCM certainly includes a lot of placebo-effect things) but the lack of an FDA stamp doesn't prove something doesn't work.
The basic problem with the FDA approach is that it insists on perfection even when that is realistically attainable. Suppose an alien shows up and hands you a formula for curing cancer. There are 100 chemicals, none of which are dangerous to humans. Take the concoction and the cancer is gone. You go to the FDA to get this approved--nope, it's not going to happen. To make it worse the research that would be required to get something that could pass FDA muster is not going to pass muster before any ethnics board. You have a formula that will save millions but the only possible approach is to sell it through the health food stores or else do a public appeal to get Congress to smack the FDA around with a clue-by-4.
This isn't entirely hypothetical, either--there's a treatment for intractable infections that's based on using a whole bunch of viruses. It's not available in the US because nobody is going to spend the gargantuan sums needed to figure out exactly which viruses work on which infections, not to mention the ethics of a test which pits a working treatment against a likely not-working treatment.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
I keep asking whether you think the only targets were military ones, not whether you think only military facilities, factories, etc., were hit.Loren Pechtel said:
As I said, I'm assuming that when you say "non-military targets were hit" you mean "things that weren't military targets were hit", because if you mean that it's irrelevant whether some targets that were not military but civilian targets, were hit, that would be irrelevant too (i.e., whether they were hit would be irrelevant), but it would imply that the US was targeting civilians, which seems to be relevant, unless you also demand the intent to instill fear - given that you deny that there was such intent.
Alright, then.Loren Pechtel said:
So, if IS detonated a nuke in Washington D.C., in order to kill the POTUS (who is the commander in chief of the US armed forces), and to kill as many civilians as they can kill, by your conception of "terrorism", their action would not be a terrorist one, because there was a military target in addition to civilian ones. Unless, of course, you apply a different definition of "terrorism" when it comes to US actions versus IS actions.
And yet, you make an exception for the US, in the same post.Loren Pechtel said:
Again, please follow the exchange.
My question in this part of the exchange was whether you think the targets of the nuclear bombs were only military factories, rather than military factories + other stuff, including the civilian population. Your reply is that the question is irrelevant.
In other words, you replied that it's irrelevant whether, in addition to military factories, the civilian population was among the targets of the US nuclear bombs.
You even went on to say "Exactly" when I said "Given that you claim that the nuclear bombs were not terrorist attacks, it seems that you think they weren't terrorist attacks regardless of whether, in addition to military targets, there were civilian targets (else, my question would not be irrelevant). Either way, the existence of military targets among the targets gets the attacks classified as non-terrorist. Is that correct?"
So, as long as there is one military target, a US action is not terrorist even if they also target plenty of civilians, but on the other hand, as long as there is one civilian target, an IS action is terrorist, regardless of whether they also have military targets. Do you see the blatant double standard? Or is it the case that you still do not even understand the exchange? I'm speaking in English, you should be able to understand my words.
Again, the question you classified as "irrelevant" is whether you think the US was targeting only military facilities or military facilities + civilians. You haven't yet answered that question. Can you even see the problem with your replies in that part of the exchange? Frankly, it's frustrating.
Elixir
Made in America
If Trump is elected, they'd probably have a better chance of getting him by nuking Moscow.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Yes, in that case, they are, by Sharia Law (or the Saudi interpretation of it, if you like). I already know that.Loren Pechtel said:
But why not?Loren Pechtel said:
In the thread that you started entitled "ISIS in their own words"), you posted a link to an article where ISIS makes it clear that they believe that their targets are in fact guilty and deserve what they're doing to them.
You take their words at face value, when you say "Now can you apologists quit ascribing them motives they explicitly deny? Or do you not care one bit about the truth?"
Granting they're being sincere about their motives, they clearly believe - for example - that if they kill "liberalist sodomites", they're killing guilty parties.
So, by ISIS standards, their targets are the guilty parties.
Would you then conclude that ISIS doesn't engage in terrorist activities, because ISIS members believe that the parties they target are guilty?
If not, why not?
What makes ISIS terrorist, but Saudi Arabia not terrorist?
After all, they both target people who are not combatants but whom they consider guilty, by their own standards - their own interpretation of Islam and Sharia Law.