Afghanistan.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think you can compare "a member of a racial minority murdered someone" to "members of a foreign military who have been occupying a country for more than a decade now and who the native population is not exactly thrilled with pissing on the corpses of their countrymen."

 

I'm not saying that the violent reactions would be rational or reasonable. What I find absurd is the idea that it literally does not matter at all what US soldiers do, that policy and actions have zero impact because those crazy Afghans are just going to blow something up. That they are innately "hateful people" and that there's nothing that drives them to this hate.

Edited January 13, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

So nothing the US ever does could possibly incite violent reaction? It's all deterministic? Whether we pass out food or piss on corpses, the responses will be the exact same?

 

I don't get the logic behind

 

(1) US bombing/killing Taliban soldiers =/= more terrorists and increased risk

 

but

 

(2) US bombing/killing Taliban soldiers and then pissing on their remains = more terrorists and increased risk

 

Is the extremist on the edge of joining the fight really going to be pushed over the edge by this? "I'm acceptable of Americans killing these soldiers, but pissing on them? THIS WILL NOT STAND!"

 

GMAB. It's a terrible thing they did. It should not be condoned. They should be punished. But it'll have ZERO increase in harm to US soldiers. Ordering another Big Mac and allowing your wife to show her face in public will have more of an effect.

[Y2HH]

I don't think you can compare "a member of a racial minority murdered someone" to "members of a foreign military who have been occupying a country for more than a decade now and who the native population is not exactly thrilled with pissing on the corpses of their countrymen."

 

I'm not saying that the violent reactions would be rational or reasonable. What I find absurd is the idea that it literally does not matter at all what US soldiers do, that policy and actions have zero impact because those crazy Afghans are just going to blow something up. That they are innately "hateful people" and that there's nothing that drives them to this hate.

 

These hateful people hated us long before we went there...and before they hated us, they hated someone else...and before they hated that someone else, they hated Jews. War has been being waged there for thousands of years...but we're the problem?!

 

And it's not just them, either...hateful people like that are all over the world.

[EvilMonkey]

I don't get the logic behind

 

(1) US bombing/killing Taliban soldiers =/= more terrorists and increased risk

 

but

 

(2) US bombing/killing Taliban soldiers and then pissing on their remains = more terrorists and increased risk

 

Is the extremist on the edge of joining the fight really going to be pushed over the edge by this? "I'm acceptable of Americans killing these soldiers, but pissing on them? THIS WILL NOT STAND!"

 

GMAB. It's a terrible thing they did. It should not be condoned. They should be punished. But it'll have ZERO increase in harm to US soldiers. Ordering another Big Mac and allowing your wife to show her face in public will have more of an effect.

The big question is what will the punishment be? You can bet it will be a way over the top reaction to unsuccessfully try and placate the savages.

[Y2HH]

The big question is what will the punishment be? You can bet it will be a way over the top reaction to unsuccessfully try and placate the savages.

 

You could literally and publicly behead these guys with a rusty hacksaw...and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. They'd still get "angreh" and blame the entire US population and every soldier that had nothing to do with it.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

I don't get the logic behind

 

(1) US bombing/killing Taliban soldiers =/= more terrorists and increased risk

 

but

 

(2) US bombing/killing Taliban soldiers and then pissing on their remains = more terrorists and increased risk

 

Is the extremist on the edge of joining the fight really going to be pushed over the edge by this? "I'm acceptable of Americans killing these soldiers, but pissing on them? THIS WILL NOT STAND!"

 

One of the common arguments against why Iraq was such a dumb war was that it increased antagonism towards the US, so I'm not sure whose logic you're presenting.

 

GMAB. It's a terrible thing they did. It should not be condoned. They should be punished. But it'll have ZERO increase in harm to US soldiers. Ordering another Big Mac and allowing your wife to show her face in public will have more of an effect.

How can you claim that it will have zero effect? This is going to be played repeatedly. It will lower opinions of the US military in the region, decreasing support.

 

Will it push someone into killing? Maybe, maybe not. Will it push someone who might have turned over some information to keeping quiet? I think there's a very good probably of something like that.

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

So maybe we should hate all Muslims every time they cut off someone's head, or beat a woman, or marry a 12 year old. That seems to fit the logic.

 

 

It fits their logic 100%, actually.

 

But of course they'll deny it. Queue up goal post move in 3...2...1...

 

Please detail how "really stupid bigotry" follows from "videos of US soldiers pissing on corpses will damage opinions of US soldiers and likely increase dangers in the region."

[Y2HH]

Please detail how "really stupid bigotry" follows from "videos of US soldiers pissing on corpses will damage opinions of US soldiers and likely increase dangers in the region."

 

Because it's ALL based on stupid.

 

Getting mad at all Muslims because a few are stupid is...well, stupid.

 

Getting mad at all US citizens or military personal because a few are stupid is...well, stupid.

 

How you CAN'T connect such dots is beyond me.

 

It's stupidity begetting stupidity.

[Jenksismyhero]

One of the common arguments against why Iraq was such a dumb war was that it increased antagonism towards the US, so I'm not sure whose logic you're presenting.

 

Different war, different people. Who in the world thinks it was wrong for the US to go after the Taliban? No one, not even the locals in Afghanistan. I don't see who this imaginary almost-extremist Balta created will come from.

 

How can you claim that it will have zero effect? This is going to be played repeatedly. It will lower opinions of the US military in the region, decreasing support.

 

If these end up being civilians, that's one thing. But right now it's more likely Taliban soldiers, who the region already hates (though less than 10 years ago). Again, it makes no sense that someone will be fine with Americans killing these people but doing something after the fact is going to push them over the edge. How does that make any logical sense?

 

"You raped my wife. Well, i'm not going to react violently towards you, but wait! You didn't say thanks when you left? That's just rude and now i don't like you."

 

Will it push someone into killing? Maybe, maybe not. Will it push someone who might have turned over some information to keeping quiet? I think there's a very good probably of something like that.

 

At the very most you might have some people think "well, those guys suck." It's not going to be some rallying cry for Taliban recruitment. And the reaction should be tempered in their respective groups because stereotyping Americans as a whole based the act of a few would be wrong and unacceptable.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Because it's ALL based on stupid.

 

Getting mad at all Muslims because a few are stupid is...well, stupid.

 

Getting mad at all US citizens or military personal because a few are stupid is...well, stupid.

 

How you CAN'T connect such dots is beyond me.

 

It's stupidity begetting stupidity.

 

You're missing the disconnect between explaining likely emotional reactions and justifying those reaction. Nothing Balta or I said condones Alpha's proposed bigotry.

[StrangeSox]

Different war, different people. Who in the world thinks it was wrong for the US to go after the Taliban? No one, not even the locals in Afghanistan. I don't see who this imaginary almost-extremist Balta created will come from.

 

The point is that no one is making those two arguments you laid out together. Plenty of people opposed and still oppose the Afghan war, and that is one of the justifications for opposition. And I'm not sure how many Afghans greeted us in the streets as liberators (who doesn't love a foreign occupation?!), but that's not really directly relevant.

 

If these end up being civilians, that's one thing. But right now it's more likely Taliban soldiers, who the region already hates (though less than 10 years ago). Again, it makes no sense that someone will be fine with Americans killing these people but doing something after the fact is going to push them over the edge. How does that make any logical sense?

 

"You raped my wife. Well, i'm not going to react violently towards you, but wait! You didn't say thanks when you left? That's just rude and now i don't like you."

 

At the very most you might have some people think "well, those guys suck." It's not going to be some rallying cry for Taliban recruitment. And the reaction should be tempered in their respective groups because stereotyping Americans as a whole based the act of a few would be wrong and unacceptable.

 

Your scenarios don't make any sense and, thankfully, no one is arguing them.

 

American troops rely on local support to stay safe. Again, this isn't about pushing an individual to violence necessarily, but to a position of supporting that violence or at least not opposing it.

 

Hiding weapons.

Hiding people.

Not tipping off US soldiers at risk to their own lives.

 

These are all more likely scenarios when you see your countrymen being pissed on by foreign soldiers. Even if you may not agree with them or support their ideology, you're not exactly going to be rushing to support the foreign occupiers who don't even have the decency to respect the dead.

 

It's Abu Gharib all over again.

[Jenksismyhero]

These are all more likely scenarios when you see your countrymen being pissed on by foreign soldiers. Even if you may not agree with them or support their ideology, you're not exactly going to be rushing to support the foreign occupiers who don't even have the decency to respect the dead.

 

It's Abu Gharib all over again.

 

Are you just not thinking this through? How is it logical that you would accept your countrymen being BLOWN TO PIECES without some sort of negative reaction (from actually signing up to fight to just deciding not to help the US with information) but the additional step BEYOND that is somehow going to cause some kind of reaction? That makes no sense at all .

 

Abu Gharib IMO was different since it was a systematic abuse of prisoners of war. This is three rogue soldiers doing something stupid and disrespectful to soldiers they killed.

[StrangeSox]

Are you just not thinking this through? How is it logical that you would accept your countrymen being BLOWN TO PIECES without some sort of negative reaction (from actually signing up to fight to just deciding not to help the US with information) but the additional step BEYOND that is somehow going to cause some kind of reaction? That makes no sense at all.

 

Desecrating corpses tends to trigger a pretty strong response from people in every culture I'm aware of. Are you really trying to contend that this will illicit no response in Afghanis or other people across the world who will see this story? That it won't damage US reputations?

 

Hypothetical:

Maybe you hated the Taliban and were happy to see them driven out, but now this foreign army has shown itself to have no more respect for human decency than the Taliban. Why continue to help?

 

edit: you basically ignored the rest of the post after that bolded part to ask a question I already answered. Have you tried putting yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't support the old, terrible regime (taliban), the current terrible regime (karzai) or the foreign army occupying your homeland?

Edited January 13, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

The reason why this angers SS and Balta so much is because they're hateful terrorists. Edited January 13, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

The reason why this angers SS and Balta so much is because they're hateful terrorists.

 

I'm angry with the terrible arguments you guys are making itt.

[Y2HH]

I'm angry with the terrible arguments you guys are making itt.

 

My argument isn't as terrible as you'd like, that's the only problem. And since there is no way for you to possibly prove this will cost more lives, it's a nice argument for you to put up.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

My argument isn't as terrible as you'd like, that's the only problem.

 

It doesn't quite completely eat itself, but it is close!

 

And since there is no way for you to possibly prove this will cost more lives, it's a nice argument for you to put up.

 

solipsist.

Edited January 13, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

It doesn't quite completely eat itself, but it is close!

 

Only you're wrong.

 

You've yet to shoot down my argument with anything reasonable that doesn't just leap to conclusions you cannot prove. You've yet to do it...because you can't.

[Y2HH]

solipsist.

 

Oh, OMG, you've done it! You've proven your point!

 

Only you still haven't. So let's resort to single word "clever" responses instead.

[Y2HH]

Are you just not thinking this through? How is it logical that you would accept your countrymen being BLOWN TO PIECES without some sort of negative reaction (from actually signing up to fight to just deciding not to help the US with information) but the additional step BEYOND that is somehow going to cause some kind of reaction? That makes no sense at all .

 

Abu Gharib IMO was different since it was a systematic abuse of prisoners of war. This is three rogue soldiers doing something stupid and disrespectful to soldiers they killed.

 

He's attempting to bury what you said now, because he cannot disprove it without tossing out "hypotheticals", which are, you know...hypothetical!

 

You're right it makes no sense at all, because, well...it simply doesn't.

 

Here's a hypothetical of my own.

 

They broke into my house and killed my wife, but left my baby alive...so, eh, I guess I'll let this pass. After all, they were nice enough to leave my baby alive! This is simply dumbf*** logic. DUMB.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Only you're wrong.

 

You've yet to shoot down my argument with anything reasonable that doesn't just leap to conclusions you cannot prove. You've yet to do it...because you can't.

 

I think I've offered up a few decent scenarios illustrating how I can conclude "things will be worse for American soldiers in Afghanistan as a result of this video, where worse=more deadly." Local support will almost assuredly go down, and that demonstrably lessens their intelligence capabilities and increases risk. Put yourself in a hypothetical Afghani's shoes who hates the Taliban, hates Karzai but also doesn't have much love for the foreign army in his country--will this make you less likely to help that foreign army, especially since helping that foreign army can put you and your family at risk from reprisal?

 

On the other hand, we've got claims that videos of foreign soldiers desecrating corpses in a country will cause zero impact, claims which haven't really been supported.

[Jenksismyhero]

Desecrating corpses tends to trigger a pretty strong response from people in every culture I'm aware of. Are you really trying to contend that this will illicit no response in Afghanis or other people across the world who will see this story? That it won't damage US reputations?

 

Hypothetical:

Maybe you hated the Taliban and were happy to see them driven out, but now this foreign army has shown itself to have no more respect for human decency than the Taliban. Why continue to help?

 

edit: you basically ignored the rest of the post after that bolded part to ask a question I already answered. Have you tried putting yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't support the old, terrible regime (taliban), the current terrible regime (karzai) or the foreign army occupying your homeland?

 

Yes, the neutral Afghanis might think negatively about this, but I don't see how suddenly they're going to ASSIST the Taliban because of it.

 

"I don't like the Taliban, I don't like the current admn running my country, and now I don't like the occupying army that's been here for the last 10 years because of this act. WHELP, GUESS I'LL START AIDING THE TALIBAN!" There's a huge, huge leap there. This would make sense if these ended up being random innocent civilians AFTER some pro-taliban PR campaign had started. But as it sits now your typical Afghani doesn't like the taliban and probably doesn't like or is accepting of the current admn, and either likes or is indifferent to America's presence there. Making them think more negative about us isn't going to create a POSITIVE reaction towards for the Taliban.

 

The Taliban hasn't become popular there. They still kill innocent people. And the civilians there still want them gone.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think I've offered up a few decent scenarios illustrating how I can conclude "things will be worse for American soldiers in Afghanistan as a result of this video, where worse=more deadly." Local support will almost assuredly go down, and that demonstrably lessens their intelligence capabilities and increases risk. Put yourself in a hypothetical Afghani's shoes who hates the Taliban, hates Karzai but also doesn't have much love for the foreign army in his country--will this make you less likely to help that foreign army, especially since helping that foreign army can put you and your family at risk from reprisal?

 

On the other hand, we've got claims that videos of foreign soldiers desecrating corpses in a country will cause zero impact, claims which haven't really been supported.

 

LOL. "I've created a hypothetical to prove my point. You haven't. I WIN!"

 

Come on man.

[StrangeSox]

He's attempting to bury what you said now, because he cannot disprove it without tossing out "hypotheticals", which are, you know...hypothetical!

 

You're right it makes no sense at all, because, well...it simply doesn't.

 

Here's a hypothetical of my own.

 

They broke into my house and killed my wife, but left my baby alive...so, eh, I guess I'll let this pass. After all, they were nice enough to leave my baby alive! This is simply dumbf*** logic. DUMB.

 

That is very, very, dumb logic. Good thing I'm not arguing anything really, really dumb like that.

 

Iit's impossible to conclusively prove direct causality in this situation. That doesn't mean that the argument that "actions undertaken by a foreign army that are considered universally offensive have zero impact on support for said army in the foreign country" is equally valid.

[Y2HH]

That is very, very, dumb logic. Good thing I'm not arguing anything really, really dumb like that.

 

Iit's impossible to conclusively prove direct causality in this situation. That doesn't mean that the argument that "actions undertaken by a foreign army that are considered universally offensive have zero impact on support for said army in the foreign country" is equally valid.

 

You ARE arguing something really, really dumb like that.

 

You just did it AGAIN.

 

You are saying, it's fine that they blow up my countrymen into little bits of meat...but DAMN THEM TO HELLLLL FOR PISSING ON THEIR BLOWN TO BITS CORPSES!@#$!@#!#$@! BECAUSE OF THAT DAMN THE PAST, I'M JOINING THE TALIBAN, OR FORGET IT...I'M NO LONGER HELPING THE REST OF THE US MILITARY THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS INCIDENT!@#$!@

 

That's the argument you continue to make.

 

And it's really, really dumb.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Y2HH