criminal acts one on one is not the same god damn thing as trying to influence elections, and terrorize the general public....you are desperate for an argument nothing more.Jaekus wrote:
Accident vs. a deliberate act like rape and murder?lowing wrote:
why not add the 20,000 people a year killed in car accidents as standard practice....your point is bullshit
You're losing it mate.
Not at all, I just find your argument ridiculous. I'm not sure how many times you have to read the word "extremist" to understand, but there it is again for you.lowing wrote:
criminal acts one on one is not the same god damn thing as trying to influence elections, and terrorize the general public....you are desperate for an argument nothing more.Jaekus wrote:
Accident vs. a deliberate act like rape and murder?lowing wrote:
why not add the 20,000 people a year killed in car accidents as standard practice....your point is bullshit
You're losing it mate.
Ahh ok so now we wanna argue what might have been? Most foiled plots are from Islamic goons anyway, or don't those count?13/f/taiwan wrote:
there are many Timothy McVeigh plots foiled by the feds FREQUENTLY and the damage they can inflict is usually way worse then the one's hatched by muslim extremist.
point is, for such "a few" extremists, they sure do get around don't they?Jaekus wrote:
Not at all, I just find your argument ridiculous. I'm not sure how many times you have to read the word "extremist" to understand, but there it is again for you.lowing wrote:
criminal acts one on one is not the same god damn thing as trying to influence elections, and terrorize the general public....you are desperate for an argument nothing more.Jaekus wrote:
Accident vs. a deliberate act like rape and murder?
You're losing it mate.
You're comparing what, maybe 1,100 suicide attacks in 28 years in Iraq. About one every 9 days. A lot of course, but hardly every day, and out of a current population of 31 million people that puts it to 0.00003% of the population. Hardly "standard practice" either.
This brings up a larger point imo. The main difference as it relates to frequency is not necessarily an ideology, but rather stability and security. Obviously the policing of the west is a lot more effective than the policing of the ME. If we didn't have technological advances, a financially established/sustained system, and properly trained intelligence officials and police.. we might see a lot more Joe Stacks.13/f/taiwan wrote:
there are many Timothy McVeigh plots foiled by the feds FREQUENTLY and the damage they can inflict is usually way worse then the one's hatched by muslim extremist.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
No they're not and no-one's saying that, it is simply applying your logic to a different situation.lowing wrote:
Are you really saying it is the same thing? really?Nic wrote:
People are murdered and raped in America everyday, does that mean rape and murder is standard practice in America?lowing wrote:
I dunno when it happens practically every day, you tell me
It's like me looking at all the news coming from the US and concluding that your typical American stands for random mass shootings. We're not talking about frequency of one versus the other here either so don't bother bringing that up, (Kmar's actually touched on this in his post.) I'm sure you'll agree that a mass shooting shouldn't happen at all. The fact that there seems to be at least two a year doesn't speak to problems in US culture or society or that it's "standard practice" among Americans to go reinact the opening of Saving Private Ryan at a high school.
So why the Hell should you be concluding the same in regard to other places - particularly when you've admitted to me that you have never had any interest in actually learning anything about these cultures you're accusing of such things, instead relying on warped opinion and spun media to back up what you consider facts.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
thats from on killing.13rin wrote:
I remember seeing/reading something about a problem with getting soldiers to fire in battle at a human target. If memory serves correct -in the story, a rifle was found on a civil war battlefield post fight, with 15 rounds stuffed down the barrel. The man was reloading after each volley without firing. After that there was a shift in training and I can't remember exactly what it was, but they were successful. The program/read went on to say that they were so successful and with the advent of full auto coupled by accuracy issues that come with it -Tremendous amount of ammo waste in Vietnam (when the ammo finally worked), they changed the M-16 to have a 3rd burst only. etc... Anyone else ever heard this?eleven bravo wrote:
1234 trained to kill
1234 kill we will
The use of reactive targets effectively conditioned Vietnam-era soldiers and Marines to, if not kill, at least fire their weapon in combat. Prior to that, even during WW2 and Korea, there were serious issues with training infantry to actually discharge their weapons towards other human beings during combat.Cybargs wrote:
thats from on killing.13rin wrote:
After that there was a shift in training and I can't remember exactly what it was, but they were successful.
...Anyone else ever heard this?
The difference is, what is happening in the ME are tactics used to manipulate and terrorize, all part of a major operation and plan. A guy walking into a bank and killing 3 people while trying to rob it for his own gain is not an analogy.Ty wrote:
No they're not and no-one's saying that, it is simply applying your logic to a different situation.lowing wrote:
Are you really saying it is the same thing? really?Nic wrote:
People are murdered and raped in America everyday, does that mean rape and murder is standard practice in America?
It's like me looking at all the news coming from the US and concluding that your typical American stands for random mass shootings. We're not talking about frequency of one versus the other here either so don't bother bringing that up, (Kmar's actually touched on this in his post.) I'm sure you'll agree that a mass shooting shouldn't happen at all. The fact that there seems to be at least two a year doesn't speak to problems in US culture or society or that it's "standard practice" among Americans to go reinact the opening of Saving Private Ryan at a high school.
So why the Hell should you be concluding the same in regard to other places - particularly when you've admitted to me that you have never had any interest in actually learning anything about these cultures you're accusing of such things, instead relying on warped opinion and spun media to back up what you consider facts.
Japan employed Kamikazes' against the US fleet in WW2 as standard practice toward the end of the war, happened all the time. Arguing it didn't, by comparing the number of kamikaze attacks to the entire japanese population is wrong.
I conclude it because it is a common theme among the Islamic goons as part of their over all tactics. Your nonsense about blaming the media for actually reporting on it, and me falling for it is kinda strange as well. I have been to Kuwait, Dubai. I have also been in the war zone but I do not count that as I have never left the bases there. I have gotten emotional over what I have seen as I was flying over in helicopters, and stories I have been told, and watching ceremonies as they load flag draped coffins into airplanes, or almost dying myself from indirect fire into our base. Plenty going on over there that you are not aware of.. Suicide bombers, booby trapped children animals bodies etc happens. So please don't tell me I am warped and my opinions are not valid. I am well aware that my opinions do not include "ALL MUSLIMS", never made any such statements, but on the same hand do not compare the atrocities in the ME with that of some jack off raping a woman in the states.
Now, I have found Dubai to a clean modern city that has left a positive impression on me. In fact one day I wouldn't mind taking my family there for a vacation. Only problem is, with the money it would cost, I would not choose Dubai over Europe as my major "once in a life time" trip. Kuwait, well you can keep Kuwait.
Last edited by lowing (2011-05-09 00:58:06)
well you are about the only one I know of that would not consider a suicide attack, even every 9 days, as common place. That my friend, is denial.Jaekus wrote:
You're comparing what, maybe 1,100 suicide attacks in 28 years in Iraq. About one every 9 days. A lot of course, but hardly every day, and out of a current population of 31 million people that puts it to 0.00003% of the population. Hardly "standard practice" either.
Did you even read the post you just quoted where I said "a lot of course"? I simply said it's not every day like you stated. And you think I'm the one in deniallowing wrote:
well you are about the only one I know of that would not consider a suicide attack, even every 9 days, as common place. That my friend, is denial.Jaekus wrote:
You're comparing what, maybe 1,100 suicide attacks in 28 years in Iraq. About one every 9 days. A lot of course, but hardly every day, and out of a current population of 31 million people that puts it to 0.00003% of the population. Hardly "standard practice" either.
did you read where I said "practically every day"? IE so common it is almost like it happens everyday....Was trying to prove a point, yet you would like to harp on the semantics of it instead of addressing the context as to what I was saying... I can't help that. If I had said LITERALLY every day, well, then ya got me, but I didn't, so find something else to dissect to try and argue.Jaekus wrote:
Did you even read the post you just quoted where I said "a lot of course"? I simply said it's not every day like you stated. And you think I'm the one in deniallowing wrote:
well you are about the only one I know of that would not consider a suicide attack, even every 9 days, as common place. That my friend, is denial.Jaekus wrote:
You're comparing what, maybe 1,100 suicide attacks in 28 years in Iraq. About one every 9 days. A lot of course, but hardly every day, and out of a current population of 31 million people that puts it to 0.00003% of the population. Hardly "standard practice" either.
Last edited by lowing (2011-05-09 00:47:47)
Go back to WW1 - civilian casualties were non-existent, at the start of WW2 both sides solely attacked military targets, that changed eventually.Shocking wrote:
Oh come on, there is loads more emphasis on avoiding civillian casualties than there ever was before. It's ingrained in military doctrine, especially now because there are cameras following your every move in war.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bottom line is we hire other people to do the dirty work, were the Northern Alliance careful about not hitting civilians? When the mujahedeen were working for us did they follow the Geneva convention?Shocking wrote:
You can cite examples from history but the point is that we have learnt from that. We use more sophisticated equipment and handle operations with way more care.
How about when we were shipping detainees to Egypt to be tortured, is that 'more care'?
And we haven't stopped carpet bombing because of concern for civilians, precision bombing is simply cheaper and more effective.
And you have to put the mujahedeen situation in historical context; the cold war. In fighting the USSR almost everything was fair game, but nobody could at that time have foreseen this would've been the consequence.
So really we're working back to where we were around 1900.
Fuck Israel
Civilian casualties were as high as 7,000,000 in WW1. From the outset of WW2 (and in the couple years prior), Japanese troops killed tens of thousands of civilians in China etc and Germany killed thousands in Europe. In the early years of the war, indiscriminate bombing was also very common. Not sure where you are getting your facts.Dilbert_X wrote:
Go back to WW1 - civilian casualties were non-existent, at the start of WW2 both sides solely attacked military targets, that changed eventually.Shocking wrote:
Oh come on, there is loads more emphasis on avoiding civillian casualties than there ever was before. It's ingrained in military doctrine, especially now because there are cameras following your every move in war.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bottom line is we hire other people to do the dirty work, were the Northern Alliance careful about not hitting civilians? When the mujahedeen were working for us did they follow the Geneva convention?
How about when we were shipping detainees to Egypt to be tortured, is that 'more care'?
And we haven't stopped carpet bombing because of concern for civilians, precision bombing is simply cheaper and more effective.
And you have to put the mujahedeen situation in historical context; the cold war. In fighting the USSR almost everything was fair game, but nobody could at that time have foreseen this would've been the consequence.
So really we're working back to where we were around 1900.
Eventually in WWII? Do you know what was happening in China in 1937-1939?Dilbert_X wrote:
Go back to WW1 - civilian casualties were non-existent, at the start of WW2 both sides solely attacked military targets, that changed eventually.Shocking wrote:
Oh come on, there is loads more emphasis on avoiding civillian casualties than there ever was before. It's ingrained in military doctrine, especially now because there are cameras following your every move in war.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bottom line is we hire other people to do the dirty work, were the Northern Alliance careful about not hitting civilians? When the mujahedeen were working for us did they follow the Geneva convention?
How about when we were shipping detainees to Egypt to be tortured, is that 'more care'?
And we haven't stopped carpet bombing because of concern for civilians, precision bombing is simply cheaper and more effective.
And you have to put the mujahedeen situation in historical context; the cold war. In fighting the USSR almost everything was fair game, but nobody could at that time have foreseen this would've been the consequence.
So really we're working back to where we were around 1900.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p3516889
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I was talking about 'advanced' Western nations.
The consequences of Bin Laden being killed? Every other govt now has the right to simply kill anyone they perceive as a threat, or just an inconvenience, or who airs a different opinion.
The US and other Western nations will not be able to criticise.
eg
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/kill-gi … 6049417596
The stupid people didn't foresee it.Shocking wrote:
fighting the USSR almost everything was fair game, but nobody could at that time have foreseen this would've been the consequence.
The consequences of Bin Laden being killed? Every other govt now has the right to simply kill anyone they perceive as a threat, or just an inconvenience, or who airs a different opinion.
The US and other Western nations will not be able to criticise.
eg
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/kill-gi … 6049417596
Fuck Israel
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviati … 0raids.htmLittle BaBy JESUS wrote:
Civilian casualties were as high as 7,000,000 in WW1. From the outset of WW2 (and in the couple years prior), Japanese troops killed tens of thousands of civilians in China etc and Germany killed thousands in Europe. In the early years of the war, indiscriminate bombing was also very common. Not sure where you are getting your facts.Dilbert_X wrote:
Go back to WW1 - civilian casualties were non-existent, at the start of WW2 both sides solely attacked military targets, that changed eventually.Shocking wrote:
Oh come on, there is loads more emphasis on avoiding civillian casualties than there ever was before. It's ingrained in military doctrine, especially now because there are cameras following your every move in war.
And you have to put the mujahedeen situation in historical context; the cold war. In fighting the USSR almost everything was fair game, but nobody could at that time have foreseen this would've been the consequence.
So really we're working back to where we were around 1900.
http://www.century-of-flight.net/Aviation%20history/WW2/bombing%20raids.htm
Lacking accurate radio navigation equipment and flight radar, the British and Canadian bombers could only "precision" bomb in daylight. But without long' range fighter escorts to protect them during day missions, they raided by night, dropping explosives from high altitudes on industrial areas, hoping to hit something-anything-of importance. This was "indiscriminate" or "area" bombing. If they missed, well, they'd make a mess and at least destroy German morale.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You're actually not addessing the point I made, you went down this semantic path so I had to pull you up on it.lowing wrote:
did you read where I said "practically every day"? IE so common it is almost like it happens everyday....Was trying to prove a point, yet you would like to harp on the semantics of it instead of addressing the context as to what I was saying... I can't help that. If I had said LITERALLY every day, well, then ya got me, but I didn't, so find something else to dissect to try and argue.Jaekus wrote:
Did you even read the post you just quoted where I said "a lot of course"? I simply said it's not every day like you stated. And you think I'm the one in deniallowing wrote:
well you are about the only one I know of that would not consider a suicide attack, even every 9 days, as common place. That my friend, is denial.
Fact is blowing up other people isn't standard Islamic practice, and the statistics show as much. No matter how much you want to twist the argument, the figures speak for themselves, not to mention the other paragraph I linked to showing how mainsteam Islam actually condemns suicide attacks.
How about if every nation did this, not just the US and Israel?"Israel can consider that from a legal point of view, the liquidation of bin Laden outside of US borders gives us blanket authorisation to act against terrorists outside our borders," the top-selling Israel Hayom newspaper said.
Fuck Israel
At that time the notion of a single group of people or organisation in some backwards country posing a threat to the western or soviet world was ludicrous.Dilbert_X wrote:
The stupid people didn't foresee it.
Everyone knew that messing with other people wasn't pretty, but nobody could have possibly foreseen that there would be a backlash in the magnitude of say, 9/11. Furthermore, people in general were completely convinced that fighting the USSR was the right thing to do, no matter the circumstance. It's why so many proxy wars happened in the first place, anything was considered better than communist rule, even religious extremists. Beyond that, people didn't expect that they would end up biting the hand that feeds.
Osama was a unique and special case, removing him doesn't herald a collapse of the legal system.Dilbert-X wrote:
The consequences of Bin Laden being killed? Every other govt now has the right to simply kill anyone they perceive as a threat, or just an inconvenience, or who airs a different opinion.
The US and other Western nations will not be able to criticise.
eg
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/kill-gi … 6049417596
Last edited by Shocking (2011-05-09 04:02:52)
inane little opines
Are you sure? We seemed pretty convinced the mujahedeen defeat of the Soviets was a key part of the cold war.Shocking wrote:
At that time the notion of a single group of people or organisation in some backwards country posing a threat to the western or soviet world was ludicrous.
Thats where you're wrong.Osama was a unique and special case, removing him doesn't herald a collapse of the legal system.
Fuck Israel
"Defeat"... anyway, yeah, supported by the US through the CIA investing billions of dollars over a 10 year time period.Dilbert_X wrote:
Are you sure? We seemed pretty convinced the mujahedeen defeat of the Soviets was a key part of the cold war.
Honestly, unless supported in such a manner noone saw a group like that as an actual threat.
No.Thats where you're wrong.
inane little opines
Really?Dilbert_X wrote:
Go back to WW1 - civilian casualties were non-existent, at the start of WW2 both sides solely attacked military targets, that changed eventually.Shocking wrote:
Oh come on, there is loads more emphasis on avoiding civillian casualties than there ever was before. It's ingrained in military doctrine, especially now because there are cameras following your every move in war.Dilbert_X wrote:
Bottom line is we hire other people to do the dirty work, were the Northern Alliance careful about not hitting civilians? When the mujahedeen were working for us did they follow the Geneva convention?
How about when we were shipping detainees to Egypt to be tortured, is that 'more care'?
And we haven't stopped carpet bombing because of concern for civilians, precision bombing is simply cheaper and more effective.
And you have to put the mujahedeen situation in historical context; the cold war. In fighting the USSR almost everything was fair game, but nobody could at that time have foreseen this would've been the consequence.
So really we're working back to where we were around 1900.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWzeppelinraids.htm wrote:
Many places suffered from Zeppelin raids included Edinburgh, Gravesend, Sunderland, the Midlands and the Home Counties. By the end of May 1916 at least 550 British civilians had been killed by German Zeppelins.
The logic used to justify british bombing raids during WWIIIs it okay to blow up a gun factory?
Is it okay to blow up a tank factory?
Is it okay to blow up a soldier factory?
39 km2 of city centre. I wonder how that compares to the collateral in current conflicts.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II wrote:
The Bombing of Dresden was a military bombing by the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) as part of the allied forces between 13 February and 15 February 1945 in the Second World War. In four raids, altogether 3,600 planes, of which 1,300 were heavy bombers, dropped as many as 650,000 incendiaries, together with 8,000 lb. high-explosive bombs and hundreds of 4,000-pounders.[1] In all more than 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices were dropped on the city, the Baroque capital of the German state of Saxony. The resulting firestorm destroyed 15 square miles (39 square kilometres) of the city centre
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-05-09 07:02:03)
examples?13/f/taiwan wrote:
there are many Timothy McVeigh plots foiled by the feds FREQUENTLY and the damage they can inflict is usually way worse then the one's hatched by muslim extremist.