Sums it up nicely thanks [email protected] you dont mind me quoting!kr@cker wrote:
This is kinda like "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", however, most of whom I consider freedom fighters do not:
*Purposefully target women and children
*Purposefully target civilian facilities such as daycares, schools, churches, hospitals
*Use civilians as human shields (one advantage to 9-11 hijacking being public outcry if passenger jets were shot down befoer their intentions were clear, NYT probably would have been critical if they were shot down and their intent was known anyway)
*Recruit children for intelligence gathering, supply running, messaging, or ordinance delivery or detonation (what do you thinkg would happen if the next time a child was spotted counting convoys in Iraq or found running supplies around Palestine and shot or even just detained for it)
*kidnap civilians, including contractors, press reporters, make demands and/or torture/execute them and videotape it
just to name a few, this is an argument of semantics, but I think it's pretty clear what a terrorist is
holy double post Batman!
Only the victors are able to say who was a terrorist and who was not.
I'm sorry, was I spooning again? Or do you like it?-=CB=-krazykarl wrote:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzhuh? wha? oh......zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzkr@cker wrote:
enforcing surrender agreementsarenotb.........reakinglawint..ernation....zzzzzzzzzz
Terrorists are people who wage war on innocent people. They aren't man enough to fight real soldiers face to face. They are cowards. I mean, they are pathetic. When in history has terrorism worked in changing the way a government functions? Never! It never works and it never will. Do you think the civil rights movement would have worked if Martin Luther King, Jr. had instructed all the college students to be suicide bombers? Heck no. Terrorism is for the weak and cowardly.
Actually, terrorism worked quite well in Africa for a few nations. Look up information on the ANC (African National Congress).Capt_Flapjack wrote:
Terrorists are people who wage war on innocent people. They aren't man enough to fight real soldiers face to face. They are cowards. I mean, they are pathetic. When in history has terrorism worked in changing the way a government functions? Never! It never works and it never will. Do you think the civil rights movement would have worked if Martin Luther King, Jr. had instructed all the college students to be suicide bombers? Heck no. Terrorism is for the weak and cowardly.
As overused as that reference is, more would have died via invasion by land, and the Soviets may have felt "obliged" to get involved.GATOR591957 wrote:
Hiroshima ring a bell? We knew with full intent that there were going to be more women and children killed then any military combatants.
There was one bomb on Hiroshima, and one on Nagasaki.(sp?)kr@cker wrote:
unfortunately the only way to bomb a target in WW2 was to carpet bomb and hope you hit something, great pains are taken to avoid this by most nations now, but accidents still happen
So the French underground were cowards in WWII???? I'm sorry they were some of the most courageous fighters in the war. No, I'm not a fan of the French, but in this instance it fit.Capt_Flapjack wrote:
Terrorists are people who wage war on innocent people. They aren't man enough to fight real soldiers face to face. They are cowards. I mean, they are pathetic. When in history has terrorism worked in changing the way a government functions? Never! It never works and it never will. Do you think the civil rights movement would have worked if Martin Luther King, Jr. had instructed all the college students to be suicide bombers? Heck no. Terrorism is for the weak and cowardly.
Look guys in some frame I have to agree that it all depends on which side of the fence you sit. I've given you examples that the US has done the exact same things in our History that is going on today. We just view it differently.
Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-07-07 11:37:11)
at the time, this was considered normal, as each bomb was known to have more destructive power than the fleets of b-17's that were sent to carpet bomb, there was no such thing as a surgical strike at the time, so this blanket devestation of an entire city was not thought to be anything unusual. He who had the most bombs (or just one with an assload of destructive power) won, whereas now he who has the most accurate and efficient bombs wins.GATOR591957 wrote:
There was one bomb on Hiroshima, and one on Nagasaki.(sp?)kr@cker wrote:
unfortunately the only way to bomb a target in WW2 was to carpet bomb and hope you hit something, great pains are taken to avoid this by most nations now, but accidents still happen
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-07 11:37:32)
Are we really winning. I don't see it.kr@cker wrote:
at the time, this was considered normal, as each bomb was known to have more destructive power than the fleets of b-17's that were sent to carpet bomb, there was no such thing as a surgical strike at the time, so this blanket devestation of an entire city was not thought to be anything unusual. He who had the most bombs (or just one with an assload of destructive power) won, whereas now he who has the most accurate and efficient bombs wins.GATOR591957 wrote:
There was one bomb on Hiroshima, and one on Nagasaki.(sp?)kr@cker wrote:
unfortunately the only way to bomb a target in WW2 was to carpet bomb and hope you hit something, great pains are taken to avoid this by most nations now, but accidents still happen
Good point, I agree with you. The French Resistance were great fighters who were fighting for a great cause. They didn't blow up civilians though. Their targets were purely strategic military targets like railways and ammo dumps and stuff like that. What I can't stand are the punks who think blowing up civilians will get their way. The French resistance went up against armed German soldiers. The terrorists nowadays are going up against mothers and children in the local market. If that isn't cowardly, nothing is.GATOR591957 wrote:
So the French underground were cowards in WWII???? I'm sorry they were some of the most courageous fighters in the war. No, I'm not a fan of the French, but in this instance it fit.Capt_Flapjack wrote:
Terrorists are people who wage war on innocent people. They aren't man enough to fight real soldiers face to face. They are cowards. I mean, they are pathetic. When in history has terrorism worked in changing the way a government functions? Never! It never works and it never will. Do you think the civil rights movement would have worked if Martin Luther King, Jr. had instructed all the college students to be suicide bombers? Heck no. Terrorism is for the weak and cowardly.
Let me elaborate. I have three friends in Iraq right now and several that have returned. Most are upset with the way the war is being fought. They feel they could do better without some of the restrictions that have been placed on them. The reason for the high numbers of attacks at markets with IED's is there is only electricity for a couple hours a day. They are not able to refrigerate their food so they must go to the market everyday to get their food. The insurgents know this and plan for it. Remember we were going to rebuild Iraq, they, and I don't see it.GATOR591957 wrote:
Are we really winning. I don't see it.kr@cker wrote:
at the time, this was considered normal, as each bomb was known to have more destructive power than the fleets of b-17's that were sent to carpet bomb, there was no such thing as a surgical strike at the time, so this blanket devestation of an entire city was not thought to be anything unusual. He who had the most bombs (or just one with an assload of destructive power) won, whereas now he who has the most accurate and efficient bombs wins.GATOR591957 wrote:
There was one bomb on Hiroshima, and one on Nagasaki.(sp?)
One man's Terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
I think you have to remember this when considering who can be considered a Terrorist. For example one of the greatest living men today in the world - Nelson Mandela - was very much a Terrorist. Just because we now see his cause as just suddenly terrorism is not seen as quite so bad. Likwise with the IRA. They use terror tactics and are considered terrorists, but many people believe in their cause, (myself included.)
Osama and his crew, well they're pissed off at something. They use terror tactics because that's what is avaliable to them. They willingly kill temselves to commit their acts, but that's a result of both religion and resources avaliable - call them 'people-guided bombs' if you will - it's the only way they see they can make their point, o to speak.
Also remember when considering the Middle-East especialy, Terrorism is the War of the poor, War is the Terrorism of rich, wealthy nations.
I think you have to remember this when considering who can be considered a Terrorist. For example one of the greatest living men today in the world - Nelson Mandela - was very much a Terrorist. Just because we now see his cause as just suddenly terrorism is not seen as quite so bad. Likwise with the IRA. They use terror tactics and are considered terrorists, but many people believe in their cause, (myself included.)
Osama and his crew, well they're pissed off at something. They use terror tactics because that's what is avaliable to them. They willingly kill temselves to commit their acts, but that's a result of both religion and resources avaliable - call them 'people-guided bombs' if you will - it's the only way they see they can make their point, o to speak.
Also remember when considering the Middle-East especialy, Terrorism is the War of the poor, War is the Terrorism of rich, wealthy nations.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
I posted it somewhere yesterday, but in refernce to vietnam, Reagan said (as close as I can recall) "We could have turned it into a parking lot, stripe it yellow, and been home by Christmas"
Tactically, we could have turned the desert into one huge glasstop table, but as much crap as we catch for our tactics now, I could only imagine what it would be like had we actually done that, especially since the action was directed at a dictator, and not the citizens of the country itself. One of the main reasons soldiers are getting hit now is because of the fact that we are trying to limit collateral damage.
Tactically, we could have turned the desert into one huge glasstop table, but as much crap as we catch for our tactics now, I could only imagine what it would be like had we actually done that, especially since the action was directed at a dictator, and not the citizens of the country itself. One of the main reasons soldiers are getting hit now is because of the fact that we are trying to limit collateral damage.
The opposite is actually true about the emperor, he wanted to end the bloodshed before the bombs were dropped but his generals used their power to continue the war, after they were dropped he used the events as leverage to end the war. Also, we did warn them but did so in a way that they would have been foolish to believe us, we told them that if they didnt surrender we would completely destroy one of their cities (back then that would be like saying the bogeyman was out to get them) and when we did drop the bomb the internal power struggle started and the second one ended it.Capt. Foley wrote:
Well actually, I support the US policies but what the guy above me said is not true, we kept the emperor in power and we didn't tell them we were going to drop the bomb. We did drop leaflets saying things like "Its over, surrender" and stuff. But you cant compare the things we did in WWII to things of today. Thats just beyond stupid. The Germans/Japanese(didnt spell it right) did do those exact same things to us that they werent called terrorists. Terrorists is a modern term that was first used after WWII Im pretty sure. So yea, what kr@cker said is true and that is what a terrorist is considered for most people in there right mind.
It is also true that the bombs saved many lives, if a ground invasion was launched the expected casualty rate for the US soldiers was 90%, and the Japanese were expected to fight to the last man, they armed all of their civilians with sharpened bamboo sticks to fight off any invaders. I believe that the estimated causalities from the invasion were about 2-3 million whereas the bombs only got about 400,000 in comparison.
Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.
this is so true. Maybe they need an outlet to get their point acrossTyferra wrote:
One man's Terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
I think you have to remember this when considering who can be considered a Terrorist. For example one of the greatest living men today in the world - Nelson Mandela - was very much a Terrorist. Just because we now see his cause as just suddenly terrorism is not seen as quite so bad. Likwise with the IRA. They use terror tactics and are considered terrorists, but many people believe in their cause, (myself included.)
Osama and his crew, well they're pissed off at something. They use terror tactics because that's what is avaliable to them. They willingly kill temselves to commit their acts, but that's a result of both religion and resources avaliable - call them 'people-guided bombs' if you will - it's the only way they see they can make their point, o to speak.
Also remember when considering the Middle-East especialy, Terrorism is the War of the poor, War is the Terrorism of rich, wealthy nations.
I don't know the finer details for why this didn't happen, of which I'm sure there are many, but, why couldn't the US/UK send in some black ops to silence Saddam early, and then use alot of political and financial encouragement (building industries) to get a democracy up and running? The whole war I think is counterproductive to the cause, which is so unfair on the military and citizens at home and in Iraq.
At this point you have to ask what was the cause, really
At this point you have to ask what was the cause, really
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-07 12:08:27)
The Geneva Convention prevents assassination of world leaders.Spumantiii wrote:
I don't know the finer details for why this didn't happen, of which I'm sure there are many, but, why couldn't the US/UK send in some black ops to silence Saddam early, and then use alot of political and financial encouragement (building industries) to get a democracy up and running? The whole war I think is counterproductive to the cause, which is so unfair on the military and citizens at home and in Iraq.
At this point you have to ask what was the cause, really
What if they were 'mercenaries'? The US has backed plenty of political assasinations ahem *jfk* coughGATOR591957 wrote:
The Geneva Convention prevents assassination of world leaders.Spumantiii wrote:
I don't know the finer details for why this didn't happen, of which I'm sure there are many, but, why couldn't the US/UK send in some black ops to silence Saddam early, and then use alot of political and financial encouragement (building industries) to get a democracy up and running? The whole war I think is counterproductive to the cause, which is so unfair on the military and citizens at home and in Iraq.
At this point you have to ask what was the cause, really
anything is possible it seems
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-07 12:20:45)
My honest feeling is we should have spoken to Israel if they had any ideas of how to take care of this, and backed them if they got caught. They would have got it done....Spumantiii wrote:
What if they were 'mercenaries'? The US has backed plenty of political assasinations ahem *jfk* coughGATOR591957 wrote:
The Geneva Convention prevents assassination of world leaders.Spumantiii wrote:
I don't know the finer details for why this didn't happen, of which I'm sure there are many, but, why couldn't the US/UK send in some black ops to silence Saddam early, and then use alot of political and financial encouragement (building industries) to get a democracy up and running? The whole war I think is counterproductive to the cause, which is so unfair on the military and citizens at home and in Iraq.
At this point you have to ask what was the cause, really
anything is possible it seems
yeah Mossad is all about that clandestine shit
The use of black ops or mercenaries is passive terrorism...paying off and instructing people to kill and assassinate people for your own political purposes.
Plus it would reflect extremely badly on America in general if that was to happen, since aside from being terrorism, that is also Imperialism. It would mean the return of America's manifest destiny. Even if it is widely perceived as being a "good" thing in a supposedly structured battle of "good" over "evil," manifest destiny cannot rise again in the interest of keeping world peace.
Plus it would reflect extremely badly on America in general if that was to happen, since aside from being terrorism, that is also Imperialism. It would mean the return of America's manifest destiny. Even if it is widely perceived as being a "good" thing in a supposedly structured battle of "good" over "evil," manifest destiny cannot rise again in the interest of keeping world peace.
<and kr@cker doth pause, and kr@cker doth wonder if the world which lay before him wouldst show surprise and bewilderment upon his posting of the gif bearing the title "kennedy headshot", and kr@cker doth remember that there is much bemusement to be had by not receiving the boot by the gods of heathen admins>Spumantiii wrote:
What if they were 'mercenaries'? The US has backed plenty of political assasinations ahem *jfk* coughGATOR591957 wrote:
The Geneva Convention prevents assassination of world leaders.Spumantiii wrote:
I don't know the finer details for why this didn't happen, of which I'm sure there are many, but, why couldn't the US/UK send in some black ops to silence Saddam early, and then use alot of political and financial encouragement (building industries) to get a democracy up and running? The whole war I think is counterproductive to the cause, which is so unfair on the military and citizens at home and in Iraq.
At this point you have to ask what was the cause, really
anything is possible it seems
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-07 12:46:32)
And Gator pondered, what hasts thine Kracker consumed to cloud the corridors of thought and wonderment.kr@cker wrote:
<and kr@cker doth pause, and kr@cker doth wonder if the world which lay before him wouldst show surprise and bewilderment upon his posting of the gif bearing the title "kennedy headshot", and kr@cker doth remember that there is much bemusement to be had by not receiving the boot by the gods of heathen admins>Spumantiii wrote:
What if they were 'mercenaries'? The US has backed plenty of political assasinations ahem *jfk* coughGATOR591957 wrote:
The Geneva Convention prevents assassination of world leaders.
anything is possible it seems