Never happen here .. this is NZ

[SARGE]

yep.. Terrorist DOCTORS (http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/03/1968469.htm) in OZ .. i didnt know Al Qeda knew where anything south of the equator was ( or so i've been told ..)


little closer to home gang .. lets hope the P3's and Herks can defend us

[Big Dave]

yep.. Terrorist DOCTORS (http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/03/1968469.htm) in OZ .. i didnt know Al Qeda knew where anything south of the equator was ( or so i've been told ..)


little closer to home gang .. lets hope the P3's and Herks can defend us

NZ isn't on AQ's list of 'recalcitrant countries' - unlike AUS which has it's nose wedged up dubyahs crack.

[SARGE]

NZ isn't on AQ's list of 'recalcitrant countries' - unlike AUS which has it's nose wedged up dubyahs crack.

true .. but can you think of a better base of operations?

SEE THIS POST (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1033289&postcount=76)


Oz wasnt a target, yet the operatives are embedded into the community



you never see the assassin until the blade is between your ribs ..

[Big Dave]

How 'bout them Lakers - you reckon Kobe will stay?

[SARGE]

How 'bout them Lakers - you reckon Kobe will stay?

that one of them pointy ball games ?

strap an engine on it and i'll watch ,.. chuck claymores on court and i'll watch.. only game i watch is Gridiron and its out of season

i think Hemingway said it best ...



There are only three true sports; Motor Racing, Bullfighting and Mountain Climbing. All the rest are children's games at which men play

[Big Dave]

i think Hemingway said it best ...

What? How to sound like an arse. I cheer for the bull.

[SARGE]

What? How to sound like an arse. I cheer for the bull.

truth be known .. so do i..

i also cheer for the Cincinnati Bengals .. lotta good THATS done me over the years :second:

[Big Dave]

truth be known .. so do i..

i also cheer for the Cincinnati Bengals .. lotta good THATS done me over the years :second:

Could be worse - Four in a row Buffalo.

[Big Dave]

.......................

[Patrick]

NZ isn't on AQ's list of 'recalcitrant countries' - unlike AUS which has it's nose wedged up dubyahs crack.

But it is on the "Crusaders" list, of which the AQs hate most... and I dont mean the rugby team...

[SARGE]

Could be worse - Four in a row Buffalo.

being a Bills fan is its own reward... :doh:

[SARGE]

But it is on the "Crusaders" list, of which the AQs hate most... and I dont mean the rugby team...

we are all infidels arent we?

[Big Dave]

being a Bills fan is its own reward... :doh:


Kelly was pretty good. Just that Elway and Aikman were better.

[Patrick]

we are all infidels arent we?

Most Americans think we are part of Oz anyhow... we are doomed... the sky is falling...

[SARGE]

Most Americans think we are part of Oz anyhow... we are doomed... the sky is falling...

just cuz someone screams the sky is falling dont mean it aint ...


just to be on the safe side .. i am gonna be keeping a close eye on my GP, Dr. Mohammad Akbar Durka Durka Jihad

[Big Dave]

just cuz someone screams the sky is falling dont mean it aint ...


Why don't you invade it then? It has WMD

[SARGE]

Why don't you invade it then? It has WMD



unfair advantage man .. i wouldnt let the media, the hippies or the lawyers anywhere near it ..

[Big Dave]

unfair advantage man .. i wouldnt let the media, the hippies or the lawyers anywhere near it ..


So how come chicken little got elected president!

blows smoke from barrel, spins and holsters.

[SARGE]

So how come chicken little got elected president!

blows smoke from barrel, spins and holsters.

i didnt vote for him ..i voted for myself

never said i liked the cunt anyway.. just the opposite

[Big Dave]

i didnt vote for him ..i voted for myself

never said i liked the cunt anyway.. just the opposite

You're not towing the line mate - like it or leave it and all that.
It could be worse - you could have John Howard.

[SARGE]

You're not towing the line mate - like it or leave it and all that.
It could be worse - you could have John Howard.

never been one to tow any line Dave.. he's a hand puppet pure and simple.. this all started 75 years ago anyway and GW just got to be the one to fuck it up and give into the media and the lawyers ..

i'da done it differently personally

[Big Dave]

How about the Lakers - You reckon Kobe will stay.

[SARGE]

How about the Lakers - You reckon Kobe will stay.

ship him the fuck off with Paris and Brittney (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1112074&postcount=18)

[Big Dave]

ship him the fuck off with Paris and Brittney (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1112074&postcount=18)

'Paris' whom?

[Holy Roller]

we are all infidels arent we?

Some of us more than others

[jimbo600]

NZ isn't on AQ's list of 'recalcitrant countries' - unlike AUS which has it's nose wedged up dubyahs crack.


AQ consider NZ as the same as Aussie. They are mighty pissed off at our contribution in East Timor and Afghanistan. Also being a secular counrty with a christian bias already puts us in their sights. I would wager that there are a few already here using NZ as a staging area.

The biggest threat to security is the belief that no threat exixts.

[NighthawkNZ]

i am gonna be keeping a close eye on my GP, Dr. Mohammad Akbar Durka Durka Jihad

MADD J for short....

[Street Gerbil]

true .. but can you think of a better base of operations?

That's good. They will save us for last.
But when they move in, it will be because of legitimate grievances and Israel's fault. Just because everything else is.

[SARGE]

That's good. They will save us for last.
But when they move in, it will be because of legitimate grievances and Israel's fault. Just because everything else is.

nope .. it'll be due to lax immigration and customs procedures .. and it will be America's Fault

[Pixie]

yep.. Terrorist DOCTORS (http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/03/1968469.htm) in OZ .. i didnt know Al Qeda knew where anything south of the equator was ( or so i've been told ..)


little closer to home gang .. lets hope the P3's and Herks can defend us

Indonesia is south of the equator

[Delerium]

quote strategically benign environment unquote

[Hitcher]

little closer to home gang .. lets hope the P3's and Herks can defend us

The UK military has way better kit than do we, and fat lot of good it's done them. This "war" on terror isn't a war in the traditional sense. It's largely a war of rhetoric by leaders of superpowers who have no bloody idea what to do about it. Clearly invading middle eastern countries and denying people of their fundamental human rights and liberties doesn't help. One wonders what's in store next?

[scumdog]

Off Topic (sort of) but amazing how the persons responsible for the depletion of out armed services are so quick to front their gargoyle type faces to the media when a member of said armed services is getting the Victoria Cross.

Just thought I'd throw that in...

[SARGE]

The UK military has way better kit than do we, and fat lot of good it's done them. This "war" on terror isn't a war in the traditional sense. It's largely a war of rhetoric by leaders of superpowers who have no bloody idea what to do about it. Clearly invading middle eastern countries and denying people of their fundamental human rights and liberties doesn't help. One wonders what's in store next?

jeeze hitcher ..


please dont take this the wrong way because you know that i normally respect your opinion on things .. but at the same time i am not one to sit by and smile politely when i disagree with something ..


you are obviously an educated man .. i just cant understand how someone like yourself can blatantly overlook the big picture here ..


i never guessed you to be a left wing media lemming


if you have some free time ..please go grab a copy of Americas Secret War by George Friedman and give it an open minded read.. this is one of the best books on the subject i have ever read, and it attempts to view everything from a pure neutral perspective ..

highly recommended

[Street Gerbil]

Sarge,
in a sense I have to agree.
War on "Terror" is a losing war by definition, because one cannot win if he fails to identify the enemy correctly.
So it is an empty rhetoric and will remain such until a proverbial spade is called "a spade" and not a "gardening implement of peace".
So as long as leaders of superpowers suffer from hypertrophied PC, I don't expect any real progress.

[SARGE]

Sarge,
in a sense I have to agree.
War on "Terror" is a losing war by definition, because one cannot win if he fails to identify the enemy correctly.
So it is an empty rhetoric and will remain such until a proverbial spade is called "a spade" and not a "gardening implement of peace".
So as long as leaders of superpowers suffer from hypertrophied PC, I don't expect any real progress.



put me in charge .. i'll replace the 'spade' with a big fuck-off sledge hammer

[Street Gerbil]

Well, Sarge, I meant to say that war on "terror" is a hopeless cause, but war on militant islam was won in the past (Spain is known as "Spain" rather than "al-Andalus") and can be won again as long as the enemy is identified correctly without regard of how the UN "security" "council" and "peacniks" at home will react.
BTW have you heard Chuck Norris's take on the problem?
--- "Get the troops out and let me in" :-)

[Swoop]

'Paris' whom?
paris france?

[Sanx]

Well, Sarge, I meant to say that war on "terror" is a hopeless cause, but war on militant islam was won in the past (Spain is known as "Spain" rather than "al-Andalus") and can be won again as long as the enemy is identified correctly without regard of how the UN "security" "council" and "peacniks" at home will react.

Actually, Spain under Muslim rule was a hell of a lot less fanatical than it was under the Catholic rule that followed. Catholic rule in Spain heralded the Spanish Inquisition and could be regarded as the first example of fanaticism in the western world.

[Street Gerbil]

Actually, Spain under Muslim rule was a hell of a lot less fanatical than it was under the Catholic rule that followed. Catholic rule in Spain heralded the Spanish Inquisition and could be regarded as the first example of fanaticism in the western world.

Certainly.
However, unlike the states that failed to shake off the yoke of Islam, Spain managed to reform itself away from the Dark Ages.

[avgas]

Fuck im bored here, terrorism would only make life exciting in NZ

[SARGE]

Certainly.
However, unlike the states that failed to shake off the yoke of Islam, Spain managed to reform itself away from the Dark Ages.

any organized religion is the root of all evil.. the weaker the mind, the stronger the spirituality..

there have been more wars fought " in the name of Gawd" than for any other reason

bin Laden issued a Fatwa (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html) in the mid 1990's against the US, for all intents and purposes, declaring war on the US that very second ..

[SARGE]

Fuck im bored here, terrorism would only make life exciting in NZ

until your family is killed ..torn limb from limb, set on fire and hung from the harbor bridge

[Timber020]

You cant fight terrorism with firepower, but you can create and motivate more of it.
You cant fight it with a foreign policy that alienates you from half your allies while blackmailing the other half.
You cant fight it by trying to enforce a world rulebook while throwing it out with your own actions.

The nations that seem to be Americas enemies are some of the poorest and downtrodden on the planet, and it often doesnt take much guessing whose been doing the most treading. (and the US is far from being the only one)

I have lived in the states, love the place and the people, but so often they seem blind to why events like 911 take place, and then ignorantly think striking out with there massive military is going to make them safer.

It doesnt take great weopons, training or funds to pull off a big terrorist act, it just takes motivation, something the US sadly supplies its enemies in bulk.

[Street Gerbil]

You cant fight terrorism with firepower, but you can create and motivate more of it.
Only if you are fighting shadows. That's the problem with the present war on "terror" as I outlined earlier. Once the correct target (militant Islam as opposed to mythical "islamists") is identified, there is a chance of success.



You cant fight it with a foreign policy that alienates you from half your allies while blackmailing the other half.
If your anti-terrorism actions,intending to make civilians safe, alienate your "allies", than a question must be asked, "do I really need enemies, or the friends will do for now"? Diplomacy is certainly not the tool for fighting terrorism. If fighting terrorism with weapons is akin to fighting fire with fire, diplomacy, i.e. negotiating with terrorists is like fighting fire with fuel.



You cant fight it by trying to enforce a world rulebook while throwing it out with your own actions.
You can't fight by trying. Full stop. Yoda said it best: "Do, or do not. There is no try." That's in part the American problem. They are trying to do the right thing instead of actually doing it. No one fights World War with 50000 troops. It takes millions. The army the size of allied army of WWII could have won their war (on condition that they fight the correct enemy) in a matter of weeks.


The nations that seem to be Americas enemies are some of the poorest and downtrodden on the planet
Actually there is a plenty of serious high rollers on the list.


I have lived in the states, love the place and the people, but so often they seem blind to why events like 911 take place, and then ignorantly think striking out with there massive military is going to make them safer.
That's your personal opinion. Their opinions may differ. We all entitled to one, aren't we? The problem however is not in their massive military. The problem is in their massive PC that prevents their military from doing their job.



It doesnt take great weopons, training or funds to pull off a big terrorist act, it just takes motivation, something the US sadly supplies its enemies in bulk.
Nothing emboldens terrorists more than percieved weakness. US enables terror attacks on itself by strictly following its extremely restrictive rules of engagement, allowing terroists escape unscathed. Have you ever heard about terrorism in China? In Egypt? In Russia? That's because those countries have simple anti-terrorism ROE: "Kill them all and let Allah sort them out". Uigures (sp?), Chechens, and members of Moslem Brotherhood learned that messing with their host countries is just not worth it.

Having said all that, I have to admit that the outlook is not good. President Bush has demonstrated to the world that trying anything that may potentially take more than 4 - 6 years to achieve is a political suicide. This is the one most important thing that will motivate terrorists all over the world for the generations to come - the fact that they can win by attrition. All it takes is to survive one US presidential term.

[Street Gerbil]

any organized religion is the root of all evil.. the weaker the mind, the stronger the spirituality..

Sorry Sarge, I like you a lot and I value your opinion, but I have to disagree.
You ever heard of trouble with organized Buddhism?
The problem is not in the "organizedness" of the religion. The problem is in its message. If the message says "perfect yourself", I have no problem with that. Any religion that says "convert or die" must be eradicated.

[Dave Lobster]

Fuck im bored here, terrorism would only make life exciting in NZ

You've never worked in a CT role, have you?

Once you've seen taken down dead babies nailed to walls (by terrorists), you can live with the boredom of New Zealand.

The only way to deal with terrorism is to kill terrorists. (I can't remember who said this, but they're right)

[babyblade250rr]

Sorry Sarge, I like you a lot and I value your opinion, but I have to disagree.
You ever heard of trouble with organized Buddhism?
The problem is not in the "organizedness" of the religion. The problem is in its message. If the message says "perfect yourself", I have no problem with that. Any religion that says "convert or die" must be eradicated.

As far as i'm aware islam doesn't say covert or die! i believe this is a term used by terrorist. And yes they are from the islamic religion however this is a modified term used for their own advantage i.e: any reason for terrorism, I think you may find that the genuine islamic religion is completely opposite to this.

[babyblade250rr]

You've never worked in a CT role, have you?

Once you've seen taken down dead babies nailed to walls (by terrorists), you can live with the boredom of New Zealand.

The only way to deal with terrorism is to kill terrorists. (I can't remember who said this, but they're right)

i agree there is no place in the world for terrorism!!! well i respect all religion or no religion which ever floats your boat, Why can't people just live in peace keeping their religions to themselves and not preeching to others. If someone wants religion im sure they will steer that way in their own doing

[Dave Lobster]

You ever heard of trouble with organized Buddhism?


Buddhism is more of a way of life, than a religion, isn't it?

[babyblade250rr]

Buddhism is more of a way of life, than a religion, isn't it?

after some breif investigation into buddhism my interpretation is that it's a combination of christianity,islam,hinduism a very peaceful way of life and they don't try to burden people with their religion or way of life which ever you like to call it.


i think thats fantastic

[babyblade250rr]

after some breif investigation into buddhism my interpretation is that it's a combination of christianity,islam,hinduism a very peaceful way of life and they don't try to burden people with their religion or way of life which ever you like to call it.


i think thats fantastic

infact i think they take the positives off all the three main religions to endure a peaceful simple life

[Sanx]

Certainly.
However, unlike the states that failed to shake off the yoke of Islam, Spain managed to reform itself away from the Dark Ages.

Not necessarily true; there are moderate Islamic states, or more accurately states where the population is overwhelmingly Muslim but the government secular. Turkey's a good example; Kemal Attaturk crushed the caliphate after WW1 and imposed a secular regime which has stood the test of time pretty well so far.

Malaysia's another. Despite having a deeply anti-semitic (or anti-Israel, which many Jews incorrectly class as being anti-semitic) prime minister for 22 years (Mahathir bin Mohamad), the country continues offer complete freedom of worship and speech (well, censorship no worse than in many western countries). Islamic law does get applied in matters of family and religion, but only to Muslims.

Albania, since the overthrow of communism in 1990, has transitioned to a multi-party democracy and have even committed troops to the UN forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather than aligning with Muslim states (and let's face it, they had enough provocation with the genocide of ethnic Albanians and Muslims in Bosnia) they've aligned with the west and are seeking entry into NATO and the EU.

Not all Muslim states live in the dark ages. The states to worry about are those that have religious dictatorships or fanatical regimes run by religious zealots. It just so happens that many of them are Muslim, but they haven't got the monopoly. Should one class Communism as a religion (and it fits pretty much all the requirements) then the communist states would fit into the religious zealots category quite nicely too.

[scumdog]

As far as i'm aware islam doesn't say covert or die! i believe this is a term used by terrorist. And yes they are from the islamic religion however this is a modified term used for their own advantage i.e: any reason for terrorism, I think you may find that the genuine islamic religion is completely opposite to this.

Would that the 'proper' believers of Islam would rise up and help wipe out the fanatical pigs-twats that are giving the 'proper' ones a bad name.

[SARGE]

Would that the 'proper' believers of Islam would rise up and help wipe out the fanatical pigs-twats that are giving the 'proper' ones a bad name.

or at least just point in their general direction

save a ton of collateral damage

[Sanx]

Sorry Sarge, I like you a lot and I value your opinion, but I have to disagree.
You ever heard of trouble with organized Buddhism?
The problem is not in the "organizedness" of the religion. The problem is in its message. If the message says "perfect yourself", I have no problem with that. Any religion that says "convert or die" must be eradicated.

But Islam doesn't say 'convert or die'. In fact, the Koran states that Christians and Jews, although not true believers, are "people of the book" and as such should be respected. The Koran also states that other religions are valid and should be honoured, although Muslims should go out and spread the word. The 'die' bit only applies in one case; apostasy, i.e. a Muslim rejecting his beliefs publicly, either by stating he's an atheist or converting to another religion.

Bearing in mind when the Koran was written, it isn't that much out of kilter with what other religions were doing at the same time. The old testament contains instruction on fitting punishment for a huge and varied collection of deeds, including such gems as the death penalty for swearing at one's parents (Exodus 21:17).

The main problem stems from the semi-official Islamic texts. As the Apocrypha are to Christianity and the Talmud is to Judaism, Islam has a similar collection of clerical rantings collectively called the Raselleh (sp?). They're interpretations of what's written in the Koran, usually twisted to fit the viewpoint or political aims of the clerics who penned them. Those are the texts that modern clerics use to justify their actions. It's the Raselleh that led to, amongst others, the rise of the Wahhabi sect of Islam as practiced by the Taleban and in Saudi Arabia.

You mention Buddhism. Well, there really is little organisation behind Buddhism. It's a set of guidelines but beyond the abbot in charge of his abbey, there's little hierarchy. Almost every other religion has a certain number of high-ranking officials. Catholiscm - the Pope. Anglicans - the Archbishop of Canterbury. Judaism - the small number of influential Beth Din. Islam - the relatively small number of influential clerics and mullah.

They tend to be the ones who, from their interpretations of the original religious texts, cause trouble. They incite hatred. They breed intolerance. Because the ill-educated or weak-willed people who follow them do so without thought or question, the world suffers. Arguably, the Catholic church is the prime example of a religious organisation spreading suffering and death. The prohibition on contraception and abortion is the single biggest factor in the massive spread of AIDS across Africa and South America. By refusing to condone contraception even between married couples, birth rates are kept high. The more children, the harder they are to feed and the higher the poverty levels.

Whilst religion itself may not be evil, the manner in which it's practised is. Unfortunately, whilst there are enormous numbers of stupid gullible people in the world, the moronic nature of most religions does not result in the beliefs dying out. Karl Marx got it right; religion is the opiate of the masses. The will of whatever god you happen to follow is a convenient substitute for taking responsibility for your own welfare and actions.

I'm with Sarge on this one; the weaker the mind, the stronger the belief.

[Patrick]

just cuz someone screams the sky is falling dont mean it aint ...


just to be on the safe side .. i am gonna be keeping a close eye on my GP, Dr. Mohammad Akbar Durka Durka Jihad

Through a set of cross hairs perhaps???

[Street Gerbil]

But Islam doesn't say 'convert or die'.
Shit, I am getting too old for this.
Sanx, your post deserves a reply, but I hasn't got the time to do it properly. Can we continue this conversation in a couple of days when my boss (hopefully) gets off my back?

[SARGE]

Through a set of cross hairs perhaps???

i prefer iron sights personally.. less chance of getting them knocked out of alignment and wasting a shot

[Sniper]

i prefer iron sights personally.. less chance of getting them knocked out of alignment and wasting a shot

Iron sights are fine to 300 yards (in my case, more in others) You need to see my favourite transport case for my big rifle.... :D

[SARGE]

Iron sights are fine to 300 yards (in my case, more in others) You need to see my favourite transport case for my big rifle.... :D

i never liked the 1000 yard shots personally .. im more of an up close and personal kinda relationship builder :rockon:

iron sights always did me fine for the ranges i worked at

[babyblade250rr]

Would that the 'proper' believers of Islam would rise up and help wipe out the fanatical pigs-twats that are giving the 'proper' ones a bad name.

Honestly i hope they would especially if they are want to show they are genuine i think there maybe be some muslim (American) troops fighting the war along side

[jimbo600]

i never liked the 1000 yard shots personally .. im more of an up close and personal kinda relationship builder :rockon:

iron sights always did me fine for the ranges i worked at

Jeez all this talk about iron sights and yards. Fuck that, get with the lasers and HE.

Put some area denial stuff in there too to prevent the fuckers returning.

[Hitcher]

So is this thread off topic? It's hard to tell...

[Patrick]

Iron sights are fine to 300 yards (in my case, more in others) You need to see my favourite transport case for my big rifle.... :D

Your Levi jeans???

[Sniper]

Your Levi jeans???

Roffle, not quite.

[SARGE]

Jeez all this talk about iron sights and yards. Fuck that, get with the lasers and HE.

Put some area denial stuff in there too to prevent the fuckers returning.

nah... that stuff is used to make up for lack of training and marksmanship..


and no Hitcher .. this isnt off topic at all..

when the shit hits the fan here .. best to know who can shoot and who needs to be left in the rear with the gear ..

[oldrider]

Off Topic (sort of) but amazing how the persons responsible for the depletion of out armed services are so quick to front their gargoyle type faces to the media when a member of said armed services is getting the Victoria Cross.

Just thought I'd throw that in...

Still off topic:

And I thought nobody else had noticed, yes she has always been one for a Photo opportunity! Just thought, I agree with you! :sick:

[Hitcher]

when the shit hits the fan here .. best to know who can shoot and who needs to be left in the rear with the gear ..

Or who gets shot up the rear?

[Patrick]

Or who gets shot up the rear?

Kepp the yank up front... you know what they say about "friendly fire?" :shutup:

Up there, you can keep your eye on him... Sounds like that is where he would prefer to be anyways.

[SARGE]

Or who gets shot up the rear?

dont beg..your virginity aint worth that much

[SARGE]

Kepp the yank up front... you know what they say about "friendly fire?" :shutup:

Up there, you can keep your eye on him... Sounds like that is where he would prefer to be anyways.

wouldnt be the first ive ive been on point .. hopefully wont be the last

[Timber020]

Only if you are fighting shadows. That's the problem with the present war on "terror" as I outlined earlier. Once the correct target (militant Islam as opposed to mythical "islamists") is identified, there is a chance of success..[/SIZE][/B]

Terrorism is often all about living in shadows, Osama Bin Ladin has been the most hunted creature on this earth for how long, how much reward is there for him now? How many people are searching for him? Terrorists can only thrive and survive in a society that identifys more with the terrorists cause than those the terrorists target. Its like having a local cop that people dont like or trust, your less likely to go out of your way to give him info to catch someone you might identify with. This lesson should have been learned in the war of independance, germanys invasion of europe (where partisan groups could be found everywhere) and more recently in vietnam where without the heavy handedness of the ARVN and US forces the VC wouldnt have had a place to hide or a motivation for their numbers to swell to the dangerous levels that they ended up being.



If your anti-terrorism actions,intending to make civilians safe, alienate your "allies", than a question must be asked, "do I really need enemies, or the friends will do for now"? Diplomacy is certainly not the tool for fighting terrorism. If fighting terrorism with weapons is akin to fighting fire with fire, diplomacy, i.e. negotiating with terrorists is like fighting fire with fuel..[/SIZE][/B]

Anyone or any nation who drops friends because they dont tow the line with everything they do, is led by short term gain fools. And in the long term will only be surrounded by mercenary friends, or those not strong enough to really stand by them when they most need them.



You can't fight by trying. Full stop. Yoda said it best: "Do, or do not. There is no try." That's in part the American problem. They are trying to do the right thing instead of actually doing it. No one fights World War with 50000 troops. It takes millions. The army the size of allied army of WWII could have won their war (on condition that they fight the correct enemy) in a matter of weeks. .[/SIZE][/B]


Actually there is a plenty of serious high rollers on the list.



That's your personal opinion. Their opinions may differ. We all entitled to one, aren't we? The problem however is not in their massive military. The problem is in their massive PC that prevents their military from doing their job. .[/SIZE][/B]

PC meaning not giving the military open slather to treat the world like the germans treated europe, or the japanese treated asia? Unrestricted military action is just a chance for the generals to play with there biggest toys. MacArthur wanted to use the atom bomb in the Korean war against north Korea, russian and china, Westmoreland thought about using nukes in the seige of Khe Sahn. I dont mean that they would use these kind of weopons but it was the inability to control generals that gave us the slaughter and mess of WW1.
Taking the gloves would just turn the american army into something between the Gestapo and SS.



Nothing emboldens terrorists more than percieved weakness. US enables terror attacks on itself by strictly following its extremely restrictive rules of engagement, allowing terroists escape unscathed. Have you ever heard about terrorism in China? In Egypt? In Russia? That's because those countries have simple anti-terrorism ROE: "Kill them all and let Allah sort them out". Uigures (sp?), Chechens, and members of Moslem Brotherhood learned that messing with their host countries is just not worth it..[/SIZE][/B]

Russia and Egypt are all victims of terrorism, more so than the US ever has been. Chechnians have not "learned the lesson" yet, they are still very active, there two famous raids (theatre and school) were done well after the russians had "taken the gloves off." China doesnt need terrorism, the corruption there terrorises the people enough.


Having said all that, I have to admit that the outlook is not good. President Bush has demonstrated to the world that trying anything that may potentially take more than 4 - 6 years to achieve is a political suicide. This is the one most important thing that will motivate terrorists all over the world for the generations to come - the fact that they can win by attrition. All it takes is to survive one US presidential term.

Times on the bad guys side, alquada was a dwindling lost group prior to 911, now its infected half the globe.

[SARGE]

>>>>>>>>> deleted post>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Sanx]

how to bring safe old NZ to its knees in 24 hours ...

...

this was thought out as i typed it .. how destructive could it be if a determined someone had a year to think about it?

SARGE, remind me not to piss you off.

And, unfortunately, it is that easy. And it being that easy makes a complete mockery of the sort of regulations the TSA and other like putting on international flights. They're patching up the system after the events. If you wanted to cause utter panic, you don't attack an airport or an aircraft, you set off several relatively small bombs in supermarkets. Or at rugby games.

[SARGE]

SARGE, remind me not to piss you off.



keep in mind that i have been trained to think like this .. target the infrastructure .. panic the sheeple and the rest is butter

24 hours and Uncle Helen would be begging for a US Navy nuclear CBG to be parked in the Hauraki Gulf



sometimes i scare myself .....

[Patrick]

Post 74 deleted... don't want to give out your ideas to the raggies, Sarge?

[SARGE]

Post 74 deleted... don't want to give out your ideas to the raggies, Sarge?



i still have a copy .. :giggle:

[Street Gerbil]

[...]
T, I think our perfect inability to understand each other stems from the fact that we have different enemies: mine are homicidal maniacs who want to hammer the word of their prophet down everybody's throat and rid the world from the seed of Iblis i.e. sons of apes and pigs (me) and crusaders (you) whereas your enemies are generals itching to play with their biggest toys.

[oldrider]

keep in mind that i have been trained to think like this .. target the infrastructure .. panic the sheeple and the rest is butter

24 hours and Uncle Helen would be begging for a US Navy nuclear CBG to be parked in the Hauraki Gulf .....

If she had any brains, she would be begging them now, not for the military protection but for the money that the crew would spend in Auckland!

Forget the Americas cup, it would pale into oblivion by comparison but it would not please China, would it! :mellow: John.

[Sanx]

Post 74 deleted... don't want to give out your ideas to the raggies, Sarge?

Read the last couple of chapters of Debt of Honour (http://www.amazon.com/Debt-Honor-Jack-Ryan-Novels/dp/0425147584), by Tom Clancy (first plublished in 1994), and tell me there's not a small similarity between that and the events of a certain day in September, 2001. Then read the second chapter of A Big Boy Did It And Ran Away (http://www.amazon.com/Big-Boy-Away-Abacus-Books/dp/0349116849/ref=sr_1_1/102-1084268-5915314?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183716650&sr=1-1) by Christopher Brookmyre (first published in 2001) and tell me there's not a small similarity between it and the events od March 2004 in Madrid.

Authors good (Brookmyre) and bad (Clancy) have been giving ideas to terrorist scum for years. They're hardly going to be so desperate for ideas, they'll browse a biker forum for them.

[Timber020]

T, I think our perfect inability to understand each other stems from the fact that we have different enemies: mine are homicidal maniacs who want to hammer the word of their prophet down everybody's throat and rid the world from the seed of Iblis i.e. sons of apes and pigs (me) and crusaders (you) whereas your enemies are generals itching to play with their biggest toys.

Actually we have the same enemy, I am just as concerned about exactly the same terrrorist and their actions as you are, but we differ in the tactics to fight them, and what might escalate if we get it wrong.
You think a military approach is the right way. I look at the history of the world and see how many times that it has failed miserably.
You think the wrath of heavy weopons and force will drive people away from the terrorist cause where I think its more likely to drive people towards it.

The US could have totally avoided the vietnam conflict, as far back as the league of nations in the 1920's. (heck ho chi minh was a comrade for years) And in every decade following that until it clumsily entered the conflict like a blind guy with a scattergun. Millions killed and at the end of it, it was a lost cause.

Its all to easy for the latest US president to puff up and try to rally his people and strike out against there latest enemy (The US always has to have an evil enemy). Its big, its powerful, its vote winning but it doesnt nessesarily mean you doing the right thing to defeat your enemy. American foreign policy and often its military footprint is only reliable for 4 years until the next pres. And ultimately the president only wants to get voted in next time, so he trys to give his backers what they want, and the voters something they might like him for. This doesnt make for a secure world, its just easy politics over good strategy. Depending on the president, the whole idea of whose the enemy can change (such as the kennedy/johnson change with regards to indonesia).

It would be great it was as simple as some good big military action to stop the latest terrorists, but history says its never going to work that way. In fact quite possibly the opposite.

[Delerium]

just just using your strenghts against his weaknesses, just like the vietnamese did. Its very difficult to target an enemy you cant identify. Terrorist cells dont wear a uniform.

They operate in small numbers using hit an run tactics becuase they would be slaughtered if they attempted to go head to head against an army. Your then fighting against an armys strength, its firepower.

There are many more similar points like this. have a aprooze of the art of war. some of those adages still hold true.

[Hitcher]

have a aprooze of the art of war.

Peruse, perhaps? i.e. a read?

[SARGE]

just just using your strenghts against his weaknesses, just like the vietnamese did. Its very difficult to target an enemy you cant identify. Terrorist cells dont wear a uniform.

They operate in small numbers using hit an run tactics becuase they would be slaughtered if they attempted to go head to head against an army. Your then fighting against an armys strength, its firepower.

There are many more similar points like this. have a aprooze of the art of war. some of those adages still hold true.

the fact that AQ does not wear a uniform, carry arms openly or fight under a specific banner denies them of the protections of the Geneva Conventions


Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
* 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
* 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
* 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
* 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


as a good read.. i cant recommend AMERICAS SECRET WAR enough

[Hitcher]

the fact that AQ does not wear a uniform, carry arms openly or fight under a specific banner denies them of the protections of the Geneva Conventions

Their offences will be covered by criminal legislation that applies in the jurisdiction where any "crime" was committed. If the Geneva Convention does not come into play, any "rights" it affords are academic. The Convention cannot apply if their is no "war". Just because the President of the United States of America believes that there is war, does not mean that there is one, particularly given that his "war" is against "terror" rather than the government of a particular country. Just because the Geneva Convention doesn't apply should not give a superpower rights to hoover up anybody it deems to be a threat and to detail and torture them with no recourse to legal counsel or to the Courts.

[SARGE]

Their offences will be covered by criminal legislation that applies in the jurisdiction where any "crime" was committed. If the Geneva Convention does not come into play, any "rights" it affords are academic. The Convention cannot apply if their is no "war". Just because the President of the United States of America believes that there is war, does not mean that there is one, particularly given that his "war" is against "terror" rather than the government of a particular country. Just because the Geneva Convention doesn't apply should not give a superpower rights to hoover up anybody it deems to be a threat and to detail and torture them with no recourse to legal counsel or to the Courts.

contrary to popular thought .. a state of war has existed between AQ and the Western world since 1996

PROOF (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html) and the Declaration of War from Osama

or am i missing something? does Jihad mean something i am not familiar with ..fluffy bunny love?.. fresh flowers and lollies??


and as to the point of " hoovering "

i think it does .. since AQ and the rest of the nutbags are not using a rulebook... why should we?.. ( and dont give me that crybaby bullshit about "taking the high ground " .. the only high ground I need is the one overlooking Osama's house)

[Street Gerbil]

It would be great it was as simple as some good big military action to stop the latest terrorists, but history says its never going to work that way. In fact quite possibly the opposite.
Yes, T, I am afraid, that's the consensus these days. I am just glad that it emerged after the end of WWII and Allies, who didn't know that they cannot win, actually slaughtered Nazis instead of trying to "win their hearts and minds". Otherwise, I would not be here to contest your opinion.

[Swoop]

Authors ... have been giving ideas to terrorist scum for years.
Storming Heaven - Dale Brown.

[Sanx]

Yes, T, I am afraid, that's the consensus these days. I am just glad that it emerged after the end of WWII and Allies, who didn't know that they cannot win, actually slaughtered Nazis instead of trying to "win their hearts and minds". Otherwise, I would not be here to contest your opinion.

Comparisons between Nazi Germany and Al Qaeda are not really valid. The Nazis being fought in WWII represented a nation state. Al Qaeda does not. The majority of German forces (spies excluded) wore a uniform. Al Qaeda does not (head rag and AK47 notwithstanding). Nazi Germany followed, for the most part, the Geneva Conventions. With relatively few exceptions, they treated POWs reasonably well. Al Qaeda has no respect for the customs and traditions of war, let alone international protocol. Nazi Germany had a well-defined command structure. Al Qaeda does not (one bloke at the top does not constitute a command structure).

The Americans are right to declare such people 'enemy combatants' and withhold from them the priviliges of the Geneva Conventions, if only to ensure that these people knew they would be given the same treatment by allied forces as captured allied soldiers would be by theirs. A state of 'war', which the Geneva Convention governs does not necessarily have to exist between nation states. However, as only nation states are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, it goes without saying that Al Qaeda are not. The Geneva Conventions (at least the third, which covers treatment of POWs) only apply in a conflict between two or more signatories. Therefore, the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

[SARGE]

Comparisons between Nazi Germany and Al Qaeda are not really valid. The Nazis being fought in WWII represented a nation state. Al Qaeda does not. The majority of German forces (spies excluded) wore a uniform. Al Qaeda does not (head rag and AK47 notwithstanding). Nazi Germany followed, for the most part, the Geneva Conventions. With relatively few exceptions, they treated POWs reasonably well. Al Qaeda has no respect for the customs and traditions of war, let alone international protocol. Nazi Germany had a well-defined command structure. Al Qaeda does not (one bloke at the top does not constitute a command structure).

The Americans are right to declare such people 'enemy combatants' and withhold from them the priviliges of the Geneva Conventions, if only to ensure that these people knew they would be given the same treatment by allied forces as captured allied soldiers would be by theirs. A state of 'war', which the Geneva Convention governs does not necessarily have to exist between nation states. However, as only nation states are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, it goes without saying that Al Qaeda are not. The Geneva Conventions (at least the third, which covers treatment of POWs) only apply in a conflict between two or more signatories. Therefore, the Geneva Conventions do not apply.

exactly .. see post 85 above.

i think we should sharpen the machetes and charge up the video cameras at Gitmo.. pop it all on YouTube,,

long as i know the rules i can play the game..

[JimBob]

The “war on terror” is the latest load of bollocks/bogey man to scare the daylights out of everyone.
Its nothing new, terrorism has existed since year dot.
Too much credit is being given to Al Queda as if they have the worldwide rights to Terrorism.
These idiots in Britain, build three “car bombs” and cant get them to go off?
Straight away its Al Queda because whatever.
They are a bunch of gullible fools geed up by more fools who think they are bigshots in KAOS.
If Al Queda or any other half decent outfit wanted to do this they would get someone who knew what they were doing to oversee these idiots or contract the job out.
But its always Al Queda this and Al Queda that.
I see they have infiltrated Bream Bay. The police have foiled a terror plot involving 4 Al Quedas masquerading as NZ college students. And they were using the evil of all evils THE INTERNET. The SAS, SIS, ANZ, STG, ASB, and the IRD all mounted ops to counter this evil. They will nail them for burglary, and being idiots, but if talking shit on the internet is a problem then half of NZ will be locked up.
Back in the 70’s the British Govt approached the US Govt and asked if more could be done to stop the flow of money and munitions from the US to the IRA.
The answer, couched in diplomatic legalese was No. The IRA while crude were viewed as freedom fighters. The only concession the British got was the IRA fundraisers would be called something else, the Catholic Childrens Food Fund or something. But they still carried on.
Many in the IRA despised the Irish Americans for their privileged backgrounds (compared to the Irish), the fact they were “over there” instead of being in Ireland and their gullibility. The IRA ambassadors laid it on by the bucketful, freedom from the oppressor, the struggle, we are brothers in this together, remember your blood! Etc etc etc.
The point with terrorism is it all depends who is the giver and who is the receiver

[Hitcher]

Nazi Germany followed, for the most part, the Geneva Conventions. With relatively few exceptions, they treated POWs reasonably well.

Apart, that is, for Russian POWs. Many hundreds of thousands of them. They did not receive Red Cross parcels or any of the other concessions made to POWs from other allied forces and were treated no better than the Nazis treated other "under classes". "Relatively few exceptions"?

[Sanx]

Apart, that is, for Russian POWs. Many hundreds of thousands of them. They did not receive Red Cross parcels or any of the other concessions made to POWs from other allied forces and were treated no better than the Nazis treated other "under classes". "Relatively few exceptions"?

And the reason for that? Simple: Russia didn't afford the same privilige to German POWs.

[Sanx]

Back in the 70’s the British Govt approached the US Govt and asked if more could be done to stop the flow of money and munitions from the US to the IRA.
The answer, couched in diplomatic legalese was No. The IRA while crude were viewed as freedom fighters. The only concession the British got was the IRA fundraisers would be called something else, the Catholic Childrens Food Fund or something. But they still carried on.
Many in the IRA despised the Irish Americans for their privileged backgrounds (compared to the Irish), the fact they were “over there” instead of being in Ireland and their gullibility. The IRA ambassadors laid it on by the bucketful, freedom from the oppressor, the struggle, we are brothers in this together, remember your blood! Etc etc etc.

Something that still pisses Brits off today. Successive US presidents took a strong political (i.e. for show only) stand against terrorism, but never touched one of the largest terrorist fund-raising efforts in the world; the one going on in their own back yard. Bush, shortly after 9/11 made a speech saying that (I can't remember the exact words) "Those who support terrorists are our enemies. Those that supply terrorists aer our enemies. Those that finance terrorists are our enemies. Those that provide shelter to terrorists are our enemies". I'm still waiting for the US Army to invade Boston and Chicago and take out the tens of thousands of supporters, suppliers and financiers of terrorism who live, work and drink in their plastic paddy pubs there.

One interesting by-product of 9/11 was the decrease in activity by the IRA and other terrorist groups in Europe. Although a cease-fire existed in NI, it was only the added pressure caused by 9/11 that finally convinced the IRA mullahs that their actions were never going to be viewed in the same light by their main funding source; the USA. That convinced the IRA to finally acquiesce to British demands that their weapons caches were permanently and verifiably destroyed.

[Dave Lobster]

That convinced the IRA to finally acquiesce to British demands that their weapons caches were permanently and verifiably destroyed.

Yeah, that's happened. :killingme

[Hitcher]

And the reason for that? Simple: Russia didn't afford the same privilige to German POWs.

I don't think that the Geneva Convention allows for "tit for tat" retribution.

[SARGE]

I don't think that the Geneva Convention allows for "tit for tat" retribution.

actually says nothing about it either way.. for that you have to look at the LOAC ( laws of Armed Conflict)


Conduct of warfare
Among other issues, the laws of war address declaration of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; military necessity along with distinction, and proportionality; and the prohibition of certain inhumane weapons which cause unnecessary suffering.
It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform is allowed, though fighting in that uniform, like fighting under a white flag, is perfidy which is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.



heres a good one ..


Violations and applicability
Parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area.
By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected.

[Swoop]

Apart, that is, for Russian POWs. ... and were treated no better than the Nazis treated other "under classes".
Mauthausen Concentration Camp had a really pleasant "indoor-outdoor flow" in the Soviet compound. When I visited, we were shown the compound for the Soviets. No roof, just a concrete slab and concrete walls all open to the elements.
Even the Jews had barracks of some sort.
The stairs of death had a reputation... Even Auschwitz prisoners feared transport to Mauthausen.

Soviet prisoners were not treated as well as the rest of the Allied prisoners.

[scumdog]

. That convinced the IRA to finally acquiesce to British demands that their weapons caches were permanently and verifiably destroyed.

Did you see that on a Tuis ad somewhere??

[SARGE]

Did you see that on a Tuis ad somewhere??

Adj. 1 verifiable - capable of being verified; "a verifiable account of the incident"


Tui?

[Sanx]

Yeah, that's happened. :killingme


Did you see that on a Tuis ad somewhere??

Well, the decommissioning process (sorry - can't call it destruction, for some reason) was witnessed and verified (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4283444.stm) by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_International_Commission_on_Decommissi oning), a body appointed to oversea this kind of thing precisely. The weapons were cataloged prior to destruction and the inventory was consistent with estimates of weapons held provided by British and Irish security services. In addition to the commission, the process was witnessed by two priests (one catholic, one anglican). The process was declared a success and complete by the British and Irish governments, Sinn Fein, the IRA, the Commission itself. Although the Reverend Ian Paisley declared the process an illustration of "...the duplicity and dishonesty of the two governments and the IRA", his deputy did agree the process had put a significant quantity of arms beyond use.

The Commission was headed by a General John de Chastelain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_Chastelain), a retired Canadian officer who had previously been an ambassador to the US as well as Canada's Chief of Defence Staff. All in all, not someone you'd expect to be duplicitous or easily fooled.

The IRA's formal declaration of an end to its armed campaign (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4720863.stm) only happened in 2005. So, there's not really been enough water under the bridge to judge its success yet. However, in the two years that have passed, there hasn't been the kind of attack the IRA were synonymous with. What's certain is that the IRA have completed their transformation into a pretty successful criminal organisation, and they certainly still have SOME weapons, but no more than Scumdog keeps under lock and key in his wardrobe... :shutup:

[SARGE]

Well, the decommissioning process (sorry - can't call it destruction, for some reason) was witnessed and verified (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4283444.stm) by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_International_Commission_on_Decommissi oning), a body appointed to oversea this kind of thing precisely. The weapons were cataloged prior to destruction and the inventory was consistent with estimates of weapons held provided by British and Irish security services. In addition to the commission, the process was witnessed by two priests (one catholic, one anglican). The process was declared a success and complete by the British and Irish governments, Sinn Fein, the IRA, the Commission itself. Although the Reverend Ian Paisley declared the process an illustration of "...the duplicity and dishonesty of the two governments and the IRA", his deputy did agree the process had put a significant quantity of arms beyond use.

The Commission was headed by a General John de Chastelain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_Chastelain), a retired Canadian officer who had previously been an ambassador to the US as well as Canada's Chief of Defence Staff. All in all, not someone you'd expect to be duplicitous or easily fooled.

The IRA's formal declaration of an end to its armed campaign (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4720863.stm) only happened in 2005. So, there's not really been enough water under the bridge to judge its success yet. However, in the two years that have passed, there hasn't been the kind of attack the IRA were synonymous with. What's certain is that the IRA have completed their transformation into a pretty successful criminal organisation, and they certainly still have SOME weapons, but no more than Scumdog keeps under lock and key in his wardrobe... :shutup:

yea .. i dont have any weapons either ...:whistle:

[sAsLEX]

actually says nothing about it either way.. for that you have to look at the LOAC ( laws of Armed Conflict)




Loved that lesson.


If you see an enemy on fire in front of you should you put him out of his misery?

[Dave Lobster]

yea .. i dont have any weapons either ...:whistle:

Get a couple of priests (because the church is known for its honesty) to dig up a couple of patches of waste land near your house, find nothing, and I'll believe you.

PIRA may have stopped being naughty boys officially. But how many members now carry on their exploits as the Real IRA? How many of them have got real jobs, to fill their time? How many just do extortion and drug dealing to make a few quid? You may not see bombings in the news every day (you probably didn't here) like you did a few years ago, but the reign of terror is still there.

[scumdog]

Well, the decommissioning process (sorry - can't call it destruction, for some reason) was witnessed and verified (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4283444.stm) by the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_International_Commission_on_Decommissi oning), a body appointed to oversea this kind of thing precisely. The weapons were cataloged prior to destruction and the inventory was consistent with estimates of weapons held provided by British and Irish security services. In addition to the commission, the process was witnessed by two priests (one catholic, one anglican). The process was declared a success and complete by the British and Irish governments, Sinn Fein, the IRA, the Commission itself. Although the Reverend Ian Paisley declared the process an illustration of "...the duplicity and dishonesty of the two governments and the IRA", his deputy did agree the process had put a significant quantity of arms beyond use.

The Commission was headed by a General John de Chastelain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_de_Chastelain), a retired Canadian officer who had previously been an ambassador to the US as well as Canada's Chief of Defence Staff. All in all, not someone you'd expect to be duplicitous or easily fooled.

The IRA's formal declaration of an end to its armed campaign (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4720863.stm) only happened in 2005. So, there's not really been enough water under the bridge to judge its success yet. However, in the two years that have passed, there hasn't been the kind of attack the IRA were synonymous with. What's certain is that the IRA have completed their transformation into a pretty successful criminal organisation, and they certainly still have SOME weapons, but no more than Scumdog keeps under lock and key in his wardrobe... :shutup:

Try telling the above to the likes of Birmingham Police... ask them about the bomb threats STILL coming in from the IRA. (Most are phoney I know but they're stiil making the calls)

[Delerium]

Loved that lesson.


If you see an enemy on fire in front of you should you put him out of his misery?

NO, by doing so you are commiting a war crime. something along the lines of shooting an incapacitated comabtant. It was a long time ago since I did that lesson.

[SARGE]

Loved that lesson.


If you see an enemy on fire in front of you should you put him out of his misery?

yes.. a round to both kneecaps should do it

[SARGE]

NO, by doing so you are commiting a war crime. something along the lines of shooting an incapacitated comabtant. It was a long time ago since I did that lesson.

we used to call them " Security Rounds",,,,,Its a safety issue pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, put a security round in everybody's head..

you don't know who or what is in the next room, and you're already speaking english to each other and its loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the building..


bang bang Tango



Have you ever lived in NOW for a week? It is not easy, and if you have never lived in NOW for longer than it takes to finish the roller coaster at Rainbows End, then shut your hole about putting Soldiers and Marines in jail for war crimes.

[jimbo600]

NO, by doing so you are commiting a war crime. something along the lines of shooting an incapacitated comabtant. It was a long time ago since I did that lesson.

Well I was told to empty the whole 30 into him and then follow up with a bayonet. A still kicking tango is still a threat.

[Sanx]

Try telling the above to the likes of Birmingham Police... ask them about the bomb threats STILL coming in from the IRA. (Most are phoney I know but they're stiil making the calls)

Well, the Irish still have a problem with West Midlands Police. Something to do with their past history of fabricating evidence in order to get convictions - i.e. the Birmingham Six.

[scumdog]

Well, the Irish still have a problem with West Midlands Police. Something to do with their past history of fabricating evidence in order to get convictions - i.e. the Birmingham Six.

Past..past..past - people dwell waaay too long on the past (just look at NZ for a classic example)

Sure, the Birmingham Six may have been a screw-up - but it was in the past, no need to go on forever about it!(unless you're a loser type of organisation that never wants to get ahead)

The bomb threats I mentioned are an ongoing thing.

[Sanx]

Sure, the Birmingham Six may have been a screw-up

Screw-up? No, a Police screw-up is where some procedure's not followed properly and the case collapses, or a genuine mistake is made leading to an unfair conviction.

The Birmingham Six case involved a number of officers who knowingly fabricated evidence, witheld other evidence and lied consistently and convincingly in court. That's no screw-up - that's ... well, I'm sure you know the names of the offences better than I.


unless you're a loser type of organisation that never wants to get ahead. The bomb threats I mentioned are an ongoing thing.

Of course they're a loser organisation; they are (or were) a bunch of mindless thugs whose republican wishes for Northern Ireland (contrary to the wishes of the majority of the population) had got mixed up in radical left-wing politics and further corrupted through association with some of the world's less palatable groups including the PLO, Red Hand Gang, ETA and the Libyan Government.

The British certainly didn't do themselves any favours in dealing with them; as the USA's finding out with its policies in the middle east at the moment, policies such as internment ended up being the biggest and best recruiting sergeant the IRA ever had. By trying to appear somewhat reasonable (this british governemnt can make the right noises, but is never sincere on anything) they marginalised the IRA enough that the target of the attacks changed focus. Instead of attacking military or political targets, which although maybe not condoned by the undecided could at least be understood, they moved to bombing purely civilian targets on the British mainland. The IRA always tried to protray themselves as plucky freedom fighters struggling against ruthless oppressors; not a portayal that gels well with bombing a busy shopping-centre in the middle of Manchester on a sunny summer's Saturday afternoon.

And despite using 40 tonnes of fertiliser in a dump truck, they didn't even manage to blow up the Arndale Centre - a stunningly unattractive building - properly, which would have allowed the IRA to claim they were taking action to rectify crimes against aesthetics.

Like the majority of terrorist organisations, the IRA were a criminal organisation who tried to legitimise their existence and actions by attaching them to some glorious political aim. And like most similar actions, they were simplyt hugs who wanted an excuse to go and blow things up or kill people.

[Dave Lobster]

Like the majority of terrorist organisations, the IRA were a criminal organisation who tried to legitimise their existence and actions by attaching them to some glorious political aim. And like most similar actions, they were simplyt hugs who wanted an excuse to go and blow things up or kill people.

And by letting them sit in parliament in London, wanker Bliar has told terrorists worldwide that bombing your way into power works.

[Sanx]

And by letting them sit in parliament in London, wanker Bliar has told terrorists worldwide that bombing your way into power works.

Huh? Sinn Fein have a right to sit in the UK parliament and have had so for a very long time. They have MPs elected by the same elections as anyone else. The first female MP was Sinn Feiner. However, Sinn Fein do not sit in parliament in London as they refuse to swear alleigance to the Queen, and are therefore unable to take their seat.

Sinn Fein do take part in the Northern Ireland Assembly in Stornaway, but again, only as they have had people elected to those seats.

[Dave Lobster]

Sinn Fein do not sit in parliament in London as they refuse to swear alleigance to the Queen, and are therefore unable to take their seat.



They still take all the money for the expenses,etc. don't they?

They can't be that principled.. if they wont swear alliegence, why bother standing in the first place?

[idb]

Past..past..past - people dwell waaay too long on the past (just look at NZ for a classic example)

Sure, the Birmingham Six may have been a screw-up - but it was in the past, no need to go on forever about it!(unless you're a loser type of organisation that never wants to get ahead)


I used to live in the past

[idb]

This is getting off topic I know but I found this on "Psychology Today".




Most suicide bombers are Muslim
Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but according to Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslim. Why? The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines). It has a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygyny creates shortages of available women. If 50 percent of men have two wives each, then the other 50 percent don't get any wives at all.

So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.

However, polygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing. Societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are much more polygynous than the Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa. And they do have very high levels of violence. Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from a long history of continuous civil wars—but not suicide bombings.

The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.

It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single.



Soooooooooo.....basically.......suicide bombers do it because they're not getting any!!!!

[scumdog]

This is getting off topic I know but I found this on "Psychology Today".




Soooooooooo.....basically.......suicide bombers do it because they're not getting any!!!!

Anddddd ssoooooo again, if YOU were promised 72 virgins when you died would you blow yourself (so to speak) up to get them?:?

If you say "Yes" then I have some extremely profitable and desitous Fortex shares for sale...:innocent:

[idb]

Anddddd ssoooooo again, if YOU were promised 72 virgins when you died would you blow yourself (so to speak) up to get them?:?

Only if they were promised by God......or a reputable representative.....

[Delerium]

we used to call them " Security Rounds",,,,,Its a safety issue pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, put a security round in everybody's head..

you don't know who or what is in the next room, and you're already speaking english to each other and its loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the building..


bang bang Tango



Have you ever lived in NOW for a week? It is not easy, and if you have never lived in NOW for longer than it takes to finish the roller coaster at Rainbows End, then shut your hole about putting Soldiers and Marines in jail for war crimes.

Steady on mate, I AM in the military. Im just paraphrasing what I was told in my LOAC lesson (after being shown a certain scene from saving private ryan as part of the lesson, ie dont shoot let em burn)

I am in no way, and am not prepared to comment on actions of soldiers any conflict that is currently occuring.

Its easy to be all idealistic when being an armchair general.. its a bit different when your out there doing the job.

I was also referring to a previous post stating that if the enemy is on fire should I put him out of his misery, ie being roasted by a flamethrower. I also stated that I couldnt recall the exact details off the top of my head, and that it was what I was told in the lesson.

Its obvious that the iraq situation (im assuming this is what your referring too with american troops if you mean marines) is not popluar, but this in no means justifies people taking out their opinions on the people over their doing the job. I see anybody that is prepared to sign on the dotted line to do their duty for their country the silent minority that deserves a little respect. These people over their doing the job are living a very harsh existence while there.

Its easy for misinformed (or worse slightly informed, ignorant and beleiving they know the whole story) to become abusive towards these troops. and its completely uncalled for. I bet not many of the people protesting have been there. Its the same as the piss poor behaviour by protestors towards vietnam vets, bloody disgraceful.

I was in no way trying to belittle or condemn troops from any nation.

What I was trying to say is, that if I recall correctly, no you shouldnt shoot. Just like your not meant to give your horrifically injured mate a shot to put him out of his misery.

[scumdog]

we used to call them " Security Rounds",,,,,Its a safety issue pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, put a security round in everybody's head..

The old man trained his platoon to do that in Malaya.
Reckoned once it was hard to tell what one of the commies was - everybody pumped two rounds in on the way past - after 15 guys did that the corpse was a tad 'untidy'.
But he never got up and threw a grenade or fired at the back of the other side.

[Timber020]

Nazi Germany followed, for the most part, the Geneva Conventions. With relatively few exceptions, they treated POWs reasonably well.

I was taught to shoot by a dutch guy whose civilian father and sister (who was about 10) were shot by the germans. Another dutch guy who used to be a customer had his 12 year old best friend shot by them. Whats relatively few?
There were plenty of cases of the germans executing pows. Often they were just very careful not to be caught doing it. They murdered unarmed men women and children by the millions. They lost the war because they failed, not on the battle field but because they couldnt back up good soldiering with sound occupation policies. Heck the russian people would have sided with the germans against stalin if they had acted more like men than barbarians. Which is curious as the same is with the US in vietnam and to a lesser extent Iraq.

[sAsLEX]

Steady on mate, I AM in the military. Im just paraphrasing what I was told in my LOAC lesson (after being shown a certain scene from saving private ryan as part of the lesson, ie dont shoot let em burn)




Thats what I was referring to, the SRP bit.

[woodybee]

Screw-up? No, a Police screw-up is where some procedure's not followed properly and the case collapses, or a genuine mistake is made leading to an unfair conviction. They were are as guilty as hell that lot just like the Bridgewater gang who killed that paper boy in England, its was over zealous cops who investigated the matters, which lead to the squashing of convitions, its a shame alright.

The Like the majority of terrorist organisations, the IRA were a criminal organisation who tried to legitimise their existence and actions by attaching them to some glorious political aim. And like most similar actions, they were simplyt hugs who wanted an excuse to go and blow things up or kill people. Having had 1 male army mate blown up in the Iran War, and a Cop Mate, shot dead in Ireland by the I.R.A (which incidentally stands for Idiotic Right Arseholes, and as a cop myself, watched lorry loads of Iraq young men arrive in Englandwith no money.......seeing them being given 50 punds by social services with a promise that they should return to the nick in the morning for further follow up, these horrible, vicious and dangerous looking men never returned and blended into the community, which has now loead to the Nueorsurgeon doctor being one of the those arrested in the lates Attempt Bomb Shocker.......the whole world is in danger from these people, and it scares me to death.......one day perhaps if there is a big guy with a beard (which in all the pictures looks like it needs a trim), perhaps he will find a way to exterminate those who look to prey on the innocent to make the pathetic cause heard.

(Blimey, thats the most sensible msg I have ever written), but the situation gets me so mad, thats why I came over here, for a 5 year break, so I didnt have to look into the eyes of those who wo0uld one day try their hardest to kill those dear to the folk of England. Bunch of fucking wankers, the lot of them and I dont care what cause they are fighting for.!!!:Punk:

[jimbo600]

Like the majority of terrorist organisations, the IRA were a criminal organisation who tried to legitimise their existence and actions by attaching them to some glorious political aim. And like most similar actions, they were simplyt hugs who wanted an excuse to go and blow things up or kill people.

The IRA were not by any stretch a criminal organisation.They were in fact a very well sorted paramilitary group with a doctrine similar to most forces SF units. They also had a successful ceasefire with the UK govt since the 1980's PIRA (provisional IRA) however were a mix of IRA hardliners and criminal groups and were responsible for most atrocities in mainland UK and Europe.

[Sanx]

The IRA were not by any stretch a criminal organisation.They were in fact a very well sorted paramilitary group with a doctrine similar to most forces SF units. They also had a successful ceasefire with the UK govt since the 1980's PIRA (provisional IRA) however were a mix of IRA hardliners and criminal groups and were responsible for most atrocities in mainland UK and Europe.

Yes, they were a criminal organisation. They committed crimes, ergo, they are criminals. The Russian Mafia are similarly well-organised, but that doesn't make them a paramilitary force. Calling people like the IRA freedom fighters, terrorists, insurgents, etc. simply legitimises their actions.

In fact, there's a better term for the lot of them: wankers.

[jimbo600]

Yes, they were a criminal organisation. They committed crimes, ergo, they are criminals. The Russian Mafia are similarly well-organised, but that doesn't make them a paramilitary force. Calling people like the IRA freedom fighters, terrorists, insurgents, etc. simply legitimises their actions.

In fact, there's a better term for the lot of them: wankers.

The IRA are indeed cunts. But merely calling them a criminal group desensitises their potency. As a paramilitary force they committed criminal acts. They were a force with a rank and command structure like any other military. This is what distinguished them from being criminals. And as such it warranted a policing approach that involved MoD as well us RUC.

[scumdog]

The IRA are indeed cunts. But merely calling them a criminal group desensitises their potency. As a paramilitary force they committed criminal acts. They were a force with a rank and command structure like any other military. This is what distinguished them from being criminals. And as such it warranted a policing approach that involved MoD as well us RUC.

Hmmm, going by your standards there's one or two groups in New Zealand that are parralel to the IRA - and they're all criminals 'with a rank and command structure' AND patches and have no regard to anybody outside their gang...again like the IRA....

[slowpoke]

And by letting them sit in parliament in London, wanker Bliar has told terrorists worldwide that bombing your way into power works.

But bombing your way into power has been the way of the world ever since gun powder was invented.
As has killing innocent civilians, just ask the people of Dresden, London, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and/or ANY town that has been laid to seige.

[jimbo600]

Hmmm, going by your standards there's one or two groups in New Zealand that are parralel to the IRA - and they're all criminals 'with a rank and command structure' AND patches and have no regard to anybody outside their gang...again like the IRA....

There's merit in that alright. But unlike the IRA the OMCGs don't use force to change or influence political will.

But hey let the military gun em em if you like, won't get any complaints from me.

There's obviously some crossover, and they're all fuckheads and criminals in the big scheme of things however, groups like the IRA are often underestimated to ill consequences.

[Timber020]

The IRA had heavy involvement in drug dealing, protection rackets and everyday criminal activity. The struggle was not always enough to keep them busy it seems.

[Dave Lobster]

The struggle was not always enough to keep them busy it seems.

They could have got themselves regular paying jobs...

[idb]

Hmmm, going by your standards there's one or two groups in New Zealand that are parralel to the IRA - and they're all criminals 'with a rank and command structure' AND patches and have no regard to anybody outside their gang...again like the IRA....

You really should have a bit more loyalty to your employer SD...............

[scumdog]

You really should have a bit more loyalty to your employer SD...............


I never knew you (the public) were all in a gang!:gob:

But then I HAVE noticed a certain criminal gang-like gleam in you eyes Mr idb........

[Sniper]

Almost out, need to go buy some more :corn:

[Patrick]

Hmmm, going by your standards there's one or two groups in New Zealand that are parralel to the IRA - and they're all criminals 'with a rank and command structure' AND patches and have no regard to anybody outside their gang...again like the IRA....


You really should have a bit more loyalty to your employer SD...............

Actually very funny idb.... but I have highlighted the important part of Scummies post for ya... you know the saying, a few bad eggs...

[Toaster]

Hmmm, going by your standards there's one or two groups in New Zealand that are parralel to the IRA - and they're all criminals 'with a rank and command structure' AND patches and have no regard to anybody outside their gang...again like the IRA....

Hey scummy, don't talk about your employer like that, its rude! hehehe.


But seriously mate I completely agree... I am sick of the criminal scum getting away with making money off drugs and living the high life, claiming benefits at taxpayers expense... the very people who end up victims of crimes caused by drugs... everything from disorder and assault to burglary and car theft. And our socialist wet-blanket government still pushes 'human rights for all'? Where is the taxpayers value for money? Oh thats right... don't smack naughty kids and 'kiwisaver'.

[avgas]

until your family is killed ..torn limb from limb, set on fire and hung from the harbor bridge
That shit happens day to day in NZ now, by wannabe punks i aren't allowed to exact revenge on. The nana state truly is NZ.
There is no war on P, No war on gangs, No war on rip-off artists.....
U.S.A. got something right - they named a national enemy. You will never see NZ do that. Worst we can do is put nanaish nana supposed terriorist in lock up.
When was the last time people were behind their troops, in NZ? WW2?
Our army gets less funding than supposed artists in NZ, our navy is big party boats, our airforce is an international courier.
NZ isnt even a tax haven.
Somewhere in the 1960's we smoked too much weed and forgot what being an independent was all about.
NZ pride was fed to the trolls and now they are coming for the emo's.
NZ needs a reason to feel like we are doing something.

[NighthawkNZ]

That shit happens day to day in NZ now, by wannabe punks i aren't allowed to exact revenge on. The nana state truly is NZ.
There is no war on P, No war on gangs, No war on rip-off artists.....
U.S.A. got something right - they named a national enemy. You will never see NZ do that. Worst we can do is put nanaish nana supposed terriorist in lock up.
When was the last time people were behind their troops, in NZ? WW2?
Our army gets less funding than supposed artists in NZ, our navy is big party boats, our airforce is an international courier.
NZ isnt even a tax haven.
Somewhere in the 1960's we smoked too much weed and forgot what being an independent was all about.
NZ pride was fed to the trolls and now they are coming for the emo's.
NZ needs a reason to feel like we are doing something.

all started with the anti nukes...


Cuts backs on every thing (including the new protector fleet) except the MPs wages which has increased.
Our armed forces or defence force has a very low moral (okay Steam morale) problem and was bad enough when I was serving.(which got worse when they ended the strike force capability of the air force)
Our DF is under paid compared to our counter parts across the ditch.
We spend 1% of GDP on defence compared to most other countries that spend 4 to 5%. Yet we have one of the largest coastal areas and EEZ to protect. Including our Search and Resuce area agreed under international agreement. (New Zealand's Search and Rescue Region extends from the South Pole to the southern border of the Honolulu region, including Norfolk, Tonga, Samoa, and Cook Islands.)


And of course don't talk about lies and dishonesty of our PM... which she palms off..


Signed a painting that she didn't do and lied about.
Sped through towns to go to a rugby match, and lied about it.
We never got the promised tax cuts.
Gives more money to a yatch race (just to keep the team together), but hardly supports our own people with the recent floods and disasters... and our softball team world champs 4 or 5 times in a row have to rasie their own air fares...
Gives a huge ammount of money to the the disaster refielf over seas (Tsunami 2004) but again gives hardly anything to our own people that were struggling with floods and droughts across the country.
Passed the anti smaking even though 90% of the country said "NO"
Is trying to pass law stopping the press from showing when MP's making a fuck ups... trying to stop freedom of speech.
Happily said we will take a boat load of boat people which is a strain on our system even though at the time the welfare and health system were falling apart at the seems.
Said the government would support "Plunket"... errrr
Is doing nothing to try and slow the housing market to foreign buyers which is putting the price up and making harder for new local buyers. (it is part of the ploble.. but admit there is more to it)
Doesn't admitt to her own mistakes and passes the buck...


The list goes on...
uncle clarke only gives if it makes it look good on the world market as whole...

[Steam]

...has a very low moral problem...
Do they have low morals then?

[NighthawkNZ]

Do they have low morals then?

doh :slap: okay thats funny