Terrorist (namely muslim) cowards [Archive]

Tank

1st December 2008, 09:45

Unfortuantely the fact remains that the majority of terrorist attacks (against westerners) at the moment are by Muslims.

They (the terrorist) are cowards - they believe that women, children, civilians are all legitimate targets.

Of course when you have people like that are you are going to give the religion you are fighting for a bad name.

They want the right for their mosk (sp) etc in western countries, but its punishable by death in some Muslim countries to practice another religion. 'We' will never understand them - and they dont want to understand 'us'.

Sadly - I think that the problems will become worse and worse - and I cannot see a solution, because the fuckers are crazy.

Marmoot

1st December 2008, 09:46

It is almost a good comparison. While not all religious fanatics are terrorists, the overwhelming majoity of the worlds terrorists are religious fanatics, and mainly from a single religion (Islam). However it is not the same percentage of dole bludgers that are maori, there are more non white racists than there are white ones, and there are just as many non asian bad drivers as asian ones.

....
you lost me at hello - Jerry Macguyver

Slyer

1st December 2008, 09:51

"Alfred Pennyworth: Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn. "

Ixion

1st December 2008, 09:53

I'm with you Finn. The only people that can tolerate other people of varying religions, are those who dont believe in religion.

but you try and talk religion with those that believe...wholy shit. Much anger.

I disagree. I have known people of many faiths : Christian (of many varieties) , Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, and others. I have discussed matters religious and theological with them. Very seldom indeed has it been wholly (or even somewhat) shit. Most , of couse, believe quite strongly that theres is the "correct" path. And will try to persuade you of the correctness of that belief. But, in my experience , almost always politely and reasonably

Swoop

1st December 2008, 09:56

Recently, a British MP stated that they were going to conduct a review on how they handle terrorism in the UK.

Why? The standard method of shooting first and asking questions later, works fine.

Hitcher

1st December 2008, 09:57

Hey where did Finn's second post go calling me a $$%@&ed #&%@?

Probably to the Pointless Drivel thread. People who make pointed personal attacks against others who feel passionate about a particular subject shouldn't be surprised if they get a less-than-friendly response.

Wearing my Moderator's hat, I've given this thread a bit of a tidy up in an endeavour to keep it on topic.

Ixion

1st December 2008, 09:58

Except when the person shot is not, in fact, a terrorist at all.

Perhaps a law should be passed, requiring all terrorists to wear a large sign saying "I am a terrorist". Then the police would know who to shoot, without the need for questions .

Katman

1st December 2008, 10:07

People who make pointed personal attacks against others who feel passionate about a particular subject shouldn't be surprised if they get a less-than-friendly response.

Pfft, you get used to it.

:msn-wink:

raftn

1st December 2008, 10:11

Hatred is valuable emotional energy. I don't hate the Muslim religion, neither do I hate the HIV virus - both require a cure. I reserve my hatred for the those who knowingly attempt to transmit these diseases to other people.

So how does a thread about terroist in India got any thing to do with HIV transmission? Perhaps you can explain that one abit more.........

ManDownUnder

1st December 2008, 10:12

Last week I got the call that a good friend had been murdered in the terrorist attack in India. He was a great man and had the most amasing life of anyone I know. His achievements were astonishing, but he just took it in his stride.

RIP Andreas.

Sorry to hear it man. Yell out if I can do anything.

short-circuit

1st December 2008, 10:13

Probably to the Pointless Drivel thread. People who make pointed personal attacks against others who feel passionate about a particular subject shouldn't be surprised if they get a less-than-friendly response.

Ok so Finn has made loud and clear his "passionate" hatred for people of a particular religious persuasion (which for the record I do not subscribe to). Does this make it fine for he or his friends to suggest in thread tags that other members (who point out forcefully his stupidity and repugnant character) have paedophilic tendencies.

As well a being intellectually limited and morally flawed he also demonstrates exteme cowardice. Nice for him that he can always rely on the protection of the mods and the anonymity of the internet

Skyryder

1st December 2008, 10:15

The solution to religious bigotry is to find common ground that each faith has (love, compassion, forgiveness etc. instead of proselytizing the differences.

Skyryder

Hitcher

1st December 2008, 10:17

Ok so Finn has made loud and clear his "passionate" hatred for people of a particular religious persuasion (which for the record I do not subscribe to). Does this make it fine for he or his friends to suggest in thread tags that other members (who point out forcefully his stupidity and repugnant character) have paedophilic tendencies.

As well a being intellectually limited and morally flawed he also demonstrates exteme cowardice. Nice for him that he can always rely on the protection of the mods and the anonymity of the internet

Hardly on topic. Offending posts have been removed to a more appropriate venue. Please go there (i.e. Pointless Drivel thread) to discuss the matter there if you wish.

Favorites are not being played. Moderators are endeavouring the site's rules regarding abuse of members. Yellow cards have been waved. Please don't encourage us to take sterner action.

short-circuit

1st December 2008, 10:17

I see that the bulk of my valid and completely non abusive contributions have been removed.

Trumpess

1st December 2008, 10:18

geez .... I walked into this thread to hopefully find intelligent debate on the issue, . But what I find is some of you slanging each other over race issues and frekin religion?

Finn - Im sorry to hear you have lost another friend/collegue to the unrest in India. It must be a sad and frustrating time for you.
I understand where you are coming from.

I believe if there were no religion the the world would be a much happier and safer place. Mankind is their own destroyer.
But everyone has their own beliefs because of their culture, and sadly it is going to get much much worse.
Why is it we need to force our beliefs onto others?
You all need to look after yourselves and your families, avoid the hatred thats out there. Its only going to eat you up, manafest and eventually kill you.

Understanding anothers beliefs has huge benefits towards peace. The human race has a very long way to go. And there will be massive earth destroying destruction before there is peace.

I was brought up in religion, schooled in religion, but as an adult I dont believe in religion. Its all properganda and poppycock.
I have my own beliefs that dont involve religion and a "god" at all.

Tolorence is the key along side compassion and co-operation.
Its extremley sad that everyone has to out do each other and try to be right all the time.

boomer

1st December 2008, 10:19

Hardly on topic. Offending posts have been removed to a more appropriate venue. Please go there (i.e. Pointless Drivel thread) to discuss the matter there if you wish.

Favorites are not being played. Moderators are endeavouring the site's rules regarding abuse of members. Yellow cards have been waved. Please don't encourage us to take sterner action.

then you.. have lost the plot.. (the below are off topic, abusive or anything else stated in teh rules...?)

i see this threads been tampered with.. Finns posts have been indoctrinated and removed... which puts most of the replies out of context.. WELL DONE MODS!

AND BD.. just because someone has money doesn't mean they're 'right'.. Bush is a good example of that argument wouldn't u agree ( im not comparing Finn to Bush either :p )

Why do u say that, When it's there religious beliefs?

I'm not saying it's right but to say its becuase they have a short circuit is a little naive don;t ya think?

And Finns just lashing out.. the only place he can..

short-circuit

1st December 2008, 10:23

MisterD

1st December 2008, 10:26

So how does a thread about terroist in India got any thing to do with HIV transmission? Perhaps you can explain that one abit more.........

What don't you understand about the analogy of a dangerous incurable disease of the human body (HIV) and a dangerous incurable disease of the human mind (the 7th centry death cult under discussion)?

Trumpess

1st December 2008, 10:32

Too true. I posted earlier that:

"the ability to tolerate difference comes with maturity and sadly some of us (here) will never get there"

for some reason this was also removed

Short-Circut ... I wasnt implying my statement of - " Its extremley sad that everyone has to out do each other and try to be right all the time" -to people here in the forum.
It was more a broader finger point world wide, as it affects all of us world wide.
None of us are perfect, none of us are as intelligent as we make out to be. If we were there wouldnt be the unrest that there is, we would actually live in peace and enjoy our lives.

NOMIS

1st December 2008, 10:34

I disagree. I have known people of many faiths : Christian (of many varieties) , Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan, and others. I have discussed matters religious and theological with them. Very seldom indeed has it been wholly (or even somewhat) shit. Most , of couse, believe quite strongly that theres is the "correct" path. And will try to persuade you of the correctness of that belief. But, in my experience , almost always politely and reasonably

And I think I am one of these people whom have had these conversations with you on the infamous Religion thread.

I do not think I have ever had a heated conversation with anyone from another religion except there swearing and acusations of non believers to be honest. Unphasing and i can understand but I could never imagine my self as a Christian trying to force physically or verbally my religion into another person. I will how ever preach my religion unashamed to anyone who wants to hear.

PirateJafa

1st December 2008, 10:42

Recently, a British MP stated that they were going to conduct a review on how they handle terrorism in the UK.

Why? The standard method of shooting first and asking questions later, works fine.

You might recall a certain chap who was pretty much murdered in a subway car by a policeman in the UK a year or two ago.

His crime? Looking arabic, whilst running onto a subway car with a backpack.

short-circuit

1st December 2008, 10:44

What don't you understand about the analogy of a dangerous incurable disease of the human body (HIV) and a dangerous incurable disease of the human mind (the 7th centry death cult under discussion)?

It's not hard for one to completely misrepresent other pople's belief systems - especially when one is ignorant to start with. I might be tempted describe an Act party supporter as infectous carrier of a dangerous and damaging disease.

By the way are you and Finn in some kind of relationship?, cause you both seem to be afflicted by the aforementioned disease and you always make an appearance in each other's threads

Jantar

1st December 2008, 10:47

It's not hard for one to completely misrepresent other pople's belief systems - especially when one is ignorant to start with. I might be tempted describe an Act party supporter as infectous carrier of a dangerous and damaging disease.

Yes, and if any ACT party supporters start blowing up buildings and killing innocent women and children in the name of the ACT party, then I would support your temptation to make such a description. But until that happens you are simply raising a straw man argument.

short-circuit

1st December 2008, 10:49

Short-Circut ... I wasnt implying my statement of - " Its extremley sad that everyone has to out do each other and try to be right all the time" -to people here in the forum.
It was more a broader finger point world wide, as it affects all of us world wide.
None of us are perfect, none of us are as intelligent as we make out to be. If we were there wouldnt be the unrest that there is, we would actually live in peace and enjoy our lives.

Yeah I did get that. My response was both a pot shot at some in here who demonstrate extreme intolerance but it was also a general statement which I believe to be true.

Mikkel

1st December 2008, 10:55

Can't we all just get along? :dodge:

They (the terrorist) are cowards - they believe that women, children, civilians are all legitimate targets.

Well, that is YOUR (and mine and probably quite a few others') opinion. In their eyes they are glorious defenders of the one true faith, and if they should be lucky enough to die in their endeavour they'll be martyrs too. They can not do anything wrong as long as they adhere to the word of the Quran and they shall be given 72 virgins upon their entry to heaven. Mind you, that's 72 virgins that they can deflower every day and who will then be reborn as virgins the next morning...

Hell if I will ever understand that mindset.

Truth be told, I believe that the only reason we are unable to deal with the terrorist menace is simply because we've grown into soft PC-bullshit-swallowing, too-comfortable-to-really-give-a-fuck, pseudo-humanitarian surrender monkeys - oh and cheese-eating too, cheese is good.
That and the misunderstood approach to civil liberties in the western world today - that they are something everyone has an intrinsic right to, not something that everyone has to earn for themselves - and the futile endeavour to impose said liberties upon cultures that are not able to appreciate them yet.

PirateJafa

1st December 2008, 11:05

They (the terrorist) are cowards - they believe that women, children, civilians are all legitimate targets.

Well I wouldn't be surprised if it was more than that. In today's world of depleted uranium armour and the like, it's probably more a case of "targets they can actually affect".

Truth be told, I believe that the only reason we are unable to deal with the terrorist menace is simply because we've grown into soft PC-bullshit-swallowing, too-comfortable-to-really-give-a-fuck, pseudo-humanitarian surrender monkeys - oh and cheese-eating too, cheese is good.
That and the misunderstood approach to civil liberties in the western world today - that they are something everyone has an intrinsic right to, not something that everyone has to earn for themselves - and the futile endeavour to impose said liberties upon cultures that are not able to appreciate them yet.

Sounds like a plan. Let's shove you in gaol on some godforsaken island where "our" laws do not apply, then you can earn those liberties/your way out from your cell. Good luck matey.

MisterD

1st December 2008, 11:12

It's not hard for one to completely misrepresent other pople's belief systems - especially when one is ignorant to start with. I might be tempted describe an Act party supporter as infectous carrier of a dangerous and damaging disease.

Yeah whatever. As far as I am concerned there are two types of "belief systems" in this world; Those that are based on fact and "faiths" which by definition require no factual basis. What we are discussing is not the detail of the belief, but the impact it has on humanity generally - and I play no favourites in that regard, but this is not the thread to criticise the effect of the Pope's views on contraception.

Islam is a religion that is very well designed to use sanctioned violence to aid its spread, whether you choose to believe that the "design" is deliberate human design or an apparent design that has evolved to compete with other religions is an interesting argument I'd be happy to have in the Scottish Thread...

raftn

1st December 2008, 11:14

puddytat

1st December 2008, 11:17

When you got over a billion odd people in a country like China, you can sort of understand why they're so keen to keep religion under control....Dogma cuts both ways.
Funny, I find that most Religions have become a sorry load of bigotry....sin 6 days a week & repent on the seventh:oi-grr:

Magua

1st December 2008, 11:18

What don't you understand about the analogy of a dangerous incurable disease of the human body (HIV) and a dangerous incurable disease of the human mind (the 7th centry death cult under discussion)?

Talk about tarring everyone with the same brush. The 'disease' of the mind is not inherent to Islam. Jihad is a struggle, but struggle is not defined as violent. It can be discussion to convince others etc. Violence is not at the heart of Islam.

Mikkel

1st December 2008, 11:25

Jihad is a struggle, but struggle is not defined as violent. It can be discussion to convince others etc.

But what peaceful solutions do you see, when you quite early in your struggle realise that there's a lot of people out there who consider your message and sentiments utter bollocks? Discussion rarely makes anyone change their mind, and I'll present this (www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums) as evidence A in that argument.

But I agree Islam isn't worse than other religions. Christianity used similar methods... some 600 years ago or so. However, quite a lot has changed since then.

Magua

1st December 2008, 11:27

Oscar

1st December 2008, 11:33

But what peaceful solutions do you see, when you quite early in your struggle realise that there's a lot of people out there who consider your message and sentiments utter bollocks? Discussion rarely makes anyone change their mind, and I'll present this (www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums) as evidence A in that argument.

But I agree Islam isn't worse than other religions. Christianity used similar methods... some 600 years ago or so. However, quite a lot has changed since then.

Christians may have changed their methods in 600 years but not that much has changed. People still die on a regular basis for that religion, which is primarily responsible for lots of recent nasty wars/insurrections such as Northern Ireland and Bosnia.

pzkpfw

1st December 2008, 11:40

Maybe we need a modern day crusade of sorts.
Its the targeting of innocent people that just makes it sickening for me.

That's the whole problem with how you deal with these folk (the terrorists).

I don't believe every Muslim is a fanatic (actually I have good friends who are Muslim...).

So what are we gonna do? Carpet-bomb Muslim villages? Are those people not innocent?

(I know that's not what you (marioc) were saying at all - just extrapolating.)

For a moment I thought "bomb every Mosque where the leaders don't specifically work against this terrorism", make the whole religion stop this madness, but then I remembered the hate that comes out of some "Christian" churches in the Western world. Do we bomb them too?

In the end I think it just has to come down to making people learn about each other, and remove poverty so people can't be arsed blowing themselves up anymore. Keep it up for a while, so no-one remembers a recent relative who'se died due to the "others" and we'd be halfway there.

I like those kindergartens in Israel where Palestinian and Jewish kids get to play together. That's good stuff.

Mikkel

1st December 2008, 11:40

Your link doesn't work.

If you can read this, then the link works.

Jantar

1st December 2008, 11:43

Your link doesn't work.

It worked fine when I tried it. :whistle:

Mikkel

1st December 2008, 11:44

Christians may have changed their methods in 600 years but not that much has changed. People still die on a regular basis for that religion, which is primarily responsible for lots of recent nasty wars/insurrections such as Northern Ireland and Bosnia.

Indeed, the difference is that you won't be able to find - as far as I know - any country in the world where you can be punished as a dissenter simply because you denounce Christianity.

It's been at least a decade since the last person was put to the stake for heresy, witchcraft, claiming the earth is round and orbits the sun, etc.

Neither would I expect the Spanish Inquisition to come knocking on my door - although their chief weapon is surprise and fear...

imdying

1st December 2008, 11:46

they believe that women, children, civilians are all legitimate targetsDuring times of war, they are legitimate targets. This nancy boy limited war crap is one of the most retarded concepts ever. The western concept of war might differ from theirs, but it's war none the less. If you're gonna have a war, then it might as well be 'all on'. They're not terrorists, they're soldiers :2guns:

Jantar

1st December 2008, 11:49

... They're not terrorists, they're soldiers :2guns: In which case they will be wearing a recognisable uniform, and dog tags (or similar military ID). If in civilian clothing and carrying out their war, then they should expect to be called terrorists.

imdying

1st December 2008, 11:51

In which case they will be wearing a recognisable uniform, and dog tags (or similar military ID). If in civilian clothing and carrying out their war, then they should expect to be called terrorists.

Why? So they match your preconceived ideas or some international 'law' about what a solider is and isn't? Really? :lol:

PirateJafa

1st December 2008, 11:56

In which case they will be wearing a recognisable uniform, and dog tags (or similar military ID). If in civilian clothing and carrying out their war, then they should expect to be called terrorists.

Uniforms and dog tags are really Western concepts. Isn't the whole point here that they don't want to be like the West? :shutup:

Oscar

1st December 2008, 11:57

Indeed, the difference is that you won't be able to find - as far as I know - any country in the world where you can be punished as a dissenter simply because you denounce Christianity.

It's been at least a decade since the last person was put to the stake for heresy, witchcraft, claiming the earth is round and orbits the sun, etc.

Neither would I expect the Spanish Inquisition to come knocking on my door - although their chief weapon is surprise and fear...

That may be true (although I would imagine you could still get a pretty nasty seeing to for blasphemy in Latin Countries). However, a lot of the current mess the planet finds itself in is down to (at least in part) the Fundamentalist Christian agenda of the two Bush Administrations.

And it ain't just about war, either - how many poor bastards suffer each day because of the Vatican's prohibition on Contraception and Abortion? How much has that added to the squalor in the countries like Brazil?

Just because Christians don't burn people at the stake any more doesn't make them any less blood thirsty - far from it, being civilized makes 'em more efficient.

puddytat

1st December 2008, 12:02

I reckon that because all religions believe in the sanctity of life (i.e anti abortion) that those who kill are hypocrites....
I reckon that we'd be better off killing unborn, unwanted babies,religion again is stopping the discussion of the serious problem of lebensraum & over population which I see as being why so many religious zealots have far to many children which they cant feed properly half the time. And thier fukked up belief stops them from actually doin' anything about it & so they blame everybody else for thier poverty struck predicament.....:dodge:

Jantar

1st December 2008, 12:03

Why? So they match your preconceived ideas or some international 'law' about what a solider is and isn't? Really? :lol:

Not my preconceived idea, the Geneva convention's preconceived idea. Oh, but these soldiers are members of a religion, not a nation, so they aren't bound by the Geneva convention? So they are terrorists.

Hitcher

1st December 2008, 12:06

This whole geopolitical boundaries idea is so last century. The Internet, terrorists, and pirates are classic examples of how our world struggles to cope with things that don't have a country of origin label on them.

Oscar

1st December 2008, 12:09

Not my preconceived idea, the Geneva convention's preconceived idea. Oh, but these soldiers are members of a religion, not a nation, so they aren't bound by the Geneva convention? So they are terrorists.

Western Nations contravene that convention all the time.

How many pictures of captured Iraqi Soldiers did you see published in the two Gulf Wars? Not only does it breach the Geneva Convention, it's something Western Politicians/Media went ballistic about when the shoe was on the other foot.

What about the use of physical restraints on prisoners? (Again summat the West is very hypocritical about).

How many US soldiers have you seen using shot guns?

What about Guantanamo Bay? If it doesn't breach the Geneva Convention, it falls foul of habeas corpus...and probably breaches both.

MisterD

1st December 2008, 12:12

I reckon that because all religions believe in the sanctity of life (i.e anti abortion) that those who kill are hypocrites....

Of course they're hypocrites, Islam (and to be fair the Abrahamic common ground of the Old Testament) is very reliant on sanctioned violence. A successful religion needs to kill competing faiths either by conversion or killing of its believers, it also needs to produce as many easily progammable victims, sorry children, as possible.

Mikkel

1st December 2008, 12:14

That may be true (although I would imagine you could still get a pretty nasty seeing to for blasphemy in Latin Countries). However, a lot of the current mess the planet finds itself in is down to (at least in part) the Fundamentalist Christian agenda of the two Bush Administrations.

And it ain't just about war, either - how many poor bastards suffer each day because of the Vatican's prohibition on Contraception and Abortion? How uch has that added to the squalor in the countries like Brazil?

Just because Christians don't burn people at the stake any more doesn't make them any less blood thirsty - far from it, being civilized makes 'em more efficient.

I completely agree with this. Personally, I'm against organised religion of any kind. No matter what the individual follower may believe organised religion is only about one thing: Power, power through control of thought and behaviour. No matter how beautiful and benevolent the dogma may appear, that power is the only reason behind organised religion.
And the Roman-Catholic church is the most centralised and organised of all religions today and as a result they have the largest influence.

My previous posts were just to point out that the methodology of Islam is quite different from that of e.g. Christianity. Christianity has "grown-up" and adapted to the conditions that are prevalent for its followers. The same is true for Islam, however the followers of Islam are mainly situated in countries where the conditions are vastly different.

The tensions today arise because of the difference in these conditions. E.g. Mr. Ali Blogs in Islamistan sees all of these sinners live in luxury and can not make it fit into his idea of how the world should be. And on the other hand you have Mr. Joe Blogs in Capitalistan who hears about all of these atrocities taking place in Islamistan and it doesn't fit with how he perceives the world should be.
Of course neither Mr. Blogs nor Mr. Blogs is more or less right than the other... it's just how the world IS right now.

Mikkel

1st December 2008, 12:21

Not my preconceived idea, the Geneva convention's preconceived idea. Oh, but these soldiers are members of a religion, not a nation, so they aren't bound by the Geneva convention? So they are terrorists.

This whole geopolitical boundaries idea is so last century. The Internet, terrorists, and pirates are classic examples of how our world struggles to cope with things that don't have a country of origin label on them.

Western Nations contravene that convention all the time.

But that is the thing. The establishment is unable to deal efficiently with this nebulous threat of Terrorism... so they adapt. Unfortunately they adapt by throwing their standards out the window.

How much of this terrorism is real and how much is perceived is very valid question. The establishment is doing quite well by milking the public's fear and using it to increase their power.

Make people afraid enough and you'll have them begging for the state to take away their freedom in order to "protect" them.

Jantar

1st December 2008, 12:25

....

How much of this terrorism is real and how much is perceived is very valid question.

......

You may be right. Maybe Finn's friend wasn't killed by terrorists, its only a perception that he is dead. :wacko:

Oscar

1st December 2008, 12:33

I completely agree with this. Personally, I'm against organised religion of any kind. No matter what the individual follower may believe organised religion is only about one thing: Power, power through control of thought and behaviour. No matter how beautiful and benevolent the dogma may appear, that power is the only reason behind organised religion.
And the Roman-Catholic church is the most centralised and organised of all religions today and as a result they have the largest influence.

My previous posts were just to point out that the methodology of Islam is quite different from that of e.g. Christianity. Christianity has "grown-up" and adapted to the conditions that are prevalent for its followers. The same is true for Islam, however the followers of Islam are mainly situated in countries where the conditions are vastly different.

The tensions today arise because of the difference in these conditions. E.g. Mr. Ali Blogs in Islamistan sees all of these sinners live in luxury and can not make it fit into his idea of how the world should be. And on the other hand you have Mr. Joe Blogs in Capitalistan who hears about all of these atrocities taking place in Islamistan and it doesn't fit with how he perceives the world should be.
Of course neither Mr. Blogs nor Mr. Blogs is more or less right than the other... it's just how the world IS right now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-religion either, as long as they don't try to impose their values on others.

What gets me wound up, is the (lack of ) logic that abounds. Stuff like:

All Arabs are Muslims (quite a few are Christians).
All Muslims are Terrorists (there are 1b Muslims on the planet, if they were all terrorists, we'd be dead).
9/11 was the first day of this war. (the first day probably goes back a millennium)
Saddam supported Al Queda. (no evidence at all for this - in fact US incompetence made Iraq into Club Med for Terrorist Nutters).
The war in Iraq was related to 9/11 (see above)
Al Queda (doesn't actually exist, it's a label made up by the CIA for all Muslim Terror Groups).

Oscar

1st December 2008, 12:35

But that is the thing. The establishment is unable to deal efficiently with this nebulous threat of Terrorism... so they adapt. Unfortunately they adapt by throwing their standards out the window.

How much of this terrorism is real and how much is perceived is very valid question. The establishment is doing quite well by milking the public's fear and using it to increase their power.

Make people afraid enough and you'll have them begging for the state to take away their freedom in order to "protect" them.

You got it.
How do we defeat them without sinking to their level?
A victory in this war could hurt the very freedom we're trying to protect.

Winston001

1st December 2008, 12:43

Yeah I did get that. My response was both a pot shot at some in here who demonstrate extreme intolerance but it was also a general statement which I believe to be true.

SC- you are eminently capable of carrying an argument. Unfortunately when words are used which others perceive as personal attacks, your points get lost in the ensuing flames.

Just argue the issues which will keep the thread on-track.

Thumper

1st December 2008, 13:01

While religion is often the nail, the desire for unconditional power is nearly always the hammer.

Those with strong fundamental religious leanings make ideal nails as they have already proved to be open to suggestion and controllable on mass (Christian and Muslim alike). For those who seek power there are many readymade armies out there. Get to the very top of any religion based terrorist organisation and it’s all about power, not religion. This has always been the way.

Mikkel

1st December 2008, 13:09

You may be right. Maybe Finn's friend wasn't killed by terrorists, its only a perception that he is dead. :wacko:

Ah blimey, I thought you'd be too smart to misconstrue what you quoted. Not fair to be trolling as a moderator...

I am sure you are well aware that there's no substantial proof that increases in national security that compromises civil liberties actually helps to abate the real terrorist threat.

I'm not on the conspiracy theorist bandwagon claiming that 9/11 was organised by the Bush administration or whatever incredulous claims they are making these days.
However, neither am I naive enough to not realise that an unscrupulous administration could benefit immensely by getting rid with a couple of their subject's more bothersome civil liberties nor do I fail to see that this "goal" would be easier to reach if you played up the terrorist threat. I am not saying this is happening, I am merely saying that it is very important to be aware of this.

slowpoke

1st December 2008, 13:14

How do any of us expect to understand any other culture when all we listen to/see is spruiked by a handful of western media agencies.

We are puppets and we are happy to be puppets. Very few of us are remotely interested in researching an issue to form a balanced, informed opinion. We argue out of ignorance and intolerance on here and we fight for the same reasons on a larger scale.

The same goes of course for the impoverished people searching for answers and lashing out, only their sources of information are even more limited than ours.

They see "us" as bloated, greedy, unprincipled and incaring.....and they are right. Why do we have borders and immigration control after all? God forbid (pun intended) we should compromise our sheltered lives in the slightest to help out those less fortunate than ourselves.

NOMIS

1st December 2008, 13:28

Jantar

1st December 2008, 13:30

Ah blimey, I thought you'd be too smart to misconstrue what you quoted. Not fair to be trolling as a moderator.......

That is a bit below the belt. I am not trolling, and as I am actively participating in this thread I haven't carried out any moderation on it since the first page. Moderators do not moderate in threads they are active in.

I am sure you are well aware that there's no substantial proof that increases in national security that compromises civil liberties actually helps to abate the real terrorist threat.

I agree entirely, and I have never been an advocate of reduced liberties in the name of counter terrorism. But what has the response got to do with the reasons behind terrorism?

Oscar

1st December 2008, 13:43

[QUOTE=MisterD;1831635]Yeah whatever. As far as I am concerned there are two types of "belief systems" in this world; Those that are based on fact and "faiths" which by definition require no factual basis.

Hi MisterD , Can you please explain to me this, Proof that Jesus christ existed ( the basis for my christian "faith" ) its a fact but my belief in what he said is my faith. can you please explain the conflicts there,

He also said he would arise from Death, there was not fact that this happend because his body was never found once put in a tomb ( spelling ) and I bas my "faith" in what 100's of people sworn was a "fact" also base my faith in what he said.

If you could explain that then I would be very happy :D

Catch 22 Alert.

If you base your faith on fact, then it's not faith anymore.

Notwithstanding that, the only fact you have that can go anywhere near proven is that Christ existed. Most of what he may have done or said is based on accounts written a long time afterward.

I'm not trying to belittle your faith here, I'm just saying that if you claim it's based on fact I'll wanna see some proof.

Winston001

1st December 2008, 13:43

While not all religious fanatics are terrorists, the overwhelming majority of the worlds terrorists are religious fanatics, and mainly from a single religion (Islam).....

Mmmm.........but no. Baader Meinhof, Red Brigades, Black September, Shining Path, Euskadia Ta Askatasuna (ETA), Tamil Tigers, FLN, Mau-Mau, Japanese Red Army........

Some of these are historical in that they are not active today, but they do show that terrorism (or armed struggle against oppression - take your pick) is not new or particularly religious. Indeed much of the so-called Islamist terrorism is simply a war to gain political power and control. You'll note that more Islamics are killed by each other than any other group.

Oscar

1st December 2008, 13:45

I agree entirely, and I have never been an advocate of reduced liberties in the name of counter terrorism. But what has the response got to do with the reasons behind terrorism?

How can you respond if you don't know the reason for the terrorism in the first place? Would you have advocated an "Operation Freedom" type response in Ulster?

cold comfort

1st December 2008, 13:48

" Finn - Im sorry to hear you have lost another friend/collegue to the unrest in India. It must be a sad and frustrating time for you.
I understand where you are coming from.
I believe if there were no religion the the world would be a much happier and safer place. Mankind is their own destroyer.
But everyone has their own beliefs because of their culture, and sadly it is going to get much much worse.
Why is it we need to force our beliefs onto others? "

I'm with Trumpess on condolences to Finn and the viewpoint. I sadly cannot see any resolution whilst formalised religious beliefs are held, due to the requirement that 'the other guy is always wrong". (The basis for the Inquisition and Holy Wars). Islam is also (IMO) seriously flawed in that the Koran is wriiten before and after Mecca was taken back, whereby the preceding (peaceful) verses are superseded by the later (violence condoning) verses. Thus they have a text that convieniently provides justification by the radical elements to eliminate the "infidels". This is not helped by of course by the right wing Christian and Jewish support for Americas version of state supported genocide!

SPman

1st December 2008, 13:50

Under todays definitions, the US founding fathers, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc, would all be classed as "terrorists".

imdying

1st December 2008, 13:51

This is not helped by of course by the right wing Christian and Jewish support for Americas version of state supported genocide!Yep, pretty hard to feel sorry for a country that won't keep it's nose out of Arab business... no wonder it got bitten off a few years ago.

Oscar

1st December 2008, 13:57

Under todays definitions, the US founding fathers, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc, would all be classed as "terrorists".

By contemporary definitions they were certainly viewed that way.
What is commonly referred to as the American War of Independence was more of a civil war (it reflected similar troubles in the UK at the time). If they had lost, they would be ranked up there with Guy Fawkes and the Indian Mutineers...(and received similar punishment).

MisterD

1st December 2008, 14:10

If you could explain that then I would be very happy :D

Sigh. Take it to the Scottish Thread - it's been done.

Marmoot

1st December 2008, 14:26

Christians may have changed their methods in 600 years but not that much has changed. People still die on a regular basis for that religion, which is primarily responsible for lots of recent nasty wars/insurrections such as Northern Ireland and Bosnia.

Those who claim that religions causes violence and death, beware of the thoughts that the absence of religion may solve the problem (a.k.a John Lennon Syndrome).

A mere mention of secular regimes which thrived on oppressing religions simply put this perception into the same boat.

Just count how many people have been persecuted for their religions during Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein, good Ol' Soviet Union, China's Communist Revolution, etc.

Suddenly atheism don't look too good either.

See the problem? It's not the religion or the lack thereof, but the totalitarian point of view that stereotypes everything. Just because there are jihadists, inquisitors, and atheist oppressors, they don't simply make religion/atheism bad.

It's just human nature.

Mikkel

1st December 2008, 14:29

That is a bit below the belt. I am not trolling, and as I am actively participating in this thread I haven't carried out any moderation on it since the first page. Moderators do not moderate in threads they are active in.

Well, you may not have been trolling - but I was for a second. :)
I still don't see how you could take what you quoted and then consider your response appropriate.

I agree entirely, and I have never been an advocate of reduced liberties in the name of counter terrorism. But what has the response got to do with the reasons behind terrorism?

If one does not understand the reasons behind something it is pretty much impossible to think up a proper response to it. Would you not agree with that as well?

On the other hand, if the response serves other purposes than only to address the issue at which it is officially aimed - then it becomes much more complicated.
E.g. suppose for a moment that the war in Afghanistan was undertaken both as a reaction to the events on 9/11-2001 and as an opportunity to field-test new battlefield technology...
Suppose there were other reasons for the war in Iraq part 2 than to find and defuse weapons of mass destruction.

I don't have any answers - nor do have any opinions on these matters. The thing is however, the "pure and simple truth" is not often pure and never simple.

Oscar

1st December 2008, 14:33

Those who claim that religions causes violence and death, beware of the thoughts that the absence of religion may solve the problem (a.k.a John Lennon Syndrome).

A mere mention of secular regimes which thrived on oppressing religions simply put this perception into the same boat.

Just count how many people have been persecuted for their religions during Khmer Rouge, Saddam Hussein, good Ol' Soviet Union, China's Communist Revolution, etc.

Suddenly atheism don't look too good either.

See the problem? It's not the religion or the lack thereof, but the totalitarian point of view that stereotypes everything. Just because there are jihadists, inquisitors, and atheist oppressors, they don't simply make religion/atheism bad.

It's just human nature.

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't claiming the high ground for anyone. I was replying to someone who inferred that Christians weren't killers these days.

Ixion

1st December 2008, 14:42

Sigh. Take it to the Scottish Thread - it's been done.

That seems very one sided. You bag his belief system, than when he objects you take refuge in "Take it to the Scottish thread". If that is your answer (and fair enough) , then your original denigration should also have been posted there. You are claiming the right to deride his beliefs whilst denying him the right to reply.

mstriumph

1st December 2008, 14:58

The solution to religious bigotry is to find common ground that each faith has (love, compassion, forgiveness etc. instead of proselytizing the differences.

Skyryder I don't believe that all faiths necessarily have those (or any other) admirable qualities in common ---- each may have bits, but if you were to put together a wish list i doubt you'd be able to tick ALL boxes on each....

even where two faiths tick a similar box, it would probably be misguided to believe that each had a similar definition of the quality in question?

the solution to religious [or any other] bigotry is for all nations to agree what is acceptable and what is not ..... like THAT's ever going to happen :yawn:

otherwise shoot them all ... let god sort it out

[I]no - i'm not being cynical, just realistic - it IS monday after all ... :eek5:

mstriumph

1st December 2008, 15:01

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't claiming the high ground for anyone. I was replying to someone who inferred that Christians weren't killers these days.

implied *10 chars*

NighthawkNZ

1st December 2008, 15:02

That and money, unless you have money, then its just Muslims, oh, and gays.

and motorcyclists... oh and those that like the colour purple... gammblers, druggies, and crimms have been terrorising our cities for ages they are all terrorists

mstriumph

1st December 2008, 15:03

That seems very one sided. You bag his belief system, than when he objects you take refuge in "Take it to the Scottish thread". If that is your answer (and fair enough) , then your original denigration should also have been posted there. You are claiming the right to deride his beliefs whilst denying him the right to reply.

..... which is one of the pillars of religious intolerance, of course

makes one think
if we can't even achieve tolerance here, what hope has the rest of humanity got?

mstriumph

1st December 2008, 15:04

and motorcyclists... oh and those that like the colour purple... gammblers, druggies, and crimms have been terrorising our cities for ages they are all terrorists you've left women out - specifically 6 foot, left-handed women that abhor the colour pink? :(

short-circuit

1st December 2008, 15:09

I can't believe people have entered into debate here with unabashed bigots - Why would anyone even offer these pricks and their skewed beliefs legitimacy by taking them seriously enough to argue with them?

NighthawkNZ

1st December 2008, 15:11

you've left women out - specifically 6 foot, left-handed women that abhor the colour pink? :(
:doh: oh yeh them too... ;)

MisterD

1st December 2008, 15:11

That seems very one sided. You bag his belief system, than when he objects you take refuge in "Take it to the Scottish thread". If that is your answer (and fair enough) , then your original denigration should also have been posted there. You are claiming the right to deride his beliefs whilst denying him the right to reply.

I wasn't the one suddenly talking about Christianity in the middle of a discussion about Islam...I'm more than happy to (re)debate the issue in the proper place, but it's been done over there already and frankly Nomis would be better just to read Wolf's posts than go round in circles (although that is, of course, the nature of the ST).

short-circuit

1st December 2008, 15:12

Good work with the tags darling: I suspect they are the work of the man(?) who headed this thread: Terrorist (namely muslim) COWARDS

Ixion

1st December 2008, 15:13

and motorcyclists... oh and those that like the colour purple... gammblers, druggies, and crimms have been terrorising our cities for ages they are all terrorists

And taxi-drivers. You left out taxis drivers. Evil incarnate.

MisterD

1st December 2008, 15:20

Just to add some light and shade to the debate:

Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th itself. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again,

Finn

1st December 2008, 15:29

Good work with the tags darling: I suspect they are the work of the man(?) who headed this thread: Terrorist (namely muslim) COWARDS

Actually I haven't created any of the tags in this thread.

short-circuit

1st December 2008, 15:41

Actually I haven't created any of the tags in this thread.

So it's just cowardly internet postings attacking ethnic/religious minorities for you then?

If someone is wanting to repeat what has been written in these tags to my face you are welcome to PM me so we can exchange details...

Finn

1st December 2008, 15:50

So it's just cowardly internet postings attacking ethnic/religious minorities for you then?

No not really. I think what you're missing is that people just don't like you very much.

Maki

1st December 2008, 16:19

Badjelly

1st December 2008, 16:19

Neither would I expect the Spanish Inquisition to come knocking on my door - although their chief weapon is surprise and fear...

Nice try, but no-one's biting.

Mikkel

1st December 2008, 16:23

The root of most of the worlds evil is too many people. If everone had enough land, food and water they would not bother other people, what would be the point?

Yet, that is where you are mistaken. Even if there was enough for everyone, and there is, someone would look at the next guy and want what he has as well.

scumdog

1st December 2008, 16:27

I feel sorry for the REAL Muslims, they are being dragged down by the arsehole rabid cretinous ones that slaughter whoever they feel justified to.

enigma51

1st December 2008, 16:27

So it's just cowardly internet postings attacking ethnic/religious minorities for you then?

If someone is wanting to repeat what has been written in these tags to my face you are welcome to PM me so we can exchange details...

Another fine example of some kb members making it all about themselves.

Get over yourself you twat!

short-circuit

1st December 2008, 17:00

I think what you're missing is that people just don't like you very much.

In the same way as you/they don't like Muslims, brown people, the poor etc etc? These people can get fucked as far as I'm concerned. I'm not here to befriend rednecks

short-circuit

1st December 2008, 17:01

Another fine example of some kb members making it all about themselves.

Get over yourself you twat!

If someone wants to single me out for personal abuse then they should have the balls to deal with the response

98tls

1st December 2008, 17:03

In the same way as you/they don't like Muslims, brown people, the poor etc etc? These people can get fucked as far as I'm concerned. I'm not here to befriend rednecks Oi,i have nothing against poor people.

wbks

1st December 2008, 17:04

Isn't it part of the religion to try and convert or kill all infidels?.....

98tls

1st December 2008, 17:08

Isn't it part of the religion to try and convert or kill all infidels?.....
:whocares:For a 1000 virgins i would kill anyone.

NighthawkNZ

1st December 2008, 17:10

:whocares:For a 1000 virgins i would kill anyone.

Oh and I forgot about the Terrorist Chickens in cans that explode. YOu will have to ask Ghost Bullet on that

wbks

1st December 2008, 17:10

Untill you get to heaven and find 1000 Male IT telecom workers waiting for you

doc

1st December 2008, 17:11

Easy to make comments about news items on an event far away. Be interesting to see if the opinions were the same if it happened in "Godzone"

wbks

1st December 2008, 17:12

It would be more like "DEATH TO THE RAG HEADS". Or something of the sort.

NOMIS

1st December 2008, 18:15

I wasn't the one suddenly talking about Christianity in the middle of a discussion about Islam...I'm more than happy to (re)debate the issue in the proper place, but it's been done over there already and frankly Nomis would be better just to read Wolf's posts than go round in circles (although that is, of course, the nature of the ST).

Sorry misterD but I was not talking about Christianity , I just told you I am christian,What I would like you to answer is how Fact and Fatih can not rely on eachother, If i decided to invent a pagan god in my mind I can understand . However i feel nearly all religons are based around some sort of fact as most scientists whom research religions will say you have to be a fool not to accept there is a some type of god. even explaining a "big bang"

Anyways my Christian Faith is based on the fact of a man named Jesus who walked this eath thousands of years ago who existed and preformed miracles and saved. thats my fatih all wraped up into fact. see the conflict I was actually asking you about???

In regards to IslamI realise we are talking about this and I was not trying to start a conversation on Christianity i was just carrying on what where you where saying about 2 types of religion's . Thanks :niceone:

aewilliam

1st December 2008, 18:57

Hitcher

1st December 2008, 19:06

There are always at least two sides to every human experience. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. The winners get to write the history.

tommygun

1st December 2008, 19:12

Will there ever be a winner? The "fanatics" are taught young in all counrties. As long as there are students and teachers who teach different ideals etc.... How can the cycle ever be stopped?

Hitcher

1st December 2008, 19:18

Will there ever be a winner? The "fanatics" are taught young in all counrties. As long as there are students and teachers who teach different ideals etc.... How can the cycle ever be stopped?

Don't underestimate the strength of hatred that many countries in the world have against the "west" in general and the USA in particular. If I was a Palestinian who watched everything I created regularly get smashed to rubble at every time Israel's leaders felt like it, I'd probably be a tad disgruntled. And noting that that regional superpower exists largely on American aid, I'd probably not think that fondly of that land across the waves either. Violence begets violence, and nobody likes a bully.

tommygun

1st December 2008, 19:33

Don't underestimate the strength of hatred that many countries in the world have against the "west" in general and the USA in particular. If I was a Palestinian who watched everything I created regularly get smashed to rubble at every time Israel's leaders felt like it, I'd probably be a tad disgruntled. And noting that that regional superpower exists largely on American aid, I'd probably not think that fondly of that land across the waves either. Violence begets violence, and nobody likes a bully.

Its the strength of the hatred that leads to the teaching. I was not just stating one side as "fanatics". I said "in all countries" meaning the west also.
The west is no different to the rest. In every country there is an "extreme" element. It just the Islamic extremists are the ones getting all the press of late.

Hitcher

1st December 2008, 19:35

It's just the Islamic extremists are the ones getting all the press of late.

Makes for a refreshing change from the Catholics vs Protestants in Ireland.

aewilliam

1st December 2008, 19:39

I strongly believe that religion is the root of most of the worlds evil. History taught me that. But these Muslim cowards take it too far. We'll never be able to stop them either. It's actually really scary.
RIP Andreas.

NOMIS, respekt on the JC reprezent :headbang:

However, I guess the point of forum is to debate Finn's statement if theres room for it...and the past 8 pages seem to agree.

Finn, I respect your belief in that 'religion is the root of most of the world's evil. History taught me that'.

Its good to see that the word 'evil' is still in your vocab :) It still is in mine, and i am glad that the company i work for hasnt been added to the list which ended with 6 foot women of some sort.
Many people may think good and evil aren't real but just part of being human. I don't subscribe to this. Humans have a distinct and REAL choice between the two.
I believe that history teaches not that 'religion is the root' but rather, 'people who ABUSE religion' is the root of much evil.
The FACT is that in societies where religion is abused (i.e. taught and practiced IN NAME, but when compared to the true commandments/laws), not allowed, or allowed to fall into dust because humans think we are our own gods...greater evils occur and there is no real basis or responsibility for doing what is right.
Word(s) in defence for the true Muslims I consider to be brothers (and their many gorjus laydeez whom i am glad AREN'T my sistas :drool: )...
These people Finn refer to (terrorists) are HYPOCRITES and therefore not aligned to the TRUTH of the true Islam religion. And these terrorists pass on these LIES of hate and violence to their descendents. This as Finn rightly says can NOT be stopped by the Americans, or anyone outside their community. True peace can ONLY be achieved through peace itself. It has to come from within their own people. The God if Islam is one of peace. He IS the same as the God of the Jewish and Christians.
In terms of religious violence, when abusers stop using their religion and most terribly, THEIR GOD, as an EXCUSE for the violence (and "Christians" and "Jews" and "Hindus" etc as well, don't get me wrong...) only then will there be peace among the religious. NOT when "there is no religion".
Then the TRUE reasons/excuses for violence will be evidenced...

Hitcher

1st December 2008, 19:44

True peace can ONLY be achieved through peace itself.

That would be a first. Never in the history of human existence has tension between peoples of differing world views ever been resolved by peaceful endeavours. To the victors the spoils.

tommygun

1st December 2008, 19:44

The don't let bombs off in London anymore so they dont make the world news. maybe the politics supressing the hatred beneath, possibly giving the newer generation a chance to learn something other than beat the snot out of the other guy or which way to point a rifle etc.

I'm sure in the long ago past Islamic, Jew and Chirstains lived together in some sort of harmony in the holy land.

Hitcher

1st December 2008, 19:46

I'm sure in the long ago past Islamic, Jew and Chirstains lived together in some sort of harmony in the holy land.

Perhaps, when they were all Jews...

The Stranger

1st December 2008, 19:49

Don't underestimate the strength of hatred that many countries in the world have against the "west" in general and the USA in particular. If I was a Palestinian who watched everything I created regularly get smashed to rubble at every time Israel's leaders felt like it, I'd probably be a tad disgruntled. And noting that that regional superpower exists largely on American aid, I'd probably not think that fondly of that land across the waves either. Violence begets violence, and nobody likes a bully.

Hang on, the Israelis are only helping the Palestinians at their national past time - blowing up.

aewilliam

1st December 2008, 19:52

Makes for a refreshing change from the Catholics vs Protestants in Ireland.

I guess the Christians are learning? (hopefully...)

And that their fight was (relatively) left for them to duke it out with each other without outside interference...

And Europe isn't as central to the world as the Middle East is - resources (oil), money (oil), ... coincidentally? i think not... the REAL reasons = greed...NOT religion.

aewilliam

1st December 2008, 19:58

That would be a first. Never in the history of human existence has tension between peoples of differing world views ever been resolved by peaceful endeavours. To the victors the spoils.

Precisely why the peace didn't last :(

For those societies and communities who DID give it a go and followed the principles (e.g. Mandela who WAS not the most peaceful until a change of heart after prison, Ghandi...Jesus Christ and his followers) it WORKED.

Oscar

1st December 2008, 20:23

Precisely why the peace didn't last :(

For those societies and communities who DID give it a go and followed the principles (e.g. Mandela who WAS not the most peaceful until a change of heart after prison, Ghandi...Jesus Christ and his followers) it WORKED.

Huh?

What worked?

When was the last time India was peaceful?

As for Jesus Christ and his followers, they've had the dominate religion on Earth for at least one thousand years - could you show me a decent period of peace in Christendom during that time? Even the various sects of Christians couldn't stop killing each other...

Oscar

1st December 2008, 20:28

I'm sure in the long ago past Islamic, Jew and Chirstains lived together in some sort of harmony in the holy land.

You have to be kidding.
As soon as the Christians got the upper hand, they killed Jews on a regular basis. Anti-Semitism isn't a German invention, it pre-dates Herr Hitler by about 20 centuries. They killed Christ after all...

Hitcher

1st December 2008, 20:29

They killed Christ after all...

Who happened to be Jewish. That hardly counts...

Oscar

1st December 2008, 20:32

Who happened to be Jewish. That hardly counts...

Erm...surely you jest...it's the whole basis of anti-Semitic behaviour.

SARGE

1st December 2008, 20:34

In 9/11, I lost a customer (Fiduciary Trust) and several great people myself and my team had worked with over the years.

Last week I got the call that a good friend had been murdered in the terrorist attack in India. He was a great man and had the most amasing life of anyone I know. His achievements were astonishing, but he just took it in his stride.

I strongly believe that religion is the root of most of the worlds evil. History taught me that. But these Muslim cowards take it too far. We'll never be able to stop them either. It's actually really scary.

RIP Andreas.

finally a thread i can sink my fangs into!!

sorry for your loss Finn.. i am probably one of a handfull of folk on here who understand....

look... everyone is going on about Human Rights, innocent civilians blah blah blah..

Look at Daniel Pearl..the Civilian contractors in Fajulla..the dead and injured in the First WTC attack..the 3000 killed in 9/11..

who is playing by the rules here?..who is taking the moral high ground..? certainly not them..

there was a case in Iraq a few years ago where a suicide bomber, attempting to send as many Marines to Hell as he could..found a couple of Marines handing out lollies to about 20 children..

yep..he got the Marines...

Oct 23 1983..300-odd Marines, sent to Beirut to stand between Hezbollah and the Israelis..Hezbollah was on the fuzzy end of the lolly, because Israel, in its no-nonsense style of warfighting, was scorching the earth..the UN decided to send a "peacekeeping" force in to stand between then 2 ..

most of the Marines were still sleeping when the truck bomb hit...

yea.. heaps of respect for the rags..

as far as stopping them.. get rid of the lefty media and the liberal attorneys..

let those of us who trained for this do our jobs without an arm trussed up behind our backs..

aewilliam

1st December 2008, 20:40

Huh?

What worked?

When was the last time India was peaceful?

As for Jesus Christ and his followers, they've had the dominate religion on Earth for at least one thousand years - could you show me a decent period of peace in Christendom during that time? Even the various sects of Christians couldn't stop killing each other...

Oscar...pity you take things out of context, or dont read the full story. Like all people who bang ALL Muslims and ALL Christians and ALL Jews and ALL HIndus and ALL religion.

As I said, when the principles of the religion/teachings/schoool-of-though were FOLLOWED and were not ABUSED, there WAS peace, albeit for a short time until others who wer NOT peaceful came along and un-peaced the peace :(

You have to be kidding.
As soon as the Christians got the upper hand, they killed Jews on a regular basis. Anti-Semitism isn't a German invention, it pre-dates Herr Hitler by about 20 centuries. They killed Christ after all...

Jews killed Christ, so the Jews were anti-Semetic? :blank:
The large amounts of killing in the past was done yes by those who killed "in the name of Jesus Christ", but were definitly NOT true Christians whatsoever, and its HISTORY whichi shoudl be LEARNED from.

SARGE

1st December 2008, 20:53

Why? So they match your preconceived ideas or some international 'law' about what a solider is and isn't? Really? :lol:

in order to qualify as a "Soldier" and not as an "enemy Combatant".. under International Law (ratified by over 170 countries)

To qualify for prisoner of war status persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. or 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.

pretty easy to understand i thought...

Oscar

1st December 2008, 20:57

Oscar...pity you take things out of context, or dont read the full story. Like all people who bang ALL Muslims and ALL Christians and ALL Jews and ALL HIndus and ALL religion.

As I said, when the principles of the religion/teachings/schoool-of-though were FOLLOWED and were not ABUSED, there WAS peace, albeit for a short time until others who wer NOT peaceful came along and un-peaced the peace :(

Jews killed Christ, so the Jews were anti-Semetic? :blank:
The large amounts of killing in the past was done yes by those who killed "in the name of Jesus Christ", but were definitly NOT true Christians whatsoever, and its HISTORY whichi shoudl be LEARNED from.

For someone who professes to be a Christian you don't seem to have studied the history of your religion.

I wasn't taking things out of context, I asked you to elucidate on these peaceful communities. When was this peace and how long did it last?

As for the Jews killing Christ - Why do you think Christians persecute Jews?
Why were Jews expelled from most of Western Europe in the Middle Ages?

Finally it seems to be taking an awful long time for Christians to learn from history. People who call themselves Christians are still doing it (albeit in a subtler and more sophisticated manner).

aewilliam

1st December 2008, 20:58

finally a thread i can sink my fangs into!!

sorry for your loss Finn.. i am probably one of a handfull of folk on here who understand....

etc...

These so called "Muslim" extremists certainly don't play by the rules and cause unspeakable harm to innocents. They and their teachers are NOT true Muslims, and do NOT follow the spirit of their religion...

Those non-extremist Muslim sympathisers and benefactors who do not do anything or enough to stop the harm also are not true Muslims as they too are NOT following the principles of their religion.

Only once the terrorists, sympathisers, and supporters are shunned by the TRUE Muslims who practice their faith of Love can the extremist Muslims be shown the error of their ways and change. For example, i would guess us bikers would not give as much shi1t (in mind or mouth) to a biker cop as a cager cop if we were pulled over? Same as Muslims/Gang members/Drug Addicts...it has to (or is more likely to be successful and less damage and long lasting) if it is a change from within...

SARGE

1st December 2008, 20:58

Al Queda (doesn't actually exist, it's a label made up by the CIA for all Muslim Terror Groups).
[/LIST]

Al Queda isnt an organization.. loosely translated in Farsi, it means "the Base" (or Database)..

and the current war started at the fall of the Ottoman Empire (end of WW1)

Mikkel

1st December 2008, 20:59

in order to qualify as a "Soldier" and not as an "enemy Combatant".. under International Law (ratified by over 170 countries)

pretty easy to understand i thought...

What imdying is trying to say is that these guys doesn't play by the rules. As such it is pretty silly to get upset when they choose to target civilians or perform actions that defy the Geneva convention. Also, trying to put them into your "soldier box" (ratified by 170 countries or not) is a futile effort.

Oscar

1st December 2008, 21:05

finally a thread i can sink my fangs into!!

sorry for your loss Finn.. i am probably one of a handfull of folk on here who understand....

look... everyone is going on about Human Rights, innocent civilians blah blah blah..

Look at Daniel Pearl..the Civilian contractors in Fajulla..the dead and injured in the First WTC attack..the 3000 killed in 9/11..

who is playing by the rules here?..who is taking the moral high ground..? certainly not them..

there was a case in Iraq a few years ago where a suicide bomber, attempting to send as many Marines to Hell as he could..found a couple of Marines handing out lollies to about 20 children..

yep..he got the Marines...

Oct 23 1983..300-odd Marines, sent to Beirut to stand between Hezbollah and the Israelis..Hezbollah was on the fuzzy end of the lolly, because Israel, in its no-nonsense style of warfighting, was scorching the earth..the UN decided to send a "peacekeeping" force in to stand between then 2 ..

most of the Marines were still sleeping when the truck bomb hit...

yea.. heaps of respect for the rags..

as far as stopping them.. get rid of the lefty media and the liberal attorneys..

let those of us who trained for this do our jobs without an arm trussed up behind our backs..

Err - you seem to have missed one side of the story there, Sarge.

What also happened in Beirut at about that time that might have upset the Hezbollah? Summat about the IDF turning their backs as Christian Militia went into Palestinian Refugee Camps and slaughtered the inhabitants? They are a simple folk, so the equation goes like this - if you support my enemy (Israel), you are my enemy (USA).

I'd love to think it was as simple as killing terrorist scumbags (and hey, if some liberal media weenies need sorting, do that to). It ain't that simple, and you are smarter than that.

I need you to ask yerself why these people are doing this. When did it start - 9/11? 1948? 1919?

Why are the best recruiting weapons the Scumbags have the IDF and the USAF? Bomb some Iraqi suburbs, bulldoze some West Bank hovels, and bingo - instant suicide bombers...

SARGE

1st December 2008, 21:06

In the same way as you/they don't like Muslims, brown people, the poor etc etc? These people can get fucked as far as I'm concerned. I'm not here to befriend rednecks

boy are YOU in the wrong place...

Oscar

1st December 2008, 21:08

Al Queda isnt an organization.. loosely translated in Farsi, it means "the Base" (or Database)..

and the current war started at the fall of the Ottoman Empire (end of WW1)

It probably started when the Inquisition started driving Jews out of Europe.
If those fuckers had of left well enough alone - no pogroms - no holocaust - no Israel - no 9/11.

aewilliam

1st December 2008, 21:09

I wasn't taking things out of context, I asked you to elucidate on these peaceful communities. When was this peace and how long did it last?

Not very long did it last...as I said - the peace was ruined by those NOT peaceful, tolerant, loving. Those who did NOT follow the principles of the religion/teachings.

As for the Jews killing Christ - Why do you think Christians persecute Jews?
Why were Jews expelled from most of Western Europe in the Middle Ages?

HISTORY
The Americans supporting the Israelis/Jews in WW2 and currently in the Middle East is still persecution of the Jews by Christians? Quite the oppposite

Finally it seems to be taking an awful long time for Christians to learn from history. People who call themselves Christians are still doing it (albeit in a subtler and more sophisticated manner).

You said it yourself. "people who call themselves Christians". You know or can find out, they know, I know, what a true Christian is asked to believe and follow. If they DON'T they are NOT true Christians.

Not necessarily a thread for defending my faith, but i will continue, adn others may decide to as well, defend it or attack (preferably debate!) it if they choose...

Remember again, an innocent dude among many has died (RIP) at the hands of those who kill in the name of their religion but whose actions are clearly against the spirit of the teachings. Is it the religion to blame or the people who abuse it?

Oscar

1st December 2008, 21:11

I guess the Christians are learning? (hopefully...)

And that their fight was (relatively) left for them to duke it out with each other without outside interference...

Without outside interference?
What comic do you get your history from?
Why did several members of my family get to walk down the Falls Road with automatic weapons whilst the locals did their best to kill them?

SARGE

1st December 2008, 21:13

What imdying is trying to say is that these guys doesn't play by the rules. As such it is pretty silly to get upset when they choose to target civilians or perform actions that defy the Geneva convention. Also, trying to put them into your "soldier box" (ratified by 170 countries or not) is a futile effort.

yea.. thats the point i was trying to make.. they cannot be classed as "soldiers" with all the protections afforded them by the Geneva Conventions

just dirty mercenaries really, arent they?

Oscar

1st December 2008, 21:16

Not very long did it last...as I said - the peace was ruined by those NOT peaceful, tolerant, loving. Those who did NOT follow the principles of the religion/teachings.

HISTORY
The Americans supporting the Israelis/Jews in WW2 and currently in the Middle East is still persecution of the Jews by Christians? Quite the oppposite

You said it yourself. "people who call themselves Christians". You know or can find out, they know, I know, what a true Christian is asked to believe and follow. If they DON'T they are NOT true Christians.

Not necessarily a thread for defending my faith, but i will continue, adn others may decide to as well, defend it or attack (preferably debate!) it if they choose...

Remember again, an innocent dude among many has died (RIP) at the hands of those who kill in the name of their religion but whose actions are clearly against the spirit of the teachings. Is it the religion to blame or the people who abuse it?

I'm not defending or attacking your religion, pal.
I'm trying to find out where you get your history.

What was this about the USA defending Israel/Jews in WW2?
Hint Israel didn't exist until 1948...
What about this Christian Community that lived in peace?

aewilliam

1st December 2008, 21:17

Without outside interference?
What comic do you get your history from?
Why did several members of my family get to walk down the Falls Road with automatic weapons whilst the locals did their best to kill them?

"Outside interference" for me was comparing the trillions of $$$ and troops (hmmmm... and big business...) from USA/West pouring into the Middle East war, to the Catholics vs Protestants in Ireland.

Why did several members of my family get to walk down the Falls Road with automatic weapons whilst the locals did their best to kill them?

If you choose to go along with the debate of "are Christians behaving like Christ?" - So was any of the above of your statement an example of true Christian (like Jesus Christ) action?

SARGE

1st December 2008, 21:18

Err - you seem to have missed one side of the story there, Sarge.

What also happened in Beirut at about that time that might have upset the Hezbollah? Summat about the IDF turning their backs as Christian Militia went into Palestinian Refugee Camps and slaughtered the inhabitants? They are a simple folk, so the equation goes like this - if you support my enemy (Israel), you are my enemy (USA).
.

heres the thing though...

i was actually there whe n it happened.. i was with BLT 1/8 24th MAU in the building that went down...

we were NOT there in support of one side over another..we were a UN force, officially classed as non-combatants (our ROE were very strict, which is why we were not on Condition 1 [locked and loaded])

we actually stopped an Israeli tank column from entering Hezbollah territory..pointed weapons at the commander and all..

ask me anything about the incident.... i'll share what i can

Oscar

1st December 2008, 21:19

yea.. thats the point i was trying to make.. they cannot be classed as "soldiers" with all the protections afforded them by the Geneva Conventions

just dirty mercenaries really, arent they?

If their not soldiers, they have civil rights.
Stuff like habeas corpus - you know one of those basic freedoms we have enjoyed in the west for 10 centuries - but not in the USA, 'cause Bush suspended it in the name of his fight for freedom...

aewilliam

1st December 2008, 21:20

What was this about the USA defending Israel/Jews in WW2?
Hint Israel didn't exist until 1948...

Oscar...
OUT OF CONTEXT (i think i may have mentioned "Out of Context" before?)
Context was the WHOLE sentence, being:
"The Americans supporting the Israelis/Jews in WW2 and currently in the Middle East is still persecution of the Jews by Christians?"

Jantar

1st December 2008, 21:21

...
just dirty mercenaries really, arent they?
I wouldn't even give them the honour of being called mercenaries. At least Soldiers of Fortune generally follow the rules of being in uniform, carrying weapons openly, etc.

These religious fanatics target the innocent, use concealed weapons or IEDs, and disguise themselves as peacefull citizens. They are terrorists. IMO no other term can apply.

Mikkel

1st December 2008, 21:22

just dirty mercenaries really, arent they?

I wouldn't know what label to put on them. Fortunately we're being given a rather liberal label we can apply to everything that seems a bit irregular. So terrorist it is for now - I doubt any of them get paid too.

Oscar

1st December 2008, 21:22

"Outside interference" for me was comparing the trillions of $$$ and troops (hmmmm... and big business...) from USA/West pouring into the Middle East war, to the Catholics vs Protestants in Ireland.

(like Jesus Christ) action?

There was outside interference - millions coming in from the USA to support the IRA, most of which ironically was used to buy weapons from Gaddafi.

You make a bloody sectarian uprising sound like a pub fight.

Oscar

1st December 2008, 21:23

These religious fanatics target the innocent, use concealed weapons or IEDs, and disguise themselves as peacefull citizens. They are terrorists. IMO no other term can apply.

This describes the IRA.
Who funded them, again?

SARGE

1st December 2008, 21:26

If their not soldiers, they have civil rights.
Stuff like habeas corpus - you know one of those basic freedoms we have enjoyed in the west for 10 centuries - but not in the USA, 'cause Bush suspended it in the name of his fight for freedom...

if they are not soldiers and take up arms , under international law, they are "Enemy Combatants".. afforded the same rights as mercenaries..

if they dont take up arms or build bombs etc.. they are civilians and should move the fuck out of a war zone.. that why the Red Cross, the UN and hundreds of other refugee agencies exist..

Oscar

1st December 2008, 21:28

Oscar...
OUT OF CONTEXT (i think i may have mentioned "Out of Context" before?)
Context was the WHOLE sentence, being:
"The Americans supporting the Israelis/Jews in WW2 and currently in the Middle East is still persecution of the Jews by Christians?"

I can't be "out of context", if you aren't making any sense.

Explain to me in 40 words or less what your sentence means, as Israel didn't exist in WW2 and there was certainly little or no Allied reaction to the Holocaust during the actual war.

You may also wish to include this period or place of Christian peace and understanding that you refer to...

Oscar

1st December 2008, 21:33

if they are not soldiers and take up arms , under international law, they are "Enemy Combatants".. afforded the same rights as mercenaries..

if they dont take up arms or build bombs etc.. they are civilians and should move the fuck out of a war zone.. that why the Red Cross, the UN and hundreds of other refugee agencies exist..

Two questions, then:

1. If I have a an AK47 and shoot at you with it, what must I also do to be a soldier? Your definition of Enemy Combatants would seem to include the French Resistance in WW2, Viet Cong or even Paul Revere.

2. If the Iraqi army arrived in your neighbourhood to oust your Govt., would you "move the fuck out"?

aewilliam

1st December 2008, 21:34

There was outside interference - millions coming in from the USA to support the IRA, most of which ironically was used to buy weapons from Gaddafi.

You make a bloody sectarian uprising sound like a pub fight.

Not that i tried to or wanted to.
It sounds like you may have some personal experience with the conflicts in Northern Ireland.
Do you believe that the conflicts were caused by the Catholics fighting for the holiness of Mother Mary and the Blessed Sacrament, and the Protestants were fighting for the freedom to not have to believe in the two things mentioned above or the doctrinal differences in their faith? And that the walk down Falls Rd, or the millions $$$ from the USA was to do with this? I don't think that would be the case. You are free to say "yes" though.

This describes the IRA.
Who funded them, again?

Non- Christians/Jews/Muslims for sure (in the TRUE sense of the meaning...)

SARGE

1st December 2008, 21:37

Two questions, then:

1. If I have a an AK47 and shoot at you with it, what must I also do to be a soldier? Your definition of Enemy Combatants would seem to include the French Resistance in WW2, Viet Cong or even Paul Revere.

2. If the Iraqi army arrived in your neighbourhood to oust your Govt., would you "move the fuck out"?

its not MY definition.. its the Laws of Land Warfare as quoted above and below

To qualify for prisoner of war status persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. or 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.

for the second question..see #4

aewilliam

1st December 2008, 21:39

Can i contribute an answer?

2. If the Iraqi army arrived in your neighbourhood to oust your Govt., would you "move the fuck out"?

If I had access to the resources to support the defence of my neighbourhood, yes.
I don't think Sarge would "move the fuck out" , hjed be like :2guns: on their ass!

Jantar

1st December 2008, 21:41

This describes the IRA.
Who funded them, again?

Wrong.... This describeD the IRA. Note the past tense.

SARGE

1st December 2008, 21:41

Can i contribute an answer?

If I had access to the resources to support the defence of my neighbourhood, yes.
I don't think Sarge would "move the fuck out" , hjed be like :2guns: on their ass!

wouldnt strap a bomb to my fucking kid either...

maybe to Carver...

ok...defiantly to Carver

Oscar

1st December 2008, 21:43

Not that i tried to or wanted to.
It sounds like you may have some personal experience with the conflicts in Northern Ireland.
Do you believe that the conflicts were caused by the Catholics fighting for the holiness of Mother Mary and the Blessed Sacrament, and the Protestants were fighting for the freedom to not have to believe in the two things mentioned above or the doctrinal differences in their faith? And that the walk down Falls Rd, or the millions $$$ from the USA was to do with this? I don't think that would be the case. You are free to say "yes" though.

Non- Christians/Jews/Muslims for sure (in the TRUE sense of the meaning...)

Now you're starting to make sense.
The fight was originally religious but has denigrated into religion, politics and economics. It is a fight with roots 600 years old, but is still fundamentally about the schism in the Church.

The second part is pure doctrine though.
Of course you're going to tell me that Christians who kill aren't true followers, but you would say that, wouldn't you? It's just that if I were a cynical man I would have to note that there are an awful lot of these violent heretics (including most of the religious right in the US).

aewilliam

1st December 2008, 21:45

I can't be "out of context", if you aren't making any sense.
Explain to me in 40 words or less what your sentence means, as Israel didn't exist in WW2 and there was certainly little or no Allied reaction to the Holocaust during the actual war.
You may also wish to include this period or place of Christian peace and understanding that you refer to...

My bad...i was thinking about the aid setting up of the Israeli state as a form of support from the West, and the acceptance of mass refugees from Israel by America. Yes stuff was hard going, but it still was a sign of non-Anti-Semitism?
But 40 words or less? "America/The Allies didnt blow/gas/shoot the Jews in their masses during/after WWII...instead they made refuge available. And they now support the Jews in their fight against the terrorists. I dont see that as anti-Semitic."
MS word counts that as 33 words...

Delerium

1st December 2008, 21:47

thing is, terrorists hide in a civilian population, and avoid identification. A military force does not do this. This practice encourages civilian casualties. I think thats the point Sarge is trying to make.

I think it may also be a case of, if you dont want to 'play by the rules' so to speak, then neither will we, and guess what, we are the biggest baddest dog in the junk yard SO DONT F&*K WITH US! play by the rules and stop targeting non combatants.

And western nations shouls stop being so bleeding hart liberals and kick out the assholes that dont play by our rules. You have links with terrorists, there is the door. You dont want to show your face in court or on drivers license, there is the door. you WANT to come here? You live by OUR rules becuase this is MY country.

Oscar

1st December 2008, 21:47

its not MY definition.. its the Laws of Land Warfare as quoted above and below

for the second question..see #4

Interesting.

Most of the SpecOps unit in the west seem to be illegal.

How does this deal with indiscriminate bombing?
Why is a B2 pilot afforded more latitude than a grunt?
You need to be a lawyer to fight these days.

Hitcher

1st December 2008, 21:49

Why is a B2 pilot afforded more latitude than a grunt?

A commissioned grunt or a non-commissioned grunt? There's the thing about being an officer, it's about exercising discretion, within boundaries.

Oscar

1st December 2008, 21:52

My bad...i was thinking about the aid setting up of the Israeli state as a form of support from the West, and the acceptance of mass refugees from Israel by America. Yes stuff was hard going, but it still was a sign of non-Anti-Semitism?
But 40 words or less? "America/The Allies didnt blow/gas/shoot the Jews in their masses during/after WWII...instead they made refuge available. And they now support the Jews in their fight against the terrorists. I dont see that as anti-Semitic."
MS word counts that as 33 words...

Most of the refugees came from Europe (later from the USSR).
You were right in one sense, while the holocaust was going on, they didn't join in - but they did fuck all else.

The UK actively resisted and discouraged refugees to Palestine.
The Allies had very mixed feelings about the formation of the State of Israel, to the extent that some of the first terrorists in the region were Jewish (look up the Stern Gang) who were responsible for some very indiscriminate slaughter - ref. The King David Hotel bombing.

Oscar

1st December 2008, 21:55

A commissioned grunt or a non-commissioned grunt? There's the thing about being an officer, it's about exercising discretion, within boundaries.

We're starting to split hairs now.
Put it this way - what is the difference between being killed in the Twin Towers, or getting a Cruise Missile through the front door of yer Baghdad bomb shelter? Dead is dead, and yer relatives and friends are gonna be equally pissed of with however killed you...

Oscar

1st December 2008, 21:56

Wrong.... This describeD the IRA. Note the past tense.

They still have weapons.

Hitcher

1st December 2008, 21:57

We're starting to split hairs now.

You asked the question. Unless it was supposed to be enigmatically rhetorical...

Oscar

1st December 2008, 22:01

You asked the question. Unless it was supposed to be enigmatically rhetorical...

It is now.

What a great phrase:enigmatically rhetorical.

May I borrow it?
I'll bring it right back...

mstriumph

1st December 2008, 22:03

................ If I was a Palestinian who watched everything I created regularly get smashed to rubble at every time Israel's leaders felt like it,
..........................

you mean "every time my 'side' broke a ceasefire"? or "every time a fanatic, working in my name, blew up a busful of Israeli schoolkids"?

Violence begets violence, and nobody likes a bully. you are right --- and to me the bullies in that particular situation are those on the arab side doing the shooting and killing from inside otherwise civilian enclaves .... hiding behind women and children .............. and NOT the ones in israeli uniforms doing their best to stop them in an impossible situation

let the bastards come out from behind their innocent human shields and fight like honorable people ..... except, of course, the fact they are hiding there in the first place rather puts the lie to them being honorable people in any way, shape or form.

it seems to be 'fashionable' to knock the Israelies ..... didn't think YOU'd be one to follow the common herd, mr Hitcher ...... i'm a tad disappointed in you.

Big Dave

1st December 2008, 22:04

It is now.

What a great phrase:enigmatically rhetorical.

May I borrow it?
I'll bring it right back...

Stoically tragic.

SARGE

1st December 2008, 22:06

Western Nations contravene that convention all the time.

lets just take this one at a time...

How many pictures of captured Iraqi Soldiers did you see published in the two Gulf Wars? Not only does it breach the Geneva Convention, it's something Western Politicians/Media went ballistic about when the shoe was on the other foot.

how many pictures of Iraqi soldiers did you see where they were receiving food and medical treatment?

What about the use of physical restraints on prisoners? (Again summat the West is very hypocritical about).

yep...sneaky fucks like that im damn sure gonna hog-tie

How many US soldiers have you seen using shot guns?

yeas.. guilty.. i carried a Mossberg 5500 door breaching shotgun..00 buckshot 3" magnum high brass.. loved that gun (incedentllly.. i ALSO carried 40mm buckshot rounds for my M203..nothing says "Welcome to Hell" like 40 00 buck pellets coming through a door..)

What about Guantanamo Bay? If it doesn't breach the Geneva Convention, it falls foul of habeas corpus...and probably breaches both.

but at least the prisoners at Gitmo still have a head to bitch about it with..

hard to believe some people are actually defending these pricks...

no .. we CANT all just get along.. deal with it..

aewilliam

1st December 2008, 22:07

Now you're starting to make sense.
The fight was originally religious but has denigrated into religion, politics and economics. It is a fight with roots 600 years old, but is still fundamentally about the schism in the Church.

:clap:

:apint: (of Guiness if you would like...i actually like the stuff!)

The second part is pure doctrine though.
Of course you're going to tell me that Christians who kill aren't true followers, but you would say that, wouldn't you? It's just that if I were a cynical man I would have to note that there are an awful lot of these violent heretics (including most of the religious right in the US).

This is what I would say - If Jesus met these "violent heretics (including most of the religious right in the US)" would they really bve able to say to him "I am doing this for you God! Not for the money, not for the power, not for the pride and nationlism, but for the love of you and the good of the world"?
And would the terrorists, the doers and the thinkers, who CALL themselves "Muslim", be able to say the same to Allah, Mohammed, or Jesus? I think not...

mstriumph

1st December 2008, 22:10

...............some of the first terrorists in the region were Jewish (look up the Stern Gang) who were responsible for some very indiscriminate slaughter - ref. The King David Hotel bombing. yup - killed one of me rellies a bit dead, they did.

Oscar

1st December 2008, 22:10

you mean "every time my 'side' broke a ceasefire"? or "every time a fanatic, working in my name, blew up a busful of Israeli schoolkids"?

you are right --- and to me the bullies in that particular situation are those on the arab side doing the shooting and killing from inside otherwise civilian enclaves .... hiding behind women and children .............. and NOT the ones in israeli uniforms doing their best to stop them in an impossible situation

You're right, those Israelis should have the right to protect the land that their families have had for generations...err...um...well, a generation, anyway...shit..

...sorry...I'll try that again...

You're right, those Israelis should have the right to protect the land that they stole at the point of a gun...damn

..opps, that don't work...try again..

You're right, those Israelis should have the right to protect the land that was in their families for generations, before they abandoned it for 2000 years, and then took back (after ejecting the new residents) using some Old Testament hokum and a contradictory UN resolution...bugger

...jeez...the truth is hard...

Oscar

1st December 2008, 22:12

Stoically tragic.

That one's going straight to the pool room..

Oscar

1st December 2008, 22:16

lets just take this one at a time...

how many pictures of Iraqi soldiers did you see where they were receiving food and medical treatment?

yep...sneaky fucks like that im damn sure gonna hog-tie

yeas.. guilty.. i carried a Mossberg 550 door breaching shotgun..00 buckshot 3" magnum high brass.. loved that gun

but at least the prisoners at Gitmo still have a head to bitch about it with..

hard to believe some people are actually defending these pricks...

no .. we CANT all just get along.. deal with it..

Great - so ignorant, uneducated Arabs have to abide by the Geneva Convention, but we don't have to worry about the bits we don't like?

That's the whole point - we're supposed to be better than them.
No wonder we're losing this war.

SARGE

1st December 2008, 22:21

Great - so ignorant, uneducated Arabs have to abide by the Geneva Convention, but we don't have to worry about the bits we don't like?

That's the whole point - we're supposed to be better than them.
No wonder we're losing this war.

nope.. we are "losing" this war in the Left-Wing media only.. IED's inIraq have dropped dramatically..Afghanistan was left by the by so thats seeing an upsurge..

as far as being "Better" than our enemy.. ..give EVERYONE the same rulebook.. i say we try thier rules for a few days..

war is hell...let the good times roll..

Oscar

1st December 2008, 22:23

:clap:

:apint: (of Guiness if you would like...i actually like the stuff!)

This is what I would say - If Jesus met these "violent heretics (including most of the religious right in the US)" would they really bve able to say to him "I am doing this for you God! Not for the money, not for the power, not for the pride and nationlism, but for the love of you and the good of the world"?
And would the terrorists, the doers and the thinkers, who CALL themselves "Muslim", be able to say the same to Allah, Mohammed, or Jesus? I think not...

All the religious nutters would justify themselves with some text or another.
Unfortunately the real dangerous nutters, like OBL are doing it for their God.
OBL had more money and power than a thousand other men and gave it up to follow his God (and his God is probably your God, if prevailing thinking is to be believed - Allah = Yaweh/Jehovah = God)

mstriumph

1st December 2008, 22:24

Oscar

1st December 2008, 22:28

nope.. we are "losing" this war in the Left-Wing media only.. IED's inIraq have dropped dramatically..Afghanistan was left by the by so thats seeing an upsurge..

as far as being "Better" than our enemy.. ..give EVERYONE the same rulebook.. i say we try thier rules for a few days..

war is hell...let the good times roll..

I'd like to believe that.
There are too many holes for them to crawl into - Chechnya, Pakistan, Indonesia etc - it's a Global Game of Whack-a-Mole with Semtex.

We have to be better or we can't win. Every time the IDF sticks a hellfire into the back of a Palestinian ambulance, hundreds of new bombers are created..

Oscar

1st December 2008, 22:31

:sunny: you mean 'the land that, in the most recent generation, they either bought from the then-current owners or took possession of when it was abandoned by the then-current owners in response to a pledge from their arab bretheren that they would "drive the israelies into the sea" ...?'

but i digress
my post had nothing much to do with ownership - more with my support for the right of israel [or you, or me, or whomever] to fight back when attacked, my distain for so-called guerillas [or whatever] who prefer to do their fighting hiding behind the skirts of others of my gender and a general dislike for the current practice of people following whichever whimsical knocking campaign happens to be flavour of the fortnight

sorry for any misunderstanding ...

I'm so sorry too, as there's a slight flaw in yer logic. How come your support for Israel and disdain for guerrillas ignores the Jewish Terrorists who helped create the state (one whom later became Prime Minister of Israel)?

mstriumph

1st December 2008, 22:38

I'm so sorry too, as there's a slight flaw in yer logic. How come your support for Israel and disdain for guerrillas ignores the Jewish Terrorists who helped create the state (one whom later became Prime Minister of Israel)?
now why should you think that? .. don't think you read my comment on your 'Stern Gang' post ....

SARGE

1st December 2008, 22:41

Great - so ignorant, uneducated Arabs have to abide by the Geneva Convention, but we don't have to worry about the bits we don't like?

That's the whole point - we're supposed to be better than them.
No wonder we're losing this war.

just a little footnote from the Conventions...

States have a legal obligation to spread knowledge of the Conventions and Protocols:
The High Contracting Parties undertake, in time of peace as in time of war, to disseminate the text of the present Convention as widely as possible in their respective countries, and, in particular, to include the study thereof in their programmes of military and, if possible, civil instruction, so that the principles thereof may become known to the entire population, in particular to the armed fighting forces, the medical personnel and the chaplains. (Arts. 47, 48, 127 and 144 of, respectively, GC I, II, III & IV)

The High Contracting Parties undertake, in time of peace as in time of armed conflict, to disseminate the Conventions and this Protocol as widely as possible in their respective countries and, in particular, to include the study thereof in their programmes of military instruction and to encourage the study thereof by the civilian population, so that those instruments may become known to the armed forces and to the civilian population. (Art. 83, Protocol I)

This Protocol shall be disseminated as widely as possible. (Art. 19, Protocol II)

Timber020

1st December 2008, 22:45

Mercenaries have little to no rights, unless they happen to work for haliburton. Then they are able to kill at will, are immune to prosecution, are able to call in US military air assets or artillery when they feel the need and have more rights than ANY of if citizens of the nation they pillage.

We in the west have benefited greatly from screwing over other countries and there people for there resources. Its nothing new, its been happening since time began. None of us here do this ourselves, but we are not to upset in living to a high standard and not looking to hard who got screwed to get the diamonds, oil, gold, timber, or minerals found in nearly every product that we own and consume.

We just need a nice excuse fed to us to sit comfortably by while other people get fucked, and we generally lap it up. Collectively we have big armies, big intel budgets and lots of lawyers in the UN to do our bidding. We have installed over 85 dictators in the last 100 years, often getting rid of democaticly elected leaders at the time. Sure we support freedom but only if its the freedom we want you to have, when we want and if we still get what we want from you (cheap or free of course).

If your poor and bullied and have SFA to loose, the only way to take on the big guys is through acts of terrrorism. The americans did it to the brits, the ira did it, the maori did it, its a time honoured tradition. This time we are the bullies and in a small way we are reaping what weve sewn. To often the idea "my enemys enemy is my friend" has bitten us on the ass. Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, the taliban, Ho Chi Mihn....all supported and empowered by western influence, just to name a few

Some guys happen to rally under the muslim banner, but its got less to do with there cause than the wests greed and clumsy foreign policy in the last 100 years. All groups look for something to bond to, they have now all bonded to the american flag, just their version of it is on fire.

I know if I belonged to a nation that had been fucked over like many of these guys nations/people have been fucked over, I would probably get a little extreme myself. I dont condone there actions, but to some extent I think I can understand them.

aewilliam

1st December 2008, 22:45

All the religious nutters would justify themselves with some text or another.
Unfortunately the real dangerous nutters, like OBL are doing it for their God.
OBL had more money and power than a thousand other men and gave it up to follow his God (and his God is probably your God, if prevailing thinking is to be believed - Allah = Yaweh/Jehovah = God)

Yup, Christian/Jewish/Muslim "God" shares the 'Father' figgure of Jehovah...Allah...Christians also call Him 'Dad' such is the relationship we are called to have with Him.

OBL, there is love for his religion that does cause him to try and protect it/Muslims from being corrupted by the evils of the West (what these are...wow, it would be hard and time consuming to discuss them and the muliple cultural viewpoints that the 'evil' is seen from....for this to happen, what is needed is a TRULY open heart and mind that seeks to understand what the other culture sees).

BUT, from the little I know, the knowledge and pure (clean/holy/loving) attachment for OBL to his religion and Allah would have been TOO easily corrupted and ABUSED by his teachers/leaders (who were militants with much hate of the West themselves yar?).

Maybe...maybe not...thereagain his love for his Allah may be just a ploy to mask HIS inbred lust for power (you can NEVER have TOOOO much power...MOOOOOAAAAAR POWAAAAAAR!!!), and hate for the West.

But only God will know what TRULY drives OBL and that is who OBL will have to answer to.

Or Chuck Norris' fist and roundhouse of justice... :headbang:

jrandom

1st December 2008, 22:45

nope.. we are "losing" this war in the Left-Wing media only.. IED's inIraq have dropped dramatically..

And do you think that that's because the Murkn military are totally awesome and have kicked lots of arse, or because Iran doesn't want a power vacuum and has withdrawn support from the Shiite militias to allow a neutral Iraqi power structure to stabilise?

I couldn't personally comment, but the smart money is on the latter idea.

And, define 'loss'. The original American goal of a puppet Iraqi regime is now completely lost. They'll have to make do with what everyone else will - an neutral but uneasy internal balance of power. The question of whether they should leave a residual 'security' (not 'occupation') force is a sticky one, too.

And, yes, the war they should have paid attention to, in Afghanistan, slips from their grip, even as the Russians begin to reassert their dominance and push their sphere of influence back out into the area of the old USSR.

Messy, messy, messy. I'm glad I don't have Mr Obama's job right now.

Oscar

1st December 2008, 22:49

just a little footnote from the Conventions...

But you just admitted breaching it.

Oscar

1st December 2008, 22:50

now why should you think that? .. don't think you read my comment on your 'Stern Gang' post ....

I did.
It makes your later comments even less logical.

jrandom

1st December 2008, 22:50

let the bastards come out from behind their innocent human shields and fight like honorable people ...

If my country had been invaded and occupied by a superpower-sponsored regime with F16s and M1s, and all I had was fertiliser bombs and rifles, I'd do whatever the hell I had to to drive their military forces and settlers out.

And so would you.

Fuck 'honourable'. 'Honourable' is what you do when you have more tanks than the other guy.

Oscar

1st December 2008, 22:55

It's been fun, but Little Oscy needs his sleepy-bye time...night all.

SARGE

1st December 2008, 22:57

But you just admitted breaching it.

look mate..

i spent days digging my bro's out of the rubble while dodging sniper fire..all while under a Red Cross / UN banner..

yea... maybe we can enter into a logical discourse with these guys .. i'm sure if we can talk to them we can all be friends

aewilliam

1st December 2008, 23:00

Glad the debate has gone to war rather than sticking to religion (hope it stays this way kinda!!!) and it has been (bulk...) logical and inoffensive. May ye all who stay on let it remain so! :Punk:

War has so much to do with politics and power, and both so easily twist and corrupt fragile human nature into hate. And it all changes so quickly that the people who you support may do the unthinkable and unsupportable, and there seems to be nowhere to go...i don't think i'll stick my nose in this battleground!

I hope all who have been directly affected by war can find some sort of closure, if it can be had at all...I have NOT been directly affected by war at all, and i think same with most NZers...thank God for that is what I believe.

peace out Kbers.

jrandom

1st December 2008, 23:01

i spent days digging my bro's out of the rubble while dodging sniper fire..all while under a Red Cross / UN banner..

Where was that?

SARGE

1st December 2008, 23:02

Where was that?

HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing)

mstriumph

1st December 2008, 23:03

I did.
It makes your later comments even less logical.
erm
you think it would be - logical - for me to view what's happening between a bunch of folks over there NOW in the light of an historic event that impacted my family? ... heck - you misjudge me :crybaby:

- my forebears have been thumped through countless generations by members of DOZENS of different groups [as yours prolly have, too .....]

- my way of thinking is, if i can avenge the wrong on the actual person that did the thumping, well yes, i'll have a bash at that ... but to 'visit the sins of the fathers on the children even unto the third and fourth generation'?????? sounds bloody unfair to me .

.. the god of the old testament might think it's ok ... but i'm [I]better than that [as i suspect MOST people are]

jrandom

1st December 2008, 23:10

HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing)

Oddly enough, on Friday last week I was reading Carl Stiner's description of that entire episode (in Tom Clancy's book 'Shadow Warriors'). Gen. Stiner seems like a fairly clued-up chap. Did you ever meet him?

I gotta say, that whole situation seemed like a complete high-level cockup to me. I cannot imagine what the administration was thinking, dumping you guys in the middle of a shitty civil war with no meaningful mission but to sit there getting shot at.

SARGE

1st December 2008, 23:19

Oddly enough, on Friday last week I was reading Carl Stiner's description of that entire episode (in Tom Clancy's book 'Shadow Warriors'). Gen. Stiner seems like a fairly clued-up chap. Did you ever meet him?

I gotta say, that whole situation seemed like a complete high-level cockup to me. I cannot imagine what the administration was thinking, dumping you guys in the middle of a shitty civil war with no meaningful mission but to sit there getting shot at.

we kept telling the higher ups that we should be on the high ground OVERLOOKING the airport...but the airport was such a strategic asset........

never met Gen Stiener .. my commanding General had the nickname "ETool".. apparently he ran out of ammo in VietNam.. grabbed the first thing he could...

mstriumph

1st December 2008, 23:28

If my country had been invaded and occupied by a superpower-sponsored regime with F16s and M1s, and all I had was fertiliser bombs and rifles, ....

what can i say? it's a common ploy to paint a picture of 'fertiliser bombs and rifles' against high-powered weaponry to demonise one side and portray the other as victimised
but saying it don't necessarily make it so http://www.weaponsurvey.com/missilesrockets.htm

I'd do whatever the hell I had to to drive their military forces and settlers out.

And so would you.

no, i wouldn't ----
there is no way that i would deliberately choose a civilian enclave populated by unarmed women and children to launch my attacks from .........

not because i'm more moral or upright than you, but because to me it isn't logical to risk destruction of what you are defending - your women, children, the future of your people - in the process of fighting for it

Fuck 'honourable'. 'Honourable' is what you do when you have more tanks than the other guy.

oh dear
this isn't meant as a personal attack, but you are so wrong

Honourable isn't what you 'do'
Honourable is what you 'are' - or are not .....

Honourable is what puts some acts beyond you, no matter how excusable 'winning' may make them seem

jrandom

1st December 2008, 23:52

what can i say? it's a common ploy...

The only real point I'd make here is that you're comfortable and secure and have not been and probably will never be living in a tent in the desert because men with guns took your home and your city and all the farms around it away so that their friends could live there.

Perspective changes based on where you stand.

You're welcome to moralise away to your heart's content, of course. But it won't change anything.

Have you ever wondered why a sane young man or woman with an above-average IQ would strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it? What could possibly motivate that?

Oh, that's right. They're not 'honourable'.

Riiiiightio.

You do realise that you can talk to these people if you wish to, don't you? The internet is a big place, and communication technology is a wonderful thing.

I would encourage you to do that. Find them, talk to them. Present to them your comfortable middle-class Western 'code of honour', and ask why their behaviour does not fit that mold.

terbang

2nd December 2008, 00:52

Finn I'm sad to hear that your mate was killed, I know the feeling. Last week a friend of mine died in an Airbus 320 that spiraled into the sea just off France. He was also a high achiever and a superb aviator who rode bikes too. It would have been an absolutely terrifying thing to helplessly sit in the cockpit jump seat as the french aircraft, flown by two Germans, plummeted out of control into the sea. Now who should we start hating, the Germans or the french? But like most aircraft accidents, there will be more to it than you see on CNN or the old Beeb, so I'll keep my powder dry on that one for now.

Swoop

2nd December 2008, 07:14

This describes the IRA.
Who funded them, again?
Predominantly North East America. Once 9-11 happened and organisations that supported terror were declared illegal, guess what happened? The IRA ran out of $$$'s to have their fun. ENDEX.

Most of the SpecOps unit in the west seem to be illegal.
Not true. They have identification in some form or another. A nationality emblem is normally on the fatigues, but in a heavily subdued and "faded-down" manner.

Hitcher

2nd December 2008, 07:57

it seems to be 'fashionable' to knock the Israelies ..... didn't think YOU'd be one to follow the common herd, mr Hitcher ...... i'm a tad disappointed in you.

I have struggled not to take sides in relation to conflicts in the Middle East. No side there has clean hands. My issue with the Israelis is the magnitude of their retaliation, administered from the comparative safety of F16s and Merkavas.

jonbuoy

2nd December 2008, 07:58

Predominantly North East America. Once 9-11 happened and organisations that supported terror were declared illegal, guess what happened? The IRA ran out of $$$'s to have their fun. ENDEX.

Not true. They have identification in some form or another. A nationality emblem is normally on the fatigues, but in a heavily subdued and "faded-down" manner.

Exactly - didn't see relatives of people killed by IRA bombs flying jumbos into the twin towers or attacking the USA did we? Your average muslim is more concerned with the same things as your average kiwi - paying the bills and putting their kids through school. Just as the average Catholic/Protestant was in the Irish troubles. Theres always a few sick bastards who use politics and religion to justify their violence, influential and strong people who have a knack of manipulating and brainwashing people for there own agendas.

Finn

2nd December 2008, 08:11

Finn, is Andreas a New Zealander/Aucklander? Will he brought back for the funeral/burial (if one can be had...hopefully so for the family/friends...)?

No and that adds to the tragedy. He was born in Cyprus but moved to London as a young man and subsequently held a British passport. He was a resident of Monaco.

One of his crew on the boat is Indian and he knew there was a very good restaurant in the Taj Hotel so he took her there along with some other crew. She was shot in the shoulder. During the ordeal, he called the BBC and relayed what was happening.

MisterD

2nd December 2008, 08:35

Telegraph obituary here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/3537195/Andreas-Liveras.html)

imdying

2nd December 2008, 08:37

In the same way as you/they don't like Muslims, brown people, the poor etc etc? These people can get fucked as far as I'm concerned. I'm not here to befriend rednecks

What you got against poor people ya cunt?

Here's what you need, they've even printed instructions for you...
<img src="http://www.bmezine.com/tattoo/A70529/high/bmepb527758.jpg" />

I can't believe you queer cunts are arguing the merits of having rules in warfare... if something is actually worth fighting over, then it's worth doing the job properly. This boohoo protect the innocents nonsense is complete crap.

The Stranger

2nd December 2008, 08:39

Have you ever wondered why a sane young man or woman with an above-average IQ would strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it? What could possibly motivate that?

1,000 virgins?

Hell, if I was stuck in a shit hole floting on oil with only camels and goats for sexual gratification, I'd take the punt too.

Skyryder

2nd December 2008, 09:23

I have struggled not to take sides in relation to conflicts in the Middle East. No side there has clean hands. My issue with the Israelis is the magnitude of their retaliation, administered from the comparative safety of F16s and Merkavas.

As against sucide bombers on busses, railway stations, resteurants etc. Yep had a problem myself once on this then I found out about their reward; 72 Virgins in paradise. Simplistic yes but I don't have a problem any more.

Skyryder

Marmoot

2nd December 2008, 09:27

Yet, that is where you are mistaken. Even if there was enough for everyone, and there is, someone would look at the next guy and want what he has as well.

Incorrect. If it is enough then he will not want more.
If he wants more, clearly it's not enough.

The original poster you quoted mentioned "enough"-icity, not size :)
For some, small maybe enough, yet for others large amount may still be not enough.

Oscar

2nd December 2008, 09:55

Mikkel

2nd December 2008, 10:50

Incorrect. If it is enough then he will not want more.
If he wants more, clearly it's not enough.

You're right, you're wrong. There will never be enough for mankind.

Winston001

2nd December 2008, 11:38

You're right, those Israelis should have the right to protect the land that their families have had for generations...err...um...well, a generation, anyway...shit..

...sorry...I'll try that again...

You're right, those Israelis should have the right to protect the land that they stole at the point of a gun...damn

..opps, that don't work...try again..

You're right, those Israelis should have the right to protect the land that was in their families for generations, before they abandoned it for 2000 years, and then took back (after ejecting the new residents) using some Old Testament hokum and a contradictory UN resolution...bugger

...jeez...the truth is hard...

Oscar, I've enjoyed your posts here but I'm afraid the above is bunkum. You aren't alone of course, this view of the nasty Israelis is perpetuated by our shallow media who don't bother to do any research.

Zionism was a Jewish activist movement which traces back to about 1870, with the stated aim of returning Jewish people to Palestine (as it then was). They did this quietly, bit by bit, buying land from Arabs, who willingly sold it. After all, it was unproductive desert.

The process of buying land in Palestine continued right into the 1940s. In the meantime the Balfour Declaration said that Britain would allow Jewish people to emigrate to Palestine if they wished. Despite that, the British have a long history of supporting the Arabs (TE Lawrence et al) and the army and officials didn't make the Jewish settlers welcome.

After the end of WWII Jewish refugees flooded into Palestine from Europe and the UN declared the new state of Israel in 1948. Immediately Arab armies attacked the new country. They told Palestinian Arabs to move out, promising them that once they had "driven the Jews into the sea" they could come back and seize all the land they wanted.

As we know that David and Goliath war was won against all odds - and that is the genesis of todays Palestinian problem. The poor devils stepped aside thinking they'd reap the rewards of victory and instead found themselves in refugee camps for the past 60 years. I can completely understand their bitterness.

cold comfort

2nd December 2008, 11:40

[QUOTE=Mikkel;1831732]I completely agree with this. Personally, I'm against organised religion of any kind. No matter what the individual follower may believe organised religion is only about one thing: Power, power through control of thought and behaviour. No matter how beautiful and benevolent the dogma may appear, that power is the only reason behind organised religion."

As the Tube attacks illustrated, it was allegiance to the group rather than dogma that bound the bombers. The desire to be part of a group (or different) seems to be human nature, promoting a belief of idealogical/ moral superiority over the "other guy" . This then is a springboard for posession and control of resources. Organised religion is an unfortunately convenient focus for the warped desire to " convert" and control others and as such would not be missed. Atheism,as has been pointed out, is a lack of religious belief not a lack of morality.

Winston001

2nd December 2008, 11:42

Yes.. guilty.. i carried a Mossberg 5500 door breaching shotgun..00 buckshot 3" magnum high brass.. loved that gun (incedentllly.. i ALSO carried 40mm buckshot rounds for my M203..nothing says "Welcome to Hell" like 40 00 buck pellets coming through a door..)

Didn't know a 203 could fire buckshot Sarge? Thought it was simply a grenade launcher.

Sniper

2nd December 2008, 11:43

Lost myself through most the name calling and the thread going off topic somewhere between page 3 and 4.

Finn, bro. Sorry for your loss, never easy losing anyone, regardless of who they are. The attacks were the act of cowards, I do not dispute that. I liken it to the same as kicking someone on the ground who your mate has just knocked out.

I understand certain folk have different veiwpoints. But you cannot argue the fact that each terrorist attack is commited by a certain number of races, 3 who come up very often and that they are often done by a group who attacks targets to inspire terror. That involves killing people who may have just voiced an opinion, but are just taking kids to school, walking with the love of their life or just doing their job. You cannot argue that people who attack folks just living their lives rather than actually go face to face with someone who will fight back are a bunch of cowards. In my opinion.

I've been in situations where a race would rather lay IEDs than come out and face you direct. Those sorts were also dealt to by the same army that they belonged to. Told me that not all are bad, it just takes a few to give them a bad name. Unfortunatly, the extremists in the Middle East have alot of support, and none of it is good.

Give me the Japs anyday....

My opinion, although it might be wrong.

Sniper

2nd December 2008, 12:08

Didn't know a 203 could fire buckshot Sarge? Thought it was simply a grenade launcher.

Variety of 40mm that go in the M203. HE, Flare, Standard Grenade, Frags, 00 Buck.

Winston001

2nd December 2008, 12:17

I understand certain folk have different viewpoints. But you cannot argue the fact that each terrorist attack is commited by a certain number of races, 3 who come up very often and that they are often done by a group who attacks targets to inspire terror. That involves killing people who may have just voiced an opinion, but are just taking kids to school, walking with the love of their life or just doing their job. You cannot argue that people who attack folks just living their lives rather than actually go face to face with someone who will fight back are a bunch of cowards. In my opinion.

At first glance, its hard to disagree. The trouble is, what do you do if you are being oppressed? The French Resistance targeted Germans when they could, but also targeted Vichy French. And there are always collateral casualties, civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Ideally the Mumbai bombers should have attacked government buildings, the army and the police. But there were only 10 of them..... So what to do? A tiny terrorist force wanting the maximum effect. Soft targets is the clear answer and has been proven effective by Al Queda time and time again. As a bonus they get a few foreigners too.

Please don't misunderstand - I have an affection for Bombay and am appalled by what has happened. I think I understand the terrorists tactics even while I also abhor them.

mstriumph

2nd December 2008, 12:31

The only real point I'd make here is that you're comfortable and secure and have not been and probably will never be living in a tent in the desert because men with guns took your home and your city and all the farms around it away so that their friends could live there.
you are right of course - not in my generation ..
... but i think you are probably in the same situation ... as such, you and i are theorising and moralising from similar ground - and my thoughts, theories and morals are as valid as yours are.

Perspective changes based on where you stand. one of my favourite tru-isms .... and yet seemingly not universally applicable since :confused: you and i are standing on roughly similar ground and yet it's obvious from this debate we see things differently?

You're welcome to moralise away to your heart's content, of course. But it won't change anything. :clap: both of us, eh?

Have you ever wondered why a sane young man or woman with an above-average IQ would strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it?
no
i don't wonder about that - i know why ....... as, probably, do you

What could possibly motivate that?

Oh, that's right. They're not 'honourable'.
don't be provocative now - i am treating your arguements thoughtfully, no place, here, for gratuitous naughtiness :( ?

They do it BECAUSE they are young
BECAUSE they are idealistic
BECAUSE they want to change the world and make a difference

and because scheming, morally-destitute, self-serving governments, elders and leaders KNOW this about the young and ruthlessly and callously manipulate them to serve their own ends ..... telling them they are important in the fight against whomsoever the 'enemy' happens to be at the time ... but using them, discarding them and leaving them spent and crippled like so much rubbish when they have no further use for them ....

in short - today's suicide bomber is similarly motivated - and thereby similarly vunerable - to the same callous exploitation as every young person of any worth right back to the beginning of time and warfare

- or do you think it's by accident that it's primarily people under 25 that are drafted and shipped off to serve as cannon fodder and worse for the 'war-du-jour' by whichever government they happen to fall under??

Riiiiightio. ..... but it isn't, is it .... and the worst thing about it is that so-called grownups like you and i haven't risen up in horror, disgust and revulsion through the ages and butchered those who arrogantly co-opt our children, our future, into a hell of mangled remnants and then have the gall to talk about 'acceptable losses'

You do realise that you can talk to these people if you wish to, don't you? The internet is a big place, and communication technology is a wonderful thing. tsk tsk - :rolleyes: misses the mark i'm afraid ... i've been condesended to by experts

I would encourage you to do that. Find them, talk to them. Present to them your comfortable middle-class Western 'code of honour', and ask why their behaviour does not fit that mold. oh dear -
i don't have a 'code' of anything much ....
or any expectation that anything useful would be achieved .... as i'm sure you have already found, middle-aged folk know NOTHING as far as your average 20something [of any nationality] is concerned ... and i have no wish to hear, at first hand, their passionate philosophies and contemplate where they may allow them to be led

it would make me weep

Oscar

2nd December 2008, 12:39

Oscar, I've enjoyed your posts here but I'm afraid the above is bunkum. You aren't alone of course, this view of the nasty Israelis is perpetuated by our shallow media who don't bother to do any research.

Zionism was a Jewish activist movement which traces back to about 1870, with the stated aim of returning Jewish people to Palestine (as it then was). They did this quietly, bit by bit, buying land from Arabs, who willingly sold it. After all, it was unproductive desert.

The process of buying land in Palestine continued right into the 1940s. In the meantime the Balfour Declaration said that Britain would allow Jewish people to emigrate to Palestine if they wished. Despite that, the British have a long history of supporting the Arabs (TE Lawrence et al) and the army and officials didn't make the Jewish settlers welcome.

After the end of WWII Jewish refugees flooded into Palestine from Europe and the UN declared the new state of Israel in 1948. Immediately Arab armies attacked the new country. They told Palestinian Arabs to move out, promising them that once they had "driven the Jews into the sea" they could come back and seize all the land they wanted.

As we know that David and Goliath war was won against all odds - and that is the genesis of todays Palestinian problem. The poor devils stepped aside thinking they'd reap the rewards of victory and instead found themselves in refugee camps for the past 60 years. I can completely understand their bitterness.

My original post was somewhat tongue in cheek, as the truth is more complex. The very media you refer to is responsible - we do get a slanted view of contemporary events. So whereas your summary is generally true, there is no doubt that Jewish settlers took the opportunity to expel local Arabs, and in some cases, simply killed them.

The fact is that during my lifetime I've changed my opinion of the Israelis. There is no doubt that they started out as brave battling heroes resisting the Soviet backed corrupt Arab Dictatorships.

The problem is that they've now changed to a state where it is hard to see who is the bad guy. Why is it necessary for them to allow settlements in occupied lands? Building Walls and requiring passes for people trying to get to work? Cutting off electricity? The occupied territories resemble an Apartheid-era South African Homeland.

Maybe this hardline attitude qualifies as revenge or "to the winner the spoils", but there is no doubt that it is breeding generation after generation of increasingly desperate people and has lead us to events like 9/11.

mstriumph

2nd December 2008, 12:43

You are indeed the curmudgeonly voice of reason...
praising those whose arguements echo our own validates us

but unfortunately there are no 'sides' in this
whatever happens it is BIG people [generic] that start wars and the LITTLE people [generic] that get hurt.

Oscar

2nd December 2008, 13:01

praising those whose arguements echo our own validates us

You're good with the obvious - are you related to my wife?
I was actually praising his delivery, sparse yet grumpy.
The fact is, I could happily argue either side of this issue, but it is usually the right wing pro-US and/or "all muslims are terrorists" comments that get me wound up and involved.

but unfortunately there are no 'sides' in this
whatever happens it is BIG people [generic] that start wars and the LITTLE people [generic] that get hurt.

Isn't that a version of what he said?
No side there has clean hands.

mstriumph

2nd December 2008, 13:33

You're good with the obvious - are you related to my wife?
a] thanks - i'm also good with the devious, backhanded and downright sneaky lol :sunny:
b] dunno - prolly - i've been here so long i'm pretty much related to EVERYBODY :yes:

I was actually praising his delivery, sparse yet grumpy. ........ an easy man to love, i'll grant you ..... i have to recognise him as the master of the 'few, well-chosen, words" even when i find myself in disagreement with the words he's chosen :first:

The fact is, I could happily argue either side of this issue, but it is usually the right wing pro-US and/or "all muslims are terrorists" comments that get me wound up and involved. ... :lol: in other words, and as my grandfather used to say "people who generalise should be shot" [of course, no-one did :lol:]

Isn't that a version of what he said?nah - what HE said has its basis in the 'sides' idea

what i said denies the relevance of 'sides' and goes to the [for me] real issue of who benefits and who gets hurt

Oscar

2nd December 2008, 13:39

what i said denies the relevance of 'sides' and goes to the [for me] real issue of who benefits and who gets hurt

I agree - and I guess I'll argue with anyone who tries to present an issue like this as a simple good/bad equation (ref. Thread title).

Mr Merde

2nd December 2008, 14:15

[quote=NOMIS;1831850]

Catch 22 Alert.

If you base your faith on fact, then it's not faith anymore.

Notwithstanding that, the only fact you have that can go anywhere near proven is that Christ existed. Most of what he may have done or said is based on accounts written a long time afterward.

I'm not trying to belittle your faith here, I'm just saying that if you claim it's based on fact I'll wanna see some proof.

I have a problem with this statement.

There has not been one piece of documentary or physical evidence from the supposed time of this person that supports the fact that he\she existed

Everything we hold to be evidence of this persons existance comes from a time afterwards.

The Jewish faith was a great keeper of records as was the Roman Empire and still they have no documents that actrually refer to this person that date to the supposed time of his living.

nodrog

2nd December 2008, 14:28

The Jewish faith was a great keeper of records as was the Roman Empire and still they have no documents that actrually refer to this person that date to the supposed time of his living.

havnt you seen that movie with him in, you can see him quite clearly in it, unless it was CGI.

Sniper

2nd December 2008, 15:33

I miss KB. Where all conversations always do a complete 180 and then for fun another 270 to end up on a path that wasnt even on the map........

I love you guys

Oscar

2nd December 2008, 17:02

I have a problem with this statement.

There has not been one piece of documentary or physical evidence from the supposed time of this person that supports the fact that he\she existed

Everything we hold to be evidence of this persons existance comes from a time afterwards.

The Jewish faith was a great keeper of records as was the Roman Empire and still they have no documents that actrually refer to this person that date to the supposed time of his living.

It's funny you mention it - I did actually hesitate afore writing that as I wonder if there was any proof that he existed. That's why I qualified my statement by saying "...anywhere near proven.."

I was making the assumption that there must be some basis for a document as weighty as the New Testament.

Notwithstanding that, even a bastid like me has limits - I figured that denying the existence of Christ to a Christian was going to make things a little tense...

doc

2nd December 2008, 17:37

There are always at least two sides to every human experience. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. The winners get to write the history.

I wonder how you would comment after a road rage incident. Which is the closest most NZ'r experience from anger. The person who started the thread feels anger at the senseless of losing someone from a gutless act of bravery. Easy taking on an unamrmed target when you have all the weapons is a pretty low form of courage from my point of view. Sorry to those kb members who are members of the mongrel mob, but you don't cut the mustard in my book.

I'm not winding you up, I know your not moderating in this thread. Just leave the grammar out of it, ok :bash:

Winston001

2nd December 2008, 17:55

Young suicide bombers.......

They do it BECAUSE they are young
BECAUSE they are idealistic
BECAUSE they want to change the world and make a difference

and because scheming, morally-destitute, self-serving governments, elders and leaders KNOW this about the young and ruthlessly and callously manipulate them to serve their own ends ..... telling them they are important in the fight against whomsoever the 'enemy' happens to be at the time ... but using them, discarding them and leaving them spent and crippled like so much rubbish when they have no further use for them ....

A very thoughtful post. Young people are essentially brainwashed by being fed a constant diet about the evil West. These are poor, barely literate people who live in a strict culture where free-thought is discouraged. The madrassas teach the Quran daily by rote and that is the extent of education in some Islamic societies. Girls don't even get that.

The young are bright and idealistic, romantic, and easily moulded to believe in God's work even when that means blowing up the enemy. They see themselves as martyrs, just as we revere the young men who died at Gallipoli, the Somme, Crete, El Alamein...... We are not so much different.

....do you think it's by accident that it's primarily people under 25 that are drafted and shipped off to serve as cannon fodder and worse for the 'war-du-jour' by whichever government they happen to fall under??

..... but it isn't, is it .... and the worst thing about it is that so-called grownups like you and i haven't risen up in horror, disgust and revulsion through the ages and butchered those who arrogantly co-opt our children, our future, into a hell of mangled remnants and then have the gall to talk about 'acceptable losses'

Eloquently and passionately expressed.

The average age of Allied soldiers in WWII was 26 years, not old but not young either. That aside, what would you have leaders do when faced with Adolf Hitler? Neville Chamberlain tried "Peace in our time..." yeah right.

Should Chamberlain, an old man by 1939, have set off for a duel of champions against the vigorous Adolph? Winner takes Poland?

Should Britain have just said "None of our business" while Guderian brilliantly waged Blitzkrieg through France and Belgium? Should the world, and the French in particular, have stood by while Tutsis slaughtered Hutus? Oh...that's right, we did. As we stood aside for Pol Pot. And Idi Amin.

So who is going to stop these despots, these atrocities, if our young are not prepared to? After all, the aggressors don't have any trouble getting young men to fight on their behalf. Ever it was thus.

I cannot see any answer to your heartfelt plea for peace and rejection of war. Not while there are those who will attack the vulnerable.

Winston001

2nd December 2008, 18:10

I wonder how you would comment after a road rage incident. Which is the closest most NZ'r experience from anger. The person who started the thread feels anger at the senseless losing of someone from a gutless act of bravery. Easy taking on an unarmed target when you have all the weapons is a pretty low form of courage from my point of view.

I'd hope we all share Finn's sadness and distress at the loss of a friend. It's all very well for us to indulge in high-minded debate but at the heart of it, ordinary people are grievously hurt and killed. The despicable thing about modern terrorism is that civilian targets are now normal.

FWIW I'm sickened by the idea that nearly 200 people were killed, not to mention the hundreds wounded hurt and terrified. Its got to rank with 9/11.

However it's a mistake to see the Mumbai attack as cowardly. The 10 - thats all, just 10 young men, who carried this out knew they would die. It was a one-way trip. That takes courage, Yes they might have been deluded, idealistic, filled with visions of 72 houris in Paradise, but it still took courage. They knew the Indian army response would be fierce and probably expected torture before death.

doc

2nd December 2008, 18:26

However it's a mistake to see the Mumbai attack as cowardly. The 10 - thats all, just 10 young men, who carried this out knew they would die.

Protest lodged, one of them thinks different. Of course I'm only going by what the press have told me.

Pleeeease tell the unarmed victims that they died well, :wacko: against brave armed men.

SARGE

2nd December 2008, 18:33

Didn't know a 203 could fire buckshot Sarge? Thought it was simply a grenade launcher.

different rounds.. illumination, riot control (sandbags..or buckshot..)...concussion..HE...WP (now illegal i understand..damn shame really) and incendiary..

SARGE

2nd December 2008, 18:42

At first glance, its hard to disagree. The trouble is, what do you do if you are being oppressed? The French Resistance targeted Germans when they could, but also targeted Vichy French. And there are always collateral casualties, civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time.

theres the rub man.. the French Resistance didnt TARGET civillians..

armed gunmen storming a 5 star hotel full of tourists and businessmen..attacking unarmed non-combatants with grenades and automatic weapons..little chance of a papercut there...

walking a mentally handicapped woman into a packed market on friday morning at 10 am strapped with enough Semtex to level a missile cruiser...thats not warfighting.. thats cowardice

yea.. gimme the Cubans anytime .. toe to toe for a whole 5 days.....scrappy little cockroaches they were..

Sniper

2nd December 2008, 18:51

However it's a mistake to see the Mumbai attack as cowardly. The 10 - thats all, just 10 young men, who carried this out knew they would die. It was a one-way trip. That takes courage, Yes they might have been deluded, idealistic, filled with visions of 72 houris in Paradise, but it still took courage. They knew the Indian army response would be fierce and probably expected torture before death.

Sorry bro, I disagree. It doesnt take bravery to kill yourself along with innocents. Its stupid and cowardly, bravery is face to face, as SARGE says. The better man will win in the end. Those 10 gave no one any chance in defending themselves

SARGE

2nd December 2008, 18:53

i don't wonder about that - i know why ....... as, probably, do you

yea.. 72 virgins.. they dont mention they are all Thai She-Boys

They do it BECAUSE they are young

bullshit

BECAUSE they are idealistic

bullshit

BECAUSE they want to change the world and make a difference

bullshit

and because scheming, morally-destitute, self-serving governments, elders and leaders KNOW this about the young and ruthlessly and callously manipulate them to serve their own ends ..... telling them they are important in the fight against whomsoever the 'enemy' happens to be at the time ... but using them, discarding them and leaving them spent and crippled like so much rubbish when they have no further use for them ....

i volunteered..knew what i was getting into from the One.. the other blah blah million American forces did also.. enlistments are still at or above pre-war levels

- or do you think it's by accident that it's primarily people under 25 that are drafted and shipped off to serve as cannon fodder and worse for the 'war-du-jour' by whichever government they happen to fall under??

nope.. because they are young, strong and easier to train.. not as many bad or lazy habits of us over 25's

..... but it isn't, is it .... and the worst thing about it is that so-called grownups like you and i haven't risen up in horror, disgust and revulsion through the ages and butchered those who arrogantly co-opt our children, our future, into a hell of mangled remnants and then have the gall to talk about 'acceptable losses'

as long as the enemy has 'unacceptable losses"

Oscar

2nd December 2008, 18:57

theres the rub man.. the French Resistance didnt TARGET civillians..

armed gunmen storming a 5 star hotel full of tourists and businessmen..attacking unarmed non-combatants with grenades and automatic weapons..little chance of a papercut there...

walking a mentally handicapped woman into a packed market on friday morning at 10 am strapped with enough Semtex to level a missile cruiser...thats not warfighting.. thats cowardice

yea.. gimme the Cubans anytime .. toe to toe for a whole 5 days.....scrappy little cockroaches they were..

Maybe the French Resistance didn't target civilians, but the RAF did, and the USAAF, and not by accident either.

What gives us the moral right to condemn terrorists when we did not hesitate to fire bomb German and Japanese cities? How many civilians died as a result of the bombing of Baghdad by Coalition Forces?

SARGE

2nd December 2008, 19:01

havnt you seen that movie with him in, you can see him quite clearly in it, unless it was CGI.

i think i remember that one...

Brian: "I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!"
Girl: "Only the true Messiah denies His divinity."
Brian: "What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!"
Followers: "He is! He is the Messiah!"
Brian: "Now, fuck off!"
[silence]
Arthur: "How shall we fuck off, O Lord?"

that Jebus dude ROCKED!!!

nakked chicks.. space aliens..oh.. and the Judean Peoples Front

Sniper

2nd December 2008, 19:03

Maybe the French Resistance didn't target civilians, but the RAF did, and the USAAF, and not by accident either.

What gives us the moral right to condemn terrorists when we did not hesitate to fire bomb German and Japanese cities? How many civilians died as a result of the bombing of Baghdad by Coalition Forces?

Yup, Baghdad, Germany and Japan were all bombed without provocatation. You forget Pearl Harbour, ect?

wbks

2nd December 2008, 19:06

What gives us the moral right to condemn terrorists when we did not hesitate to fire bomb German and Japanese cities? Interesting...

Winston001

2nd December 2008, 19:07

Sorry bro, I disagree. It doesnt take bravery to kill yourself along with innocents. Its stupid and cowardly, bravery is face to face, as SARGE says. The better man will win in the end. Those 10 gave no one any chance in defending themselves

Yep, agreed. I withdraw and apologise. There is no defending what they did.

Oscar

2nd December 2008, 19:11

Yup, Baghdad, Germany and Japan were all bombed without provocatation. You forget Pearl Harbour, ect?

Since you mentioned it, no I didn't forget Pearl Habour.
However, the Japs went after military targets on Dec 7th 1941.

By 1945, it was official US Air Force policy to fire bomb Japanese Cities in an attempt to force a surrender (not to mention US & RAF bombing of Dresden & Cologne). Why is this any different from a terrorist bombing a hotel?

Ps. It appears that Baghdad WAS bombed without provocation - they never did find those WMD's, did they?

SARGE

2nd December 2008, 19:21

What gives us the moral right to condemn terrorists when we did not hesitate to fire bomb German and Japanese cities? How many civilians died as a result of the bombing of Baghdad by Coalition Forces?

right.. you may have read in a recent post of mine abut Concrete filled Ammo cans?/.. we could knock out a house between a Mosque, a school ,and a retirement home and never get a splinter on an adjacent property .. the pig splattered like a water balloon...opend a hole though...

we trained every day in kill houses to maximize enemy casualties and AVOID collateral damage.. might get a few bruises or minor burns but they have dinner that night..

yea.. the Allies hit cities in previous conflicts.. so did the the Greeks..the Trojans..Huns, the Romans, the Saxons, the Germans targeted London with missiles.. .. Hussein targeted the Kurds with Mustard gas and etc..

but at least they didnt hide in the crowd..when gunfire comes from a crowd,,, hard to keep from chucking a few belts of ammo into it..

if you have never experienced combat..you can never really understand it,, ask anyone who has ever had a hot deployment.. in war there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now. Right NOW. 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 big roller coaster at Rainbows End .......

yea ..civillians die..thats War.. most in this conflict from the fact that some scumbag is loosing AK rounds from a crowd into a Marine Column... some get in the wrong place at the wrong time but i dont believe that any civilized nation target civilians..

wbks

2nd December 2008, 19:25

thats deep

MisterD

2nd December 2008, 19:40

(not to mention US & RAF bombing of Dresden & Cologne). Why is this any different from a terrorist bombing a hotel?

Quite simply because they started it. Sowing the wind, reaping the whirlwind and all that. I'm with Sarge 100%, both sides should play by the rules - let's try using thier rule book for a while...

Ps. It appears that Baghdad WAS bombed without provocation - they never did find those WMD's, did they?

A personal application of Occam's razor leads me to believe that Saddam wanted Bush and Blair to believe he had WMD's mistakenly thinking that would deter an invasion. It's far more plausible that the standard oil-based conspiracy theory.

Oscar

2nd December 2008, 19:40

right.. you may have read in a recent post of mine abut Concrete filled Ammo cans?/.. we could knock out a house between a Mosque, a school ,and a retirement home and never get a splinter on an adjacent property .. the pig splattered like a water balloon...opend a hole though...

we trained every day in kill houses to maximize enemy casualties and AVOID collateral damage.. might get a few bruises or minor burns but they have dinner that night..

yea.. the Allies hit cities in previous conflicts.. so did the the Greeks..the Trojans..Huns, the Romans, the Saxons, the Germans targeted London with missiles.. .. Hussein targeted the Kurds with Mustard gas and etc..

but at least they didnt hide in the crowd..when gunfire comes from a crowd,,, hard to keep from chucking a few belts of ammo into it..

if you have never experienced combat..you can never really understand it,, ask anyone who has ever had a hot deployment.. in war there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now. Right NOW. 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 big roller coaster at Rainbows End .......

yea ..civillians die..thats War.. most in this conflict from the fact that some scumbag is loosing AK rounds from a crowd into a Marine Column... some get in the wrong place at the wrong time but i dont believe that any civilized nation target civilians..

Look, I think in person you and I would get on like a house on fire, and I don't wanna labour the point.

There is no moral high ground here.
We (the West) are reaping what we sowed.

Not only that, we've somehow got to the point where we think war is a PG show for TV, and that anyone not playing to the rules are barbarians. But if you're desperate, angry and badly led, with small arms and Koran as weapons, how do you counter 21st Century Army? You drag them back to the 12th Century.

The fact is, the other side have had enough of our rules, are desperate, and will make their own rules to win.

Mikkel

2nd December 2008, 19:44

nakked chicks.. space aliens..oh.. and the Judean Peoples Front

Don't forget the People's Front of Judea! ...and the literate Romans.

yea ..civillians die..thats War.. most in this conflict from the fact that some scumbag is loosing AK rounds from a crowd into a Marine Column... some get in the wrong place at the wrong time but i dont believe that any civilized nation target civilians..

Hiroshima?
Nagasaki?
Well, they must have held perceived strategical importance since they made the Japanese surrender.

I'm with you in that war is hell - so let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the Geneva Convention is blindly being followed by all "civilised" nations.

Oscar

2nd December 2008, 19:45

Quite simply because they started it. Sowing the wind, reaping the whirlwind and all that. I'm with Sarge 100%, both sides should play by the rules - let's try using thier rule book for a while...

Quite so.
I've never had a problem with that.
It's just that if one side gets to say when they'll use the rule book, what's the point of having one?

A personal application of Occam's razor leads me to believe that Saddam wanted Bush and Blair to believe he had WMD's mistakenly thinking that would deter an invasion. It's far more plausible that the standard oil-based conspiracy theory.

That sounds logical.
But it also applies to Bush & Blair - they wanted to believe in WMD's so bad they were happy to accept the smallest bit of evidence, however dodgy.