Is it time to lock up the Greenpeace terrorists?

[TheDemonLord]

You mean these goal posts?

Indiscriminate does not equal specifically targeting.

Especially when it was a response to your comment about Drone strikes (the difference between achievable accuracy with a WW2 Bomber and a Drone being similar to the difference between 1903 Indian and a BMW S1000 RR HP4)

Perhaps a more accurate rebuttal (Pun fully intended) would be 'Has America ever specifically targeted women and children with Drone Strikes'

[dinosaur]

The problem with war is .... it's fought by humans, with all their failings and flaws

With death, betrayal, warring against the enemy of another culture in a foreign land, seeing things that twist your sense of right and wrong and see things that you would never imagine in your own mind - the mind seeks to construct some new order - often with it's own boundaries and warped morality

People from both sides of all conflicts and wars perpetrate atrocities - individuals and groups
Intelligence is filtered thought tainted minds and paranoid imaginings - used to justify unimaginable acts that would otherwise be 'wrong'.

the media become a puppet, manipulated

history a record of the victors, as they saw things

Woman and children suffer in all wars, on all sides
people rape and murder on both sides, in all wars



So ...... how does this relate to Greepeace protesting on the roof of Parliament again?


Personaly I don't care if they do or don't .... just nice to see some people passionate about something and protesting
We had AUT advertising on big banners down here in the Tron - I was saddened that their banners didn't get defaced by any Waikato Uni students ..... our young are being homogenized by our institutes now days
Bring back the hippies

[Katman]

Perhaps a more accurate rebuttal (Pun fully intended) would be 'Has America ever specifically targeted women and children with Drone Strikes'

If the person on the hit list is at home with his wife and children then yes, America is quite happy to target them as well.

[TheDemonLord]

If the person on the hit list is at home with his wife and children then yes, America is quite happy to target them as well.

That.

Is.

Not.

Specifically.

Targeting.

Them.

[Katman]

That.

Is.

Not.

Specifically.

Targeting.

Them.

Are.

You.

Saying.

That.

Bobby.

Sands.

Only.

Targeted.

Women.

And.

Children?

[dinosaur]

If the person on the hit list is at home with his wife and children then yes, America is quite happy to target them as well.

Its been an argument for hundreds of years - even the Romans debated it
big military might fighting a rebel army (terrorist, freedom fighters or rebels - all depends on who's side you see it from)
rebels don't have consistent uniform and often fight in civilian gear - how do you know who's Innocent or a fighter
rebels often don't travel or live in barracks, or camps, or when they do they often take over a civilian compound, hospital or school, often are mixing with and defending woman and children, sometimes using woman and children as shields
If they fought in the open it would be a short war with an obvious outcome

Rome: let accendere illas suis
they can die with their own people

[mashman]

That.

Is.

Not.

Specifically.

Targeting.

Them.

And when they know that the wife and kids are at home too?

[TheDemonLord]

Are.

You.

Saying.

That.

Bobby.

Sands.

Only.

Targeted.

Women.

And.

Children?

No, I am saying Terrorists specifically target Women and Children.

For example: Boko Haram and School Girls.

[TheDemonLord]

And when they know that the wife and kids are at home too?

Then the commanding officer in charge of the mission can weigh up the cost of life for the Wife and kids vs the cost of life of letting the person live (depending on what they have done to warrant such a military strike against them)

[Katman]

Then the commanding officer in charge of the mission can weigh up the cost of life for the Wife and kids vs the cost of life of letting the person live (depending on what they have done to warrant such a military strike against them)

[mada]

OP must be French.

[mada]

No, I am saying Terrorists specifically target Women and Children.

For example: Boko Haram and School Girls.

Terrorists use any means of 'terror' to change the will of a population or government.

By this definition most countries have partaken in terrorism.

[TheDemonLord]

But it still not specifically targeting them - you seem to have great trouble understanding this concept.

Yes, they still die (and probably no great loss to the world either) but they were not the intended victims.


Not to mention the debate that could be had as to the accuracy of military intelligence and whether or not there has been a situation where a mission has been executed (by means of a drone strike or Tomahawk or similar system - not infantry) with the commanding officer in charge of the mission knowing beyond all reasonable doubt that there were wives and children AND that they would be guaranteed to be killed.

I doubt we will ever have enough information to mount a robust argument in favor or against that notion.

[Katman]

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...ikes-kill-1147

[mashman]

Then the commanding officer in charge of the mission can weigh up the cost of life for the Wife and kids vs the cost of life of letting the person live (depending on what they have done to warrant such a military strike against them)

So once it is established and a decision is made to forfeit the lives of the innocent in order to chop the head off of the snake (coz we know there isn't another waiting to take their place ), they do specifically target the women and children.