Never happen here .. this is NZ

[SARGE]

SARGE, remind me not to piss you off.

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

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



sometimes i scare myself .....

[Patrick]

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

[SARGE]

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

i still have a copy .. :giggle:

[Street Gerbil]

[...]

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

[oldrider]

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

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

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

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

[Sanx]

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

Read the last couple of chapters of Debt of Honour, by Tom Clancy (first plublished in 1994), and tell me there's not a small similarity between that and the events of a certain day in September, 2001. Then read the second chapter of A Big Boy Did It And Ran Away by Christopher Brookmyre (first published in 2001) and tell me there's not a small similarity between it and the events od March 2004 in Madrid.

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

[Timber020]

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

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

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

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

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

[Delerium]

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

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

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

[Hitcher]

have a aprooze of the art of war.

Peruse, perhaps? i.e. a read?

[SARGE]

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

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

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

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

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

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

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

[Hitcher]

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

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

[SARGE]

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

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

PROOF and the Declaration of War from Osama

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


and as to the point of " hoovering "

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

[Street Gerbil]

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

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

[Swoop]

Authors ... have been giving ideas to terrorist scum for years.

Storming Heaven - Dale Brown.

[Sanx]

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

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

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