09-27-2004, 11:54 AM | #41 (permalink) |
Jarhead
Location: Colorado
|
It's a bit shortsighted to think that the concept of total war is a modern one. Just look at the Mongols for instance. Many were the times that they would slaughter everyone after a city they were laying siege against capitulated.
__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly |
09-27-2004, 11:57 AM | #42 (permalink) |
can't help but laugh
Location: dar al-harb
|
i wasn't proposing that total war was non-existent before modern times, simply that the civil war was the first time (or one of the first times) it had appeared since the advent of modernity.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill |
09-27-2004, 12:39 PM | #45 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
|
|
09-27-2004, 02:00 PM | #48 (permalink) | |
Banned from being Banned
Location: Donkey
|
Quote:
If a military force storms through your country and all you have to fight back with is stuff that's against the geneva convention, then what, are you just gonna sit back? Highly doubt it. If that means shooting an enemy in the face with a shotgun, so be it. You're tellin me that if a soldier was held hostage and the only way out was to shoot one of em with a shotgun, that would be illegal? [edit] But anyway, back to the car bomb stuff... I don't even think there IS an army there now, so by definition, isn't everyone fighting back an illegal combatant? How do you tell one from another? In any case, the people who fight back in a war zone that AREN'T soldiers are not terrorists
__________________
I love lamp. Last edited by Stompy; 09-27-2004 at 02:06 PM.. |
|
09-27-2004, 02:43 PM | #50 (permalink) | |
whosoever
Location: New England
|
Quote:
http://www.lawofwar.org/Hostilities....onal%20Weapons http://www.ccwtreaty.com/statements.html Anyhow. In chosing to engage an enemy, you take responsbility for what happens. Yeah, it sucks when they hide among civilians. But you did know that was going to happen. Yeah, it sucks when they shelter in shrines, or don't wear regular uniforms. But you knew they were going to. i'm not so impressed by the arguements that blame US inflicted casualties on to the militants. yeah, they're stupid to fight US forces. but we'd be smoking crack to think they wouldn't. it's called nationalism... "I wouldn't like being occupied" -Dubya |
|
09-27-2004, 03:21 PM | #51 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Nationalism is not a get out of jail free card. It is just a reason. Who do you think is the most responsible for the civilan deaths? |
|
09-27-2004, 06:35 PM | #52 (permalink) | |
whosoever
Location: New England
|
Quote:
when you choose to attack an enemy that refuses to abide by standards of war...you must have a crystal clear reason to do so. it is not just enough to prove that you have "a" reason. the war you are about to engage in will be long, difficult, and filled with pointless slaughter. to choose such a course must be one of utter last resort. not planning for winning the peace is to plan to fight an endless battle of attrition. the "catastrophic sucess" of the intial campaign showed the utter failure to plan for peace. those who chose to ignore that bear most of the responsibility for the ensuing chaos, and deaths. |
|
09-28-2004, 12:13 AM | #54 (permalink) |
The sky calls to us ...
Super Moderator
Location: CT
|
I can't just define terrorism, but I know it when I see it.
The best I can come up with is that a terrorist is a militant who attempts to coerce a population into compliance with his beliefs by attacking without warning, and without considering the difference between civilian and military targets. Strikes are usually calculated to cause maximum fear, disruption, or symbolic significance (visible, political leaders, making a big mess, etc) rather than to strategic significance (military, infrastructure.) You can also have my cynical definition, which is a fighter whose political views do not agree with those of the media outlet who reports his actions. |
09-28-2004, 10:53 AM | #57 (permalink) |
Banned
|
Bush = terrorist
Bin Laden = terrorist People who say Bin Laden is a terrorist and Bush is not is a one-sided fool. Bush attacked another country under lies and killed innocent civilians. Bin Laden and Al Queda kill innocent civilians. They are both terrorists. <----- Terrorist smiley. Last edited by Rdr4evr; 09-28-2004 at 10:56 AM.. |
09-28-2004, 11:19 AM | #58 (permalink) | |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
Quote:
I can, so that must make me a one-sided fool.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! |
|
09-28-2004, 11:40 AM | #60 (permalink) | |||||
Loser
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
09-28-2004, 11:46 AM | #61 (permalink) |
Psycho
Location: i live in the state of denial
|
There was no attempt to connect the events of 9/11 to Saddam or Iraq. Read the post more carefully, we're defining terrorism and who could reasonably be called a terrorist, Lebell's post made reference to Bush and Bin Laden and in no way even referenced that the Iraqi people or goverment had any connection with Osama Bin Laden.
|
09-28-2004, 11:55 AM | #62 (permalink) |
Loser
|
Lebell responded to Rdr4evr as to why he views Bush as not being a terrorist. He listed a number of items, all of which were attempts at justifying the Iraq war. I simply pointed out that all of those things he listed do not justify the Iraq war - so Lebell's arguments that Bush is not a terrorist were poor arguments.
|
09-28-2004, 12:58 PM | #63 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
Terrorism = the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear. Sounds exactly like what Bush is doing. Using violence and fear against civilians in Iraq for his personal religious and political benefit. |
|
09-28-2004, 01:00 PM | #64 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Perspective for just who the terrorists are....
Quote:
Pathetic, really pathetic.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
09-28-2004, 01:10 PM | #65 (permalink) |
Banned
|
Ustwo,
Who and what is going to "cost the Iraqi's their new found freedom and lives?" Although arguments about whether or not the war is justified still rage on, I know of no one outside of the fringes who wants to just abandon the country. As Colin Powell said, we broke it so we own it. Hell, Kerry is calling for more troops to finish the job. Last edited by cthulu23; 09-28-2004 at 01:14 PM.. |
09-28-2004, 01:39 PM | #66 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
|
|
09-28-2004, 08:24 PM | #69 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
I hear they are making them more attractive as they convince young 'disposable' girls to do the bombings.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
09-29-2004, 11:40 AM | #72 (permalink) |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
Ok ok, any more of those "Terrorist?" photoshops and I'm moving this thread to Humor...
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! |
09-29-2004, 12:13 PM | #73 (permalink) | ||
Guest
|
Quote:
Sometimes I wonder what world of blind hatred people like yourself live in. If you believe Bush is an evil anti-Christ to your good values, then, by all means, vote against him. But do you have to bring it here? Quote:
On Topic: I believe a terrorist is quantified mainly by his willingness to attack civilians directly, and use tortuous methods for creating fear (such as beheading videos). They also make use of civilians to protect themselves, as I mentioned earlier, by hiding in crowds and crowded suburbs. I believe that insurgents would be the ones who dislike the American military for invading their country, and wish to kill them, but do not attempt to attack innocent civilians or use deadly wide-affect car bombs in public places, etc. |
||
09-29-2004, 12:53 PM | #74 (permalink) | ||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
09-29-2004, 01:08 PM | #75 (permalink) |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
Ok, We warn and warn, but people won't listen, so this is a good time to roll out some temp bans.
jconnelly and Rdr4evr, you two are on a "time-out" for sniping at each other. jconnelly for 24 hours because this is your first offense that I can see, and Rdr4evr, for 3 days because this is your second temp ban for the same thing.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! Last edited by Lebell; 09-29-2004 at 01:12 PM.. |
09-29-2004, 01:36 PM | #76 (permalink) |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
This is what it sounds like, when doves cry.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
09-29-2004, 01:42 PM | #78 (permalink) | |
Cracking the Whip
Location: Sexymama's arms...
|
Quote:
Nyuk Nyuk!
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate! |
|
09-29-2004, 01:49 PM | #79 (permalink) |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
I'm still shocked about Shemp. Sure I never liked him as a stooge, but who woulda thunk it?
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
09-29-2004, 02:46 PM | #80 (permalink) |
Junkie
|
I don't think the targeting civilians is a valid definition for terrorists. And here is why. Let's take a school yard analagy. If some 90 pound weakling is being picked on by a 200 pound bully is it not fair for the weakling to kick the bully in the balls to defend himself? Even though kicking in the balls is considered "unfair" by the bully?
My point is this the US has very few if any soft targets. We out gun and outman any other force on the planet. If we make rules that are advantageous to us we have to expect people to not follow them. It is easy for us to say "don't kill civilians" because we have the ability to do damage without targeting them. We backed a weaker force into a corner we should expect them to fight any way they can to survive. Am I justifying targeting civilians? No, but targeting them alone does not make them terrorists. We have left them with no other options. I think a better definition of terrorist needs to include something about being unprovoked. |
Tags |
terrorist |
|
|