Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-27-2004, 11:54 AM   #41 (permalink)
Jarhead
 
whocarz's Avatar
 
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
whocarz is offline  
Old 09-27-2004, 11:57 AM   #42 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
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
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 09-27-2004, 11:59 AM   #43 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: newyork
terrorists hide
cheeterbo is offline  
Old 09-27-2004, 12:17 PM   #44 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheeterbo
terrorists hide
HAHAHAHAHAHA...clever!
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-27-2004, 12:39 PM   #45 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by whocarz
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.
I was referring to the modern, western concept of "civilized" war.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 09-27-2004, 01:02 PM   #46 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI


Nope. It's only KG.
powerclown is offline  
Old 09-27-2004, 01:09 PM   #47 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
Big Ticket > Big Ben
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 09-27-2004, 02:00 PM   #48 (permalink)
Banned from being Banned
 
Location: Donkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by whocarz
Stompy, whether you choose to think so or not, there are rules to war. ... As I said though, no rule goes unbroken, and the rules of warfare are no exception.
There are *supposed* to be rules to war, but it's useless if no one follows em. Like I said, the losing side will do anything they can to fight back. *Anything*. It's not like the USA vs England... it's almost always someone who can't fight back.

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..
Stompy is offline  
Old 09-27-2004, 02:37 PM   #49 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Big Ticket > Big Ben
How many rings he got?
powerclown is offline  
Old 09-27-2004, 02:43 PM   #50 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by whocarz
Under the Geneva convention it is illegal to use a shotgun to kill an enemy combatant, you cannot use .50 caliber and larger guns against enemy troops, ammunition for small arms must be "ball" ammunition, and cannot mushroom past a certain extent, etc. As I said though, no rule goes unbroken, and the rules of warfare are no exception.
Doesn't seem to be in the Geneva conventions, but rather in the CCW, which the US didn't seem to ratify fully, b/c of landmines and shotguns, as well as a few other weapons programs.

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
martinguerre is offline  
Old 09-27-2004, 03:21 PM   #51 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
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...
Engaging an enemy is a horrible reality. Our soldiers had no say in us going to war. They don't deserve to die just as much as the Iraqi nationalists don't deserve to die. Our soldiers are not responsable for what happens with the militant Iraqi soldiers/civilians that choose to use illegal (whether fair or not) methods to try and kill them. The responsibility of the soldiers is simply to follow all legal orders. Yes, these terrible acts were considered a likelyhood from the get-go. That does not mean we are responsable for their actions. We are responsible for our actions, and they are responsible for theirs. If Iraq had signed any rules of engagement or rules of war treaties before this all began, any of these militant forces or people who break those treaties will be guilty of war crimes. It is irrelevant whether it was a last resort or not.
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?
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-27-2004, 06:35 PM   #52 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Engaging an enemy is a horrible reality. Our soldiers had no say in us going to war. They don't deserve to die just as much as the Iraqi nationalists don't deserve to die. Our soldiers are not responsable for what happens with the militant Iraqi soldiers/civilians that choose to use illegal (whether fair or not) methods to try and kill them. The responsibility of the soldiers is simply to follow all legal orders. Yes, these terrible acts were considered a likelyhood from the get-go. That does not mean we are responsable for their actions. We are responsible for our actions, and they are responsible for theirs. If Iraq had signed any rules of engagement or rules of war treaties before this all began, any of these militant forces or people who break those treaties will be guilty of war crimes. It is irrelevant whether it was a last resort or not.
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?
most assuredly agreed... our soliders did have no say. that's why we're normally a catious, even over-catious nation. it took how long to get in to WW2, with FDR's constant coaxing? it says something very chilling about us as a nation that we've lost our instinctive total aversion to war. individual soliders who follow geneva conventions, rules of engagement, etc...are not responsible for inflicting accidental civilian deaths. Commanders, presidents...the ones who send troops in when they know that civilian death will be the reality, or who send troops in with blind defiance of reality...they bear the moral responsiblity for those deaths.

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.
martinguerre is offline  
Old 09-27-2004, 11:04 PM   #53 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
martinguerre, I am really glad to see that is what you meant. I totally and whole-heartedly agree with you.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 12:13 AM   #54 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
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.
MSD is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 07:40 AM   #55 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
I agree with your first definition, MrSeflDestruct. It's funny that not 10 years ago, the term ment something diferent.
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 09:46 AM   #56 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI


No.
This is Fred Rogers, aka "Mr. Rogers".
R.I.P., Mr. Rogers.

Last edited by powerclown; 09-28-2004 at 12:28 PM..
powerclown is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 10:53 AM   #57 (permalink)
Banned
 
Rdr4evr's Avatar
 
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..
Rdr4evr is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 11:19 AM   #58 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rdr4evr
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.
I'm sorry that you cannot see the difference between a war that followed 2 unprovoked wars, 300,000 dead, one assassination attempt and 10+ years of flaunted UN sanctions and an unprovoked, unannounced attack that killed almost 3000 US citizens.

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!
Lebell is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 11:25 AM   #59 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebell
I can, so that must make me a one-sided fool.
I only hope that the one side I show is my best side.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 11:40 AM   #60 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebell
a war that followed 2 unprovoked wars
The last one being over a decade ago, handled with a full-on military response and nary a peep of war since.

Quote:
300,000 dead
Now, assuredly Saddam was an evil despot. But there has only been speculation as to how many people he has had killed - there were many claims of hundreds of thousands of dead in mass graves, and those claims turned out to be unsubstantiated. The last I heard, they've found a few thousand dead in mass graves. A far cry from the 400,000 that many (including Bush) have claimed.

Quote:
one assassination attempt
I can only imagine how many failed and successful assassination attempts have been made on behalf of the U.S. in the past 50 years. Assuredly a lone assassination attempt is not justification of any sort for an invasion.

Quote:
and 10+ years of flaunted UN sanctions
Flaunted by all parties on both sides.

Quote:
and an unprovoked, unannounced attack that killed almost 3000 US citizens.
It would certainly be a nice connection to put Saddam and Iraq involved in 9/11 - but you know it just doesn't exist.
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 11:46 AM   #61 (permalink)
Psycho
 
bacon_masta's Avatar
 
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.
bacon_masta is offline  
Old 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.
OpieCunningham is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 12:58 PM   #63 (permalink)
Banned
 
Rdr4evr's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebell
I'm sorry that you cannot see the difference between a war that followed 2 unprovoked wars, 300,000 dead, one assassination attempt and 10+ years of flaunted UN sanctions and an unprovoked, unannounced attack that killed almost 3000 US citizens.

I can, so that must make me a one-sided fool.
That does make you one sided because you think Bush's doing in Iraq is justified whereas Bin Ladens doing on 9/11 is terrorism.

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.
Rdr4evr is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 01:00 PM   #64 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Perspective for just who the terrorists are....

Quote:
Iraq Marine: Troops 'Terrified' of a Kerry Presidency

U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq are "terrified" at the prospect that Americans back home might elect John Kerry president, a Marine and Iraq veteran who is on his way back to the front lines said Monday.

Asked how Kerry's election would affect troop morale in the combat zone, Lance Cpl. Lawrence Romack told KWEL Midland, Texas, radio host Craig Anderson, "It would destroy it."


"We're pretty terrified of a John Kerry presidency," added Romack, who served with the 1st Marine Tank Battalion in Iraq.

The Iraq war vet said he fears that most of the news coverage is being skewed to make the mission look like a failure in order to give the Kerry campaign a boost.

"What they're trying to do is get Kerry into the White House, because they know he doesn't want us to stay [in Iraq]," he told Anderson.

Asked if Americans back home were getting an accurate picture of what's happening in the war, the Marine corporal said: "No, they're not. It's not even close. All the press wants to report is casualty counts. They don't want to report the progress we're making over there."

Romack noted that in the southern part of the country, Iraqis welcomed U.S. troops when they set up an immunization programs for children, opened schools and began distributing food.

"Almost immediately people were lining up to get their kids shots," he told Anderson.

Contrary to reports that the general population was too afraid to help ferret out insurgents, Romack said, "We had Iraqis pointing out former Baath Party members for us to arrest."

When the KWEL host opened up the phone lines, a member of the 82nd Airborne who had returned from Iraq in March was first on the line.

He agreed with Cpl. Romack that media reports coming out of Iraq were often inaccurate – and sometimes even dangerous.

"The news media – sometimes I felt like I had as much to fear from them as I did the Iraqis," he complained.
We are not the terrorists, we are doing what we can for these people, and some terrorists are making it difficult, but not as difficult as people who are so against Bush and so against American world dominance that they will be happy to cost the Iraqi's their new found freedom and lives just so they can say 'We told you so'.

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.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 01:10 PM   #65 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
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..
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 01:39 PM   #66 (permalink)
Banned
 
Rdr4evr's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Perspective for just who the terrorists are....



We are not the terrorists, we are doing what we can for these people, and some terrorists are making it difficult, but not as difficult as people who are so against Bush and so against American world dominance that they will be happy to cost the Iraqi's their new found freedom and lives just so they can say 'We told you so'.

Pathetic, really pathetic.
Actually that quote you used to somehow show that Americans or Bush are not terrorist is more pathetic then anything else. "people were lining up to get shots for their kids.", LOL!! I wonder if the Iraqi parents of all the injured, burned, paralyzed, mangled and dead children have the same "open arms" mentality towards the Americans. After all, they are only trying to help .
Rdr4evr is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 02:02 PM   #67 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Hye, do you guys (and gals) remember when this post was asking what a terrorist was? Wow...those were the days....
Willravel is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 05:44 PM   #68 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI


No way.
This is Nicole Kidman, famous Australian actress.
She's a lover, not a fighter.
powerclown is offline  
Old 09-28-2004, 08:24 PM   #69 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown

No way.
This is Nicole Kidman, famous Australian actress.
She's a lover, not a fighter.
Are you sure thats not a bomb vest?

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.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 04:42 AM   #70 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: everywhere else
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
This word you speak of: "Terrorist",
you must be in error, good sir.
For, truly there are no Terrorists;
only Freedom Fighters pure.

the end.



I am so much with you!
__________________
titular
Eugeni is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 11:00 AM   #71 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI


The Three Stooges.
They were Jewish comedians. But, Terrorists?
Moe...quite possibly. The others tended to be pacifists - with the possible exception of Shemp - who was known to have had highly aggressive tendencies.
powerclown is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 11:40 AM   #72 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
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!
Lebell is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 12:13 PM   #73 (permalink)
jconnolly
Guest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rdr4evr
Sounds exactly like what Bush is doing. Using violence and fear against civilians in Iraq for his personal religious and political benefit.
Is he specifically targetting civilians? Is he blowing up buses and schools simply to create fear? Is Bush the terrorist for asking his military to attack a country which very well could prove to tip the balance in favour of the US in eliminating state terrorism? Is he the terrorist because in a war which required the occupation of the whole country, the military is unable to control it 100% or avoid tragic civilian losses? Is he the terrorist for the military having to deal with terrorists and insurgents shooting out of crowds of civilians, or having their bases in suburbs?

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:
Originally Posted by OpieCunningham
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.
Yes, the "nary a peep of war" was a good one, despite Saddam's repeated shots on planes patrolling no fly zones, or uncooperation with the terms of his defeat in '91. Or the mass graves - "so far" the claims have been unsubstantiated. Thanks for eliminating the point because we don't know the location of every single mass grave. Or how about the "flaunted by both sides" bit - yeah, that certainly relieves Iraq of any responsiblity.

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.
 
Old 09-29-2004, 12:53 PM   #74 (permalink)
Banned
 
Rdr4evr's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jconnolly
Is he specifically targetting civilians?
I don't care whether or not he is specifically targeting civilians. The fact is that upwards of 30,000 innocent people have been brutally killed under the occupation of the coalition. He terrorized a country and killed all of these poor helpless people for his personal agenda all while lying to the public. That, my friend, is terrorism. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...q-deaths_x.htm
Quote:
Is he blowing up buses and schools simply to create fear?
The US is blowing up buses and schools. Whether to create fear of their power or not is up for debate, but once again, the fact is that innocent people are dying for nothing. There is no argument that can make something like blowing up a school "right". Although a Bush follower would like to believe that…it is not possible.
Quote:
Is Bush the terrorist for asking his military to attack a country which very well could prove to tip the balance in favour of the US in eliminating state terrorism?
Bush is a terrorist for the reason I mentioned above. He is also a terrorist because Iraq was not a threat to America. Bush responded with terrorism here in the states by terrorizing an entire country that had nothing to do with it. Not only does that make him a terrorist, it makes him a coward, plain and simple.
Quote:
Is he the terrorist because in a war which required the occupation of the whole country, the military is unable to control it 100% or avoid tragic civilian losses?
Yes he is, because his military should not be there to begin with. He is responsible for all the deceased in Iraq since the occupation.
Quote:
Is he the terrorist for the military having to deal with terrorists and insurgents shooting out of crowds of civilians, or having their bases in suburbs?
The US fires at crowds with their apaches as well. The “insurgents” are doing nothing but fighting for their country that was wrongly invaded. Do you expect them to sit and watch while America blows them to oblivion?
Quote:
Sometimes I wonder what world of blind hatred people like yourself live in.
Sometimes I wonder why people like you blindly follow your terrorist dictator without questioning his true motives.
Rdr4evr is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 01:08 PM   #75 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
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..
Lebell is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 01:36 PM   #76 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
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.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 01:37 PM   #77 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Just trying to answer the question, Lebell.
I guess we'll never know for sure.....
powerclown is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 01:42 PM   #78 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Just trying to answer the question, Lebell.
I guess we'll never know for sure.....

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!
Lebell is offline  
Old 09-29-2004, 01:49 PM   #79 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
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.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 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.
Rekna is offline  
 

Tags
terrorist


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:01 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360