Your thoughts are welcomed
When is Bush and Blair getting on the scaffold?
Why do you suppose he got away without being tried for the gassing of 5000 Curds?
Oh yeah... then the Reagan administration would have had to go on trial as an accomplice.
SEND MORE ROPE!
Must be nice to be able to do what ever the fuck you want on the world stage. Who will invade America to free it's people?
I heard he had a suspended sentence!Mr. Nuts
Super, it baffles me that an intelligent man such as you usually seem to be would even hint at comparing whatever you think is wrong with the USA and its government to the atrocities committed by that mad man. How dare you.
Firstly it must be said that he got what he deserved although the war itself is a shambles, but thats another debate.Terrorism is subjective, 'terrorists' beleive in what they are doing and although i dont beleive there is a valid reason for killing innocent people, i would say cast your mind back to the Atom Bomb dropped on Hiroshima, arguabally the greatest act of terrorism in history.I think its ironic that us people in the west go on about terror in the middle east when you compair the fact that the western world is much more renound for global terrorism.
do you deny the US's culpabulity in the atrocities of Saddam in the 80s?You have to remember that while he was gassing his own citizens, he was still concidered an ali of the US because he opposed the Soviet invasion of Afganistan.Reagan saw a megamaniacle madman as preferable to a commie.So Saddam will never be tried for those atrocities. When serial killers are tried, do they stop at the first conviction or go after a conviction for every crime? Why do you suppose they stopped short of the Curdish masacre while trying Saddam?
Originally Posted By: unsupervised When serial killers are tried, do they stop at the first conviction or go after a conviction for every crime? This is true that you try to nail a criminal with as many charges as possible; but you pick and choose the ones you have solid evidence for, and the best chance of securing the worst penalty.
it's not even about the worst penalty really. the basic penalty for one murder or one thousand is that same. It's about aknowlagement of the crime. If Paul Bernardo was convicted and punnished for the murser of Christen French because it's life in jail, how would the family of Lestly Mahaffy feel?Shit, Paul can't spend 2 lives in jail so why bother with the second conviction.They can't Hang Saddam twice so why bother persuing the Curdish masecre?
Max, the difference between terrorist, and an army; is that you SEE who the army folks are. The guy in a helmet and desert camo, with a frickin American flag on his shoulder, standing on top of a M1 Abrams is obviously a US Solider.The little shit who is cowering in the mosque, or in with groups of families in the market, and is hiding bombs under his clothing; who then blows himself up...is a terrorist.Terrorism is going to the extreme all the time, at the drop of a hat. They often use thier religion as a shield, and have one, ignorant goal in mind. In the case of the Taliban and MANY other factions in the middle east is this: All jews and westerners must DIE. They don't give half a fuck about you, or how you don't support the war, you are an INFIDEL, a HEATHEN! YOU MUST DIE! 9/11, the Spanish Train Massacre; the failed, massive attack planned for Toronto. The public transit bombings in London. Have you forgotten all that already? Do you think that was the end of it? Silly, silly boy...remember that (and your comments) the next time a national landmark is destroyed, or when you find out your loved ones are dead because some fuck-stick blew himself up inside, say, Carrow Road Stadium.=====================================================LONG PART OF POST REGARDING THE ATOMIC BOMBS.Don't think for a SECOND that the A-bombs on Japan were the worst attrocities by either side during that war. The firebombing of Japan, Germany, and England killed many MANY more than the A-bombs could ever have claimed. The atomic bombs were a good strategy to end a war with an enemy whose society was LITERALLY BASED ON HONOUR; 'death before dishonour' wasn't just a cheap tattoo parlour special, it was serious over there (Look at the battle of Iwo Jima, 20,000 Japanese troops, only 700 were ever captured [that includes un-armed Korean labourers]) The casualty estimate for an invasion of Japan was around 500,000-1.5 MILLION US troops, and tens of millions of Japanese people (since the Emperor was god, the civilians would gladly die for him) The atomic bomb was used to prove to the Japanese that the allies had the ability to erase Japan from the map. None of the allied countries wanted to invade; everyones troops were exhausted, economies in the shitter, Europe in shambles and still unstable...what other options did they have?Japan had thier fun against the US (Pearl Harbour), and committed astounding attrocities against captured allied troops, and the Chinese population. The bottom line:The Japanese refused to surrender; facing death rather than defeat; believeing they could over-come an invasion; the US had the best weapon in the books, and the ability to deliver it. The Japanese lost just over 200,000 people, which is much better than tens of millions over months of invasion. To that end; the bombing of Japan was not for any political or religious reasons; it was to end the war. The war did end, the Japanese surrendered, the US didn't take them over, or enslave them, or demand they change thier religion.
Let me give you my spin on this, but before you all jump up and giving me grief I am NOT SUPPORTING TERRORIST OR JUSTIFYING WHAT THEY DO.
Remember that when you get to the bottom of what I have said.
Originally Posted By: Hawker23
Max, the difference between terrorist, and an army; is that you SEE who the army folks are. The guy in a helmet and desert camo, with a frickin American flag on his shoulder, standing on top of a M1 Abrams is obviously a US Solider.
The little shit who is cowering in the mosque, or in with groups of families in the market, and is hiding bombs under his clothing; who then blows himself up...is a terrorist.
The only reason why we are pissed off with what terrorist are doing is because it is happening to US.
Let us say for example:
All the Middle Eastern countries are developed and hold roughly the same status and power of the USA, UK, Canada, France etc you know what I mean.
And countries like the USA, UK whatever are the equivalent of the Middle Eastern countries.
You live where you do now and you have never had a proper education, benefits, it is dangerous to live without the risk of being shot (some things never change in the USA).
SUDDENLY you have a FUCK-OFF huge army, airforce, navy on your doorstep. All of them are Islamic and are trying to stop you from developing weapons to defend yourself (granted that was the official reason, the real reason was oil).
They have caused havoc; it is now much more dangerous. There are constant firefights and bombings from aircraft. You have lost many people from your family/friends.
They do this in the name of making a better life for you by appointing a dictator, and taking away women's rights. Much more civilised since they're society works well that way.
You have no military to defend yourself and you are slightly "peeved" at all this.
You have two choices
1. Do nothing; I am sure they know what they are doing.
2. Try to defend what is yours.
Seriously, what would you do?
The reason which they use (in the name of Islam and Allah) is their strongest reason which they believe is RIGHT.
To me that is no different from wanting to defend out country, or save our religion from the terrible invading force.
Like I say at the very top, I DO NOT AGREE with what they do. However I believe we can hardly blame them.
Even if their reasoning cannot be understood from our perspective, we must still acknowledge it.
Because lets face it, what else could they do.
Collect a rabble of an army and go for a full battle with the invading force. That is just stupid, they would get slaughtered. They don't have the technology, logistical support, manpower, air support, navigation and spy piece of kit we do.
For them it is far better to make small hits which develop fear. And let's face it, in the situation I pointed out above. We would probably do the same.
I always try to emphasise with peoples situations, if you haven't before and you have just thought "those damn rag-heads don't do as we say" then perhaps you should.
Originally Posted By: Hawker23The little shit who is cowering in the mosque, or in with groups of families in the market, and is hiding bombs under his clothing; who then blows himself up...is a terrorist.What about the government who uses the fear of these terrorists to get their way? The people who replicate every aspect of the extremists apart from the actual physical act, simply to give themselves more power.
What power is that? The lowest presidential approval ratings since Nixon? The hate of every country of the world? The distrust from the US population? The lack of support from allied countries? The lack of confidence in the government and military?Me thinks they haven't quite won a lot more power than they had before; if nothing else, they're losing it.
The power to "legally" torture criminals who don't fall under the specific definition of a POW. The power to illegally invade a country based on lies.
Yes, but there is a difference between defence and cowardice.The French/Polish/Jewish resistance is a good point; they ACTUALLY DEFENDED, they didn't go out into the middle of the street of thier own people and blow themselves up. If the folks in the middle east were to do what the Vietcong did (Guerillia warfare) Then I could understand it...however; they're blowing themselves up, like little coward shits, in with groups of innocent people. Although I understand there are good number of them fighting guerilla-style.Defenders only want to stop the attackers (Vietcong, various WW2 Resistance movements) Cowards kill people behind a shield of ignornace provided by thier religion.
As far as invading goes...IT'S ALWAYS 'ILLEGAL'!Have you ever heard of a country inviting another to invade it? Whether it is legal or not means absolutly nothing. War is about winning, not about obeying laws or asking permission. There dosn't have to be a reason to do ANYTHING with the military; if Mr. Bush wants to invade Belgium tommrow, he can do it without asking whether they want it, and he dosn't even have to tell anyone WHY.Any courtesy extended to a POW is based on a countries good faith, rather than any legal bounds. And even then, even if they signed a treaty, it's thier choice whether they follow it or not. They still get treated A HELL of a lot better than captured civilian and military personnel are in Iraq or Afganistan.Now granted, I don't agree with not allowing prisoners of any ranking to be held indefinatly without a trial, or to be denied any access to outside communication with family and friends; if a legitment case cannot be brought about on someone within a reasonable period of time, then they should be released.
Here is the thing though; sacrificing themselves for their worthy cause is not cowardice. It is the ultimate honour, it is a culture, which they have been brought up with and live by.I personally would never see strapping on packs of C4 and blowing yourself up as cowardice. I see that as loyalty and dedication, I admire that. They are both good qualities, if not misplaced.The dictionary definition of a coward is a person who is too eager to avoid danger, difficulty or painThey seem to be almost too willing to endure difficulty and pain. They are taking on very powerful and dangerous force.I like to use the analogy of a person in the sea with great white (jaws style), they are out manovered, out gunned and don't know where they are going to be attacked.You mentioned the resistance in WW2; well those people were defending their country and wanted to be around to see it be free.The terrorists are defending their religion, and if you are not the RIGHT SORT OF MUSLIM then you are as good as an American. That is why they blow up anyone. They also believe that by doing so they will have a better after life, so in a sense it is the same but with a loophole.If someone is willing to blow themselves up, then that is their decision. And that itself doesn’t bother me as much as when they hide behind schools, hospitals etc. That I believe as just unmoral.Like I say in my above post I do not support terrorism (I currently am applying for a commission with the Royal Marines), but defeating it requires one to understand it.I tend to take the attitude that since we would never get anywhere trying to persuade people that their religion is...I am not going to say wrong...but misinterpreted.The religion of Islam is much like any other, very peaceful. However people tend to interpret things written as in it and use it for their own personal gain and use. It tends to just be arse hole dictator wannabes reading crap into the Quran.Mr. Nuts
Invasion is always illegal according to the law of the invaded country, but what about the law of the invading country?It is this attitude of "might makes right", and that giving your word on something commits the other side but does not commit you, that has led to the declining respect for the US as an honourable nation. So long as the US has military dominance it won't be much affected, but nations rise and fall and I think the US is now over its zenith. The 21st century will probably be the century that sees the rise of Asia, I think.
Quote:As far as invading goes...IT'S ALWAYS 'ILLEGAL'!Not all wars are illegal. But it is required that reasonable peaceful attempts at a resolution are attempted first. Quote:Whether it is legal or not means absolutly nothing. War is about winning, not about obeying laws or asking permission.Yes there are rules and laws that govern wars. Ever heard of the Geneva Conventions?Quote:There dosn't have to be a reason to do ANYTHING with the military; if Mr. Bush wants to invade Belgium tommrow, he can do it without asking whether they want it, and he dosn't even have to tell anyone WHY.Don't be stupid, America cannot attack whomever they want. The world governments don't care enough about the middle-East to defend them from attack, but America could never attack a European nation without just cause.Quote:Any courtesy extended to a POW is based on a countries good faith, rather than any legal bounds. And even then, even if they signed a treaty, it's thier choice whether they follow it or not.Now that is just wrong. Again, have you never heard of the Geneva Conventions? Any nation that signed the conventions MUST abide by them. If they breach them then they will be punished, either criminally or financially.Quote:They still get treated A HELL of a lot better than captured civilian and military personnel are in Iraq or Afganistan.That has nothing to do with it.
Originally Posted By: numbnuts
The dictionary definition of a coward is a person who is too eager to avoid danger, difficulty or pain
They seem to be almost too willing to endure difficulty and pain.
I wouldn't believe that. By blowing themselves up, they are dying a quick and relatively painless death. They are considered cowards because they are avoiding the dificulty of living in a society with people who have different beliefs from their own.