Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/12/2004 9:22:36 AM EST
I was visiting one of my best friends over the weekend in Brooklyn. We were hanging out at his apt with a few people he knew. I arrived just when the 2nd debate ended and naturally that was the topic of conversation. This one chick was very strongly against Bush but not in the uninformed way, she knew what she was talking about and she basically differed from myself on "judgement" calls not statistics or anything. I kept my mouth shut seeing as I just got there and really all I wanted to do was drink, have a good time, and catch up on old shit with my buddy. We went out to someone elses apartment where there was a party. I was sitting there with my friend on the roof when one of his buds comes over and starts talking with us. This young man was waring a shirt with a Baretta 92 on it and some japanese writing. I asked him about it and it turned out he was extremely againsts guns. He starts spouting off all this complete bullshit about the AWB and grenade launchers and really got in my face about condoning such weapons and owning them. After awhile I said "look, I'm not gonna convince you otherwise and you're not gonna convince me so lets drop it" and I walked away. My friend said the guy was a dick most of the time anyway. To top off the night we ended up going back to the girl's house who was previously mentioned for a smoke and a night cap. While I was there I realized I was either taught completely wrong or that I was listening to a lunatic. She said marxism was capitalism, that the wall in Israel has made things only worse, and a couple other things. Now correct me if I'm worng but isn't Marx the grand daddy of communism, and haven't bombing been EXTREMELY reduced since that wall has been up? I got sick of arguing and just let her speek. What makes it funnier is that she claims Israel was created by jewish terrorists and she's jewish. I'm not going to get into my position on that but I've never heard a jew say something damning of their own people.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:25:40 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:26:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 9:27:38 AM EST by piccolo]
FWIW, Israelis committed a lot of acts of Terrorism to get their freedom.

The line between being a 'freedom fighter' and a 'Terrorist' is only who's looking at the situation.


Were the guys that tossed the tea into Boston Harbor terrorists or freedom fighters?


ETA:Not trying to start a flame war, just pointing out another perspective.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:28:09 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:29:12 AM EST
You'd love greenwich village
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:29:19 AM EST
Yes. A Jewish terrorisit group known as "England".
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:29:50 AM EST
Was she cute?
You know the drill PITPAPP!
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:36:58 AM EST
I think a lot of this "Freedom Fighter vs. Terrorist" argument is pure bunk.

To use the Boston Tea Party as an example; I would say those were freedom fighters. Terrorists are the bastards who shoot school children and bomb civilian targets.

Where's the big confusion between the two?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:41:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By 762mmMAN:
I think a lot of this "Freedom Fighter vs. Terrorist" argument is pure bunk.

To use the Boston Tea Party as an example; I would say those were freedom fighters. Terrorists are the bastards who shoot school children and bomb civilian targets.

Where's the big confusion between the two?



The only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is what side of the fight your on.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:43:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By 762mmMAN:
I think a lot of this "Freedom Fighter vs. Terrorist" argument is pure bunk.

To use the Boston Tea Party as an example; I would say those were freedom fighters. Terrorists are the bastards who shoot school children and bomb civilian targets.

Where's the big confusion between the two?





I suppose you could say that Israeli 'freedom fighters' blew up the King David Hotel?

It was funny in the late 70s/early 80s listening to one of the very conspirators say that Israel will not tolorate terrorism. Pot calling the kettle black.


If no kids get hurt, the action is done by freedom fighters, right? Hurt 1 kid and you're a terrorist?

BTW, the Tea was a civilian target. It wasn't owned by the Crown. It was property of the East India Tea company.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:45:04 AM EST
Saying that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" is an accurate portrayl of almost any armed conflict.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 9:45:48 AM EST
You were talking to a member of the "Like me because I am into enlightened self-loathing" crowd.

Common examples are:

1. Americans who hate America -- like Michael more and any college-aged liberal
2. Jews who hate Israel (I'm Jewish when it serves me but I am anti-Israel because I am gutless and intellectually vapid and can't defend them without looking so uncool.)
3. Ex-Catholics who hate the church. Please feel free to substitute any other denomination. I have seen plenty of Baptists, Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventies, etc. who leave their denominations and then bash them.
4. Spoiled children who hate their parents. Wait a minute, maybe they are right. You don't do a kid any good by spoiling them.
5. People raised in wealth who despise those who actually have to work for their survival. This isn't anti-wealth; this is anti-rich children who never had to produce a damn thing issue.

Generally, if someone is into loathing, its means they don't really stand aor anything. If they profess some sort of ideology, you can pretty well be assured that they really don't know anything about it. They will start their logical presentation with...."I feel......"
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:01:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By 762mmMAN:
I think a lot of this "Freedom Fighter vs. Terrorist" argument is pure bunk.

To use the Boston Tea Party as an example; I would say those were freedom fighters. Terrorists are the bastards who shoot school children and bomb civilian targets.

Where's the big confusion between the two?



No not really. It does all depend on who's side yer on. Your preception of the events is directly related to what side of the fence you sit on.

Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:13:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By 762mmMAN:
I think a lot of this "Freedom Fighter vs. Terrorist" argument is pure bunk.

To use the Boston Tea Party as an example; I would say those were freedom fighters. Terrorists are the bastards who shoot school children and bomb civilian targets.

Where's the big confusion between the two?



No not really. It does all depend on who's side yer on. Your preception of the events is directly related to what side of the fence you sit on.




By following that logic, we would all cheer if American soldiers threw grendades into a preschool as long as they're fighting "Our Cause". Absolutely not.

I am saying that there are ways of fighting that conote good and evil.

If you blow up a bus full of civilians and later claim you did it for UNICEF. The act was wrong.

BTW, I am really disappointed with some of you where you would liken our Revolutionary Minutemen to that of terrorists today.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:17:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By 762mmMAN:

BTW, I am really disappointed with some of you where you would liken our Revolutionary Minutemen to that of terrorists today.



And who exactly has done that?


I am saying that there are ways of fighting that conote good and evil.


And there are ways to run an Iraqi prison that represent Good & Evil as well.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:25:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mmanwitgun:

Originally Posted By 762mmMAN:
I think a lot of this "Freedom Fighter vs. Terrorist" argument is pure bunk.

To use the Boston Tea Party as an example; I would say those were freedom fighters. Terrorists are the bastards who shoot school children and bomb civilian targets.

Where's the big confusion between the two?



The only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is what side of the fight your on.



The difference is, a freedom fighter hits targets of military importance, strategic targets that will further his/her cause. Terrorists target innocents and civilians.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:28:04 AM EST
And you hung out with these people?

Next time just look straight in her eyes and tell her to either start cooking or start sucking because you are tired of listening to her Bullshit!


SGatr15
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:31:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Yes. A Jewish terrorisit group known as "England".



Actually, Isreal WAS created by a group of terrorists.

Their are called the United Nations.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:34:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 10:41:11 AM EST by Dolomite]

Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
The difference is, a freedom fighter hits targets of military importance, strategic targets that will further his/her cause. Terrorists target innocents and civilians.



The more radical Palistinians believe that every Israeli child they kill now is simply another soldier that won't be shooting at their kids later. Is that not strategy? (abhorrent as it may seem to us).

It's all a matter of perception. Civilians (women and children) always get the worst of it.

ie; During WW2, Barnes Wallis, a civilian in england, designed a dam busting bomb to hinder the German's ability to make steel - when the bombs were dropped by Britain, Canada, America, Australia and New Zealand Armed Forces - destroying the dams and the near by towns and cities as well (full of "innocent" civilians) - who's freedom do you think they were fighting for?

(Yours and mine).

Don't forget, it's only been a little over 50 years since "a dead German was a good German" - and yet, our WWII Vets are certainly NOT terrorists (to me) - but I'm sure the "gerry's may have had a different opinion at the time - see?)
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:36:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mmanwitgun:

The only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is what side of the fight your on.



That has got to be one of the most intellectually and moraly void statements that gets bantered about.

A 'Terrorist', by definition, engages in 'terror' - attacks on children, civilian populace, schools, hospitals, restraunts and shopping facilities. They try to dominate and force changes based on fear. Terrorists rarely attack military targets.

'Freedom Fighters' - can be guerilla groups or convential forces. Generally they limit attacks to military and/or govermental structures. Their goal is to defeat their governmental structures to set up a new government - with the support of the people (or at least a good percentage of them). Freedom Fighters may also engage in protest and civil disobediance - but they do not target non-combatants.

Note 'Minutemen' didn't go around blowing up Tory schools or masacring loyalists in the streets. What do we remember of those Freedom Fighters:
1) Boston Tea party (they threw cases of tea in the harbor) non violent act of civil disobediance
2) Lexiton & Concord (FF against military)
3) Breed's Hill (battle of Bunker Hill) FF vs militar
4) Trenton (again FF against military - in this case mercenaries).
see where I'm going?

Now lets compare those guys to 'Terrorists' Lets see now...
1) Airplanes in to WTC - Terrs against helpless civilians
2) Boat vs the USS Cole - Terrs against Military
3) Suicide Bombers - Terrs against civilians while shopping and eating..
4) Russian School - Terrs against our most helpless
5) Russian Theater...
6) Indonesian Disco
7) German Disco (anyone else remember this from the 80's..)
8) Look at most of the bombings in Iraq - they are mainly aimed at Iraqi civilians - either people trying to go about their lives or those wanting to sign up to help the new government.

Seems to me most of the Terrorist acts in the last 20 years have been against civilians - not military targets. Hardly a 'Freedom Fighter' - how do you justify 'Freedom Fighter' when they are blowing up the people they are trying to 'free'?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:39:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 10:46:54 AM EST by the]

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By 762mmMAN:
[...]
Terrorists are the bastards who shoot school children and bomb civilian targets.

Where's the big confusion between the two?



No not really. It does all depend on who's side yer on. Your preception of the events is directly related to what side of the fence you sit on.



Rethink this, photoman. If we want to dissuade the use of terror, we can't just kill those who would engage in it. We've got to clearly attack the idea philosophically as well, to separate the practice from other forms of conflict. It's got to be culturally denigrated.

Relativistic outlooks on events might make you feel circumspect or empathic, but they accomplish little else. In this case, I think they hurt. They can give a sort of cover to those practices.

Specifically targeting and killing innocent children, to cause terror, for example, is terrorism - no matter who does it. Absoutely. If that isn't, nothing is. Perception or 'side' is irrelevant.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:39:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
ie; During WW2, Barnes Wallis, a civilian in england, designed a dam busting bomb to hinder the German's ability to make steel - when the bombs were dropped by Britain, Canada, America, Australia and New Zealand Armed Forces - destroying the dams and the near by towns and cities as well (full of "innocent" civilians) - who's freedom do you think they were fighting for?

(Yours and mine).



Those civilians are reffered to as 'collateral dammage'. They were targeting military targets - unfortunetly civilians were killed as part of the process. It's war it happens.

Notice though now we've been continually improving our gear so we can target the exact facilty we want and destroy that with minimal dammage to the surrounding neighborhood. How many terrorists are working on 'Smart suicide bombers' that only kill/injure military & govt personel?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:41:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mahatma8Rice:
You were talking to a member of the "Like me because I am into enlightened self-loathing" crowd.

Common examples are:

1. Americans who hate America -- like Michael more and any college-aged liberal
2. Jews who hate Israel (I'm Jewish when it serves me but I am anti-Israel because I am gutless and intellectually vapid and can't defend them without looking so uncool.)
3. Ex-Catholics who hate the church. Please feel free to substitute any other denomination. I have seen plenty of Baptists, Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventies, etc. who leave their denominations and then bash them.
4. Spoiled children who hate their parents. Wait a minute, maybe they are right. You don't do a kid any good by spoiling them.
5. People raised in wealth who despise those who actually have to work for their survival. This isn't anti-wealth; this is anti-rich children who never had to produce a damn thing issue.

Generally, if someone is into loathing, its means they don't really stand aor anything. If they profess some sort of ideology, you can pretty well be assured that they really don't know anything about it. They will start their logical presentation with...."I feel......"



Great post. I was trying to explain this to someone just this weekend. To an ex-Catholic, Michael Moore fan to be exact.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:45:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By DocBrooks:
She said marxism was capitalism. . .



Marx predicted that capitalism would fall (the rate of provite would drop to zero), and the workers would size the means of production, bringing about the "dictatorship of the proletariat". The state would then wither away, resulting in true communism, and, essentially, the end of history (communism would be the final, perfect, system).

But Marx was wrong; capitalism never fell, and all attempts at achieving communism have ended up in state run dictatorships. If true communism did come to pass, it couldn't work due to lack of incentive, and more importantly an inability to calculate production and distribution needs (as shown by von Mises, et al).

In communism, people would work according to their ability and take according to their needs. And no real government would exist. All ownership would be collective.

In contrast, capitalism is based upon the ownership of property, and the ability to make contracts. In capitalism, the motivation is profit, but in order to profit yoou must provide something of value to others. Prices (supply and demand) provides a feedback mechinism for the accurate calculation of production and distribution needs.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:46:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 10:56:35 AM EST by Dolomite]

Originally Posted By Forest:
How many terrorists are working on 'Smart suicide bombers' that only kill/injure military & govt personel?



They're starting to use women and children now to carry suicide bombs to the checkpoints? Is that not smart? Look, if they had access to "Smart Bombs" they'd be fucking using them for sure - but they don't. At most they try and use "Smart Donkeys" cuz it's all they got.

That they lack technology in no way alters how they feel about their martyrs. Their suicide bombers (and those that assist them in anyway) are considered "freedom fighters" in their culture - that's what people mean when they use that expression.


...hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

- Sun Tzu


Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:53:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By Forest:
How many terrorists are working on 'Smart suicide bombers' that only kill/injure military & govt personel?



They're starting to use women and children now to carry suicide bombs to the checkpoints? Is that not smart? Look, if they had access to "Smart Bombs" they'd be fucking using them for sure - but they don't. At most they try and use "Smart Donkeys" cuz it's all they got.
.



I think you're missing the point. They are still using their bombers against innocent women and children (heck they are blowing their own children up now - they don't need the IDF anymore).

They can choose to drive their 'truck bombs' against military targets or they can take them to the local market. Which do they do?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:57:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mmanwitgun:

Originally Posted By 762mmMAN:
I think a lot of this "Freedom Fighter vs. Terrorist" argument is pure bunk.

To use the Boston Tea Party as an example; I would say those were freedom fighters. Terrorists are the bastards who shoot school children and bomb civilian targets.

Where's the big confusion between the two?



The only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is what side of the fight your on.


Wrong
Terrorists target civilians
Freedom Fighters target military targets.

for the King David Hotel example.
The irgun telephoned the hotel prior and told them to evacuate. The hotel manager thought it was a hoax and blew it off.
The King David was targeted because it was the HQ of the British Forces in Palestine.
The british took a civlian target and made it a military one.

i feel that the bombings in Nagasaki and Hiroshima (along with Dresden, etc) were terrorism.
The purpose of the strike was not to reduce military capability, but to induce a terror so great as to demand surrender.

Dresden was a senseless slaughter, at least Hiroshima and nagasaki worked.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 10:58:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mahatma8Rice:
You were talking to a member of the "Like me because I am into enlightened self-loathing" crowd.

Common examples are:

1. Americans who hate America -- like Michael more and any college-aged liberal
2. Jews who hate Israel (I'm Jewish when it serves me but I am anti-Israel because I am gutless and intellectually vapid and can't defend them without looking so uncool.)
3. Ex-Catholics who hate the church. Please feel free to substitute any other denomination. I have seen plenty of Baptists, Lutherans, Seventh Day Adventies, etc. who leave their denominations and then bash them.
4. Spoiled children who hate their parents. Wait a minute, maybe they are right. You don't do a kid any good by spoiling them.
5. People raised in wealth who despise those who actually have to work for their survival. This isn't anti-wealth; this is anti-rich children who never had to produce a damn thing issue.

Generally, if someone is into loathing, its means they don't really stand aor anything. If they profess some sort of ideology, you can pretty well be assured that they really don't know anything about it. They will start their logical presentation with...."I feel......"




#3 I hate the CHURCH BUSINESS where you make the correct contribution to the collection plate to allow your divorce to be forgiven and then accept communion again.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:00:12 AM EST
Useful idiots...
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:00:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 11:02:55 AM EST by Dolomite]
Didn't I just fucking explain to you that they, considering their lack of sophistication with weaponry, HAVE TO, in order for their struggle to survive - consider women and children as military targets of a future nature?

Good thing we didn't burn any women or children in Nagasaki or Hiroshima, eh?

Just because you don't like how your enemy acts does not mean that they're people don't consider them freedom fighters does it?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:02:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
i feel that the bombings in Nagasaki and Hiroshima (along with Dresden, etc) were terrorism.
The purpose of the strike was not to reduce military capability, but to induce a terror so great as to demand surrender.

Dresden was a senseless slaughter, at least Hiroshima and nagasaki worked.



You make a good point. Dresden was senseless - IIRC the person in charge of it was shunned by his peers after the war and wasn't he also not knighted (where others in similar positions were).

I consider Hiroshimal and Nagasaki more 'demonstrations' than terrorism. The US did warn Japan that if it did not surrender then the power of the sun would be used against them. Japan didn't listen so we began to demonstrate we could destroy them completely...
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:05:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Didn't I just fucking explain to you that they, considering their lack of sophistication with weaponry, HAVE TO, in order for their struggle to survive - consider women and children as military targets of a future nature?

Good thing we didn't burn any women or children in Nagasaki or Hiroshima, eh?

Just because you don't like how your enemy acts does not mean that they're people don't consider them freedom fighters does it?


Struggle to survive?
Survive what, exactly.
Are the jews slaughtering the arabs in the street and it is only the suicide bombings that stop the zionist murder machine from operating 24 hours a day.

Or is it the struggle to survive the humiliation of a jewish government?
Or is it the struggle to survive the arab built refugee camps?
Or is it the struggle to survive the arab governments that abandoned them after 48 and 67?
Or is it the struggle to kill jews because they get their rocks off on it?

Which struggle do you refer to?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:05:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By Forest:
I consider Hiroshimal and Nagasaki more 'demonstrations' than terrorism.



oh jesus-titty-fucking-christ



And of course what you consider to be a demonstration can only here-to-fore be deigned as a "demonstration".
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:07:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
Didn't I just fucking explain to you that they, considering their lack of sophistication with weaponry, HAVE TO, in order for their struggle to survive - consider women and children as military targets of a future nature?


That is a weak argument on their part and totally against what is considered 'civilized'. Lack of sophisitication is irrelevant. How much different is it to walk to the front gate of a military post or Govt building vs. to the market? Their idea to 'attack a potential future soldier' vs the current military or govt shows they are not interested in Freedom Fighting - just terror.

Nobody wins wars by attacking the other's women and children directly - you just end up pissing the other side off even more and insure your own side's destruction.



Good thing we didn't burn any women or children in Nagasaki or Hiroshima, eh?


They were warned. It's sad there was collateral dammage - but they were warned what would come if they didn't surrender.

By the way they started it - payback's a bitch.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:09:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sylvan:Struggle to survive?
Survive what, exactly.
Are the jews slaughtering the arabs in the street and it is only the suicide bombings that stop the zionist murder machine from operating 24 hours a day.

Or is it the struggle to survive the humiliation of a jewish government?
Or is it the struggle to survive the arab built refugee camps?
Or is it the struggle to survive the arab governments that abandoned them after 48 and 67?
Or is it the struggle to kill jews because they get their rocks off on it?

Which struggle do you refer to?



From their perception ? Oh, I'm sure it's all that and more.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:10:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By Forest:
Their idea to 'attack a potential future soldier' vs the current military or govt shows they are not interested in Freedom Fighting - just terror.



Yeah. Ok. You're right. Whatever.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:12:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Originally Posted By Sylvan:Struggle to survive?
Survive what, exactly.
Are the jews slaughtering the arabs in the street and it is only the suicide bombings that stop the zionist murder machine from operating 24 hours a day.

Or is it the struggle to survive the humiliation of a jewish government?
Or is it the struggle to survive the arab built refugee camps?
Or is it the struggle to survive the arab governments that abandoned them after 48 and 67?
Or is it the struggle to kill jews because they get their rocks off on it?

Which struggle do you refer to?



From their perception ? Oh, I'm sure it's all that and more.


You should be more accurate in your explanation for their terrorism.
They don't use suicide bombings to "survive"
They use suicide bombings because it is the best way they have to kill jews.
Their survival isn't in question. Their ability to kill jews is.
They define terrorism, and only the most convulated thought process can be used to justify it.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:13:31 AM EST
Civilians are legitimate targets, if they are supporting the enemy.

After all isnt a civilian contractor that is repairing a tank, or an airplane, or supplying food/fuel/ammunition to military units a legitimate target?

If a person is living in a country and is contributing to the economic viability of such a regime then they are in support of the regime. Paying taxes, doing a service that adds to GDP, adding the morale of the enemy, etc is such a contribution. The same goes for those supporting terrorists. If you provide support for an enemy YOU are, and should be, a viable target.

This notion of 'innocent civilian' is wrongheaded, and at times foolish. The 'innocent civilian' is a non-existent entity, civilians are either supporting you (by providing informaion, or material) or they are supporting your enemy (If only by being in the way and hampering your ability to target your enemy).

Your aim in war should be to cause your enemy to submit to your aims, or to destroy them utterly. We understood that in WW2 and had a fairly easy time of converting two despotic regimes to our allies. We have forgotten that in Iraq, and other places (namely Korea/Vietnam) by restraining ourselves, by placing idiotic constraints on ourselves, and attempting to minimize 'collateral damage' (or by not invading/destroying an obviously hostile nation state) have actually harmed our war aims, prolonged the conflicts, and caused more 'innocent civilians' to suffer, because of it.

War should either be total, or non-existent.

Every American (and I refer to all citizens and legal residents here) should realize that they are a Target because 1) they contribute to the economic/moral/morale strength of our Country- 2) They are members of the Militia of the United States, and so are NOT 'innocent civilians'.

We have forgotten that. UBL didnt.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:17:31 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 11:23:49 AM EST by Dolomite]

Originally Posted By Forest:
Their idea to 'attack a potential future soldier' vs the current military or govt shows they are not interested in Freedom Fighting - just terror.



Yeah. Ok. You're right. Whatever.

(despite your missing the point 100% altogether)

LOOK:

Here's a family somewhere in North Dakota watching CNN while eating dinner. They see that a US Serviceman has died in Iraq. They pause for a moment an reflect that one of there hero's just passed away.

Simultaneously, there's a man squatting in a dung hut in Somolia, or the Sudan, or Iran (pick your favorite terroist country). He hears on the local radio that two dozen Israeli's were killed at a pizza parlor by a suicide bomber. Does that man in the hut consider the suicide bomber a murderer of women and children or an extension of his political and cultural desire?

One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

That you don't agree with their methods has ZERO effect on how they feel about (or perceive) their people or their actions - can you grasp that?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:17:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
And of course what you consider to be a demonstration can only here-to-fore be deigned as a "demonstration".



What is your issue?

The Japanees started the war with an unproked attack on our soil (Hawaii). They also got involved in a 'terror attack' with the incendiary balloons - opps that was convienetly forgotten. Let's not foget their barbarism with our troops (battan death march) and to our civilian contractors on Guadacanal.

The Japaneese were warned to surrender or face the super weapon. (they declined).

So Hiroshima was selected as a target for the new weapon becaue it was an important Japaneese Army Depot and point of disembarkment. There were other targets considered (like Kyoto) that would have caused more phsycological impact (terror).

They instead chose a 'demonstration' site that had military significace. Terrorism was NOT the primary critera when they selected the target.

Nukes were a darn fine option in WW2 as they didn't have the preicision targeting capability - they could use 1 bomb and even if they miss the target was still gone - along with alot of collateral dammage.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:21:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By Silence:
War should either be total, or non-existent.



I understand what you are saying - and you bring up some good points.

But on the basis of your 'summation' (the above quote) shouldn't we then just 'Nuke them' and be done with it. That is TOTAL war - complete (or near complete) elimination of the enemy.

Try joining our military and wage deliberate attacks on women and children and see what happens to you. It might fly with Al-Queda but that stuff don't fly here.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:22:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 11:29:37 AM EST by Dolomite]

Originally Posted By Sylvan:

You should be more accurate in your explanation for their terrorism.



It's hardly germane to the meaning of "one man's terroist is another man's freedom fighter" (that's my whole point).

I mean, I would if I could - but I have no desire to get into a debate about Israel.

The fact that we try really, really hard to only hit military/government targets during actions would be of little solace to any civilians we unintetionally take out.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:27:24 AM EST
Sorry,
children never deserve to die.
there is a moral line to be drawn.
The mere act of existing does not make you a target.
If you become that which you seek to destroy, you cannot win.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:29:12 AM EST
I hope you were taught both right and wrong.
Do you mean were you taught incorrectly?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:30:38 AM EST
Yep. I was taught right from wrong.

Were you guys taught how to read?

Could you try a little bit of it?
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:40:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By Mmanwitgun:

The only difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is what side of the fight your on.



That has got to be one of the most intellectually and moraly void statements that gets bantered about.

A 'Terrorist', by definition, engages in 'terror' - attacks on children, civilian populace, schools, hospitals, restraunts and shopping facilities. They try to dominate and force changes based on fear. Terrorists rarely attack military targets.

'Freedom Fighters' - can be guerilla groups or convential forces. Generally they limit attacks to military and/or govermental structures. Their goal is to defeat their governmental structures to set up a new government - with the support of the people (or at least a good percentage of them). Freedom Fighters may also engage in protest and civil disobediance - but they do not target non-combatants.



Times have changed. Fighting an established military power with the same strategies used in the Revolutionary War would probably end in a matter of minutes. The advances in technology have made things a whole lot different and have ended up heavily in the favor of the powers that be. How would a "freedom fighter" go about attacking a military installation?. Should they bomb it with their fighter jets?. Maybe they should over power it with their armored division?. Oh wait, terrorists don't have that technology on their side. So instead they need to go for easier targets, which unfortunantly means civilians will get hurt in the process. Do I like this fact? nope, do I accept its reality? yup.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 11:51:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By Mmanwitgun:
How would a "freedom fighter" go about attacking a military installation?.


well here are a few tactics that have been used:

1) Motar attack (the IRA was good at building improvised mortars - IIRC they were caught teaching South American terrorist groups how to do it).
2) Rocket attack
3) The Hamas favored "truck bomb" attack
4) The infiltrate and cause chaos from within scenario.
5) Sniper attack.
6) Attack them when they leave the base...

There are options, some of these have been used against us. But please don't tell me it's ok to attack children because they lack the brains and/or courage to attack legitimate targets.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 12:06:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/12/2004 12:11:01 PM EST by Dolomite]
I'm so glad you brought up the Irish, because there's hardly a better example of the phrase, "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter".

The English called them terrorists - their own people referred to them as freedom fighters.

Anyway, killing children is always wrong - except in the rare case where a child is running through your checkpoint wearing a vest packed with C4 and ball bearings.

For more information on this exciting topic, check out: Moral Relativism.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 12:17:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By Dolomite:
I'm so glad you brought up the Irish, because there's hardly a better example of the phrase, "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter".

The English called them terrorists - their own people referred to them as freedom fighters.


You are correct. I'll admit I'm not up on my IRA/English politics. But I'd say they were freedom fighters - up till they started attacks on civilians in London.


Anyway, killing children is always wrong - except in the rare case where a child is running through your checkpoint wearing a vest packed with C4 and ball bearings.

Agreed. (but the person who put that vest on the child should be hunted down and fed slowly feet first into a wood chipper).



For more information on this exciting topic, check out: Moral Relativism.



Ah yes "Moral Relativism" - the idea that there was nothing wrong with Nazi's killing the Jews because it was 'Ok in their culture'...
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 12:20:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By Dolomite:

Anyway, killing children is always wrong - except in the rare case where a child is running through your checkpoint wearing a vest packed with C4 and ball bearings.

Agreed.




Thank you and good night.
Link Posted: 10/12/2004 12:30:01 PM EST
World War II was "total war." It was nation against nation with each major combatant dedicated to a total war effort. We nuked the Japs (too few times, I think) because it was an appropriate means of ending the war quickly and with considerable fewer targets. It is a darn shame that we didn't have at least one Happy Meal-sized nuke just for the Imperial Palace. Hirohito is burning in hell as we speak; it should have started decades earlier.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not total war. Rather it is a war of attrition but not of human beings, but rather of national will to fight. The Israelis who keep crying Peace! Peace! remind me so much of battered women who stay with abusive men. They hate being abused, but rather than killing their abuser, they try to make themselves smaller targets by trading land for peace.

The Palestinians are like the little brother you had to share a double bed with. We kept crowding you until you moved over. Once you gave him more space, he started crowding you again. He wasn't satisfied until you feel out of bed onto the floor.

The Palestinians have few resources (even though Yasser Arafat is a hugely wealthy man), so they fight a limited, poor man's war against the Israelis. The Israelis, on the other hand, can't do what needs to be done, which is drive the Palestinians into Syria or Jordan and simply be done with them. Arafat's people are weak, but in this fist fight, his seconds are now bad enough (WMD's) to cause Israel serious harm.

When you put all this together, you have a world with too much economic instability. Freedom allows for economic growth and prosperity. Few things limit freedom more than a government at war.

Unfortunately for the poor souls who live there, America has few national interests that can be tied to the worst and most suffering parts of Africa. As much as we would like to help, we cannot be all things to all crisis-stricken areas. We have to play our cards in a way that best serves our national interests.

Though not perfect, our national interests, at least under this Administration, are for a steady supply of oil and free trade throughout the world. With the Democrats blocking the implementation of a sane energy policy her in North America, we must embroil ourselves in nations on the other side of the globe to serve our needs.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top