Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[Scott & Lai 12]

Your question isn't objective, my observations were tying to be. If you are asking do I believe that it's ok to go around killing people who are not military personnel, the answer is an unequivocal no. However, nor am I prepared to draw lines in the sand as to who is and isn't a 'legitimate' target and who is an 'innocent bystander' particulary when engaging in an urban conflict.

So you can't say that it is wrong to go into a pizza parlor or a mall or a civilian bus and blow up the occupants? You can't say those aren't legitimate targets?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

lets try cowards using humans as shields.

Well you are making an ideological judgment there - firstly that they're a) cowards and B) are using human beings as human shields. Can you say that is true in every instance of urban warfare - where civilians are mixed in with guerila fighters? Caladan mentioned the French resistance earlier - how does that tie into your rationale?

Edited September 13, 2007 by Number 6

[smoke20 0]

lets try cowards using humans as shields.

Well you are making an ideological judgment there - firstly that they're a) cowards and B) are using human beings as human shields. Can you say that is true in every instance of urban warfare - where civilians are mixed in with guerila fighters? Caladan mentioned the French resistance earlier - how does that tie into your rationale?

no it a statement of fact. the cowards use innocent people as shields nothing ideological about that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

lets try cowards using humans as shields.

Well you are making an ideological judgment there - firstly that they're a) cowards and B) are using human beings as human shields. Can you say that is true in every instance of urban warfare - where civilians are mixed in with guerila fighters? Caladan mentioned the French resistance earlier - how does that tie into your rationale?

no it a statement of fact. the cowards use innocent people as shields nothing ideological about that.

"Cowards" and "innocent". That's your ideological terms of reference right there.

[smoke20 0]

i am very curious how USCIS,DHS & the FBI would view some of the post that have been made in this thread.

[Dan J 277]

lets try cowards using humans as shields.

Well you are making an ideological judgment there - firstly that they're a) cowards and B) are using human beings as human shields. Can you say that is true in every instance of urban warfare - where civilians are mixed in with guerila fighters? Caladan mentioned the French resistance earlier - how does that tie into your rationale?

no it a statement of fact. the cowards use innocent people as shields nothing ideological about that.

We use several thousand feet of air and drop bombs from the safety of a plane, whats the difference? Shouldn't we be facing them man to man on a battlefield?

The two armies meeting on a battlefield style of fighting has pretty much died out. Does technology make us cowards?

[smoke20 0]

lets try cowards using humans as shields.

Well you are making an ideological judgment there - firstly that they're a) cowards and B) are using human beings as human shields. Can you say that is true in every instance of urban warfare - where civilians are mixed in with guerila fighters? Caladan mentioned the French resistance earlier - how does that tie into your rationale?

no it a statement of fact. the cowards use innocent people as shields nothing ideological about that.

We use several thousand feet of air and drop bombs from the safety of a plane, whats the difference? Shouldn't we be facing them man to man on a battlefield?

The two armies meeting on a battlefield style of fighting has pretty much died out. Does technology make us cowards?

no it doesn't. using a child as a shields make them cowards. & people trying to justify it makes me fuckin ill. you can sit here & nuthug illegal immigrants all you want, when you start calling our military terrorist. & try to candy coat what those pussies do you have crossed the line.

Edited September 13, 2007 by smoke20

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

i am very curious how USCIS,DHS & the FBI would view some of the post that have been made in this thread.

wow that made me want to vomit

are you proud that you live in a country where everything you say and do can be viewed by the government? does that make you feel safer from terrorists?

you are now implying that one should fear speaking out against government action...i thought that is supposed to be one of the rights we are proud to possess in this fine nation...am i mistaken?

Edited September 13, 2007 by babybluesusie

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

lets try cowards using humans as shields.

Well you are making an ideological judgment there - firstly that they're a) cowards and B) are using human beings as human shields. Can you say that is true in every instance of urban warfare - where civilians are mixed in with guerila fighters? Caladan mentioned the French resistance earlier - how does that tie into your rationale?

no it a statement of fact. the cowards use innocent people as shields nothing ideological about that.

We use several thousand feet of air and drop bombs from the safety of a plane, whats the difference? Shouldn't we be facing them man to man on a battlefield?

The two armies meeting on a battlefield style of fighting has pretty much died out. Does technology make us cowards?

no it doesn't. using a child as a shield make them cowards.

Which again depends on how you interpret the context of a given situation. You are saying that all fighters who use guerila tactics are cowards?

[Ban Hammer 14,200]

First of all the usa started an ILEGAL war or have you forgotten that, over lies proclaiming sadam Hussain had WMD's.

the intel services of many different countries believed he had them also.

The child mortality rate is now as it was in the 60s due to the lack of medical care and babies are being born deformed because of the spread of Uranium from US weapons.

i'd like to see something that backs that up. the only ammunition that i know of that is made from depleted uranium are tank rounds and some cannon rounds (a-10).

Chemical weapons used in Fallujah with 50,000 civillians in there was not by the book, rapes of Iraqi girls is not by the book.

what chemical weapons are you referring to?

No running water, no electricity, no real medical care, the economy is destroyed, mortality rate for children is up.

got a source for that?

You occupied a country with no plan, did you people pay no attention to history Algeria, vietnam, ireland...

there was a plan, probably not the right one but it's not a fly by the seat let's play it as it goes what's a plan type of operation. i don't know what military you're familiar with, but the us military does have a plan for dang near anything

The US has no where near enough men to take control of a country with 25 million people, standard militry doctrine will tell you that, you need half a million soldiers at least

really? where did you dig up that number from? i'm certainly unfamiliar with any table that indicates X population needs X amount of soldiers.

You take out lone gunmen with bombs from 40,000 feet,

i'd like to see a source for that too. because it's false.

the US has never ever won a gorilla warfare and you just dont have the stomach for it.

i suppose the revolutionary war....the pacific campaign in ww2...forgot about those?

[Dan J 277]

i am very curious how USCIS,DHS & the FBI would view some of the post that have been made in this thread.

wow that made me want to vomit

you are proud that you live in a country where everything you say and do can be viewed by the government, does that make you feel safer from terrorists?

you are now implying that one should fear speaking out against government action...i thought that is supposed to be one of the rights we are proud to possess in this fine nation...am i mistaken?

Smoke20 doesn't believe in the freedom of speech if he doesn't agree with whats being spoken.

[Peikko 1,575]

Are you really asking what I think, or what goes on the minds of 'terrorists'?

Clearly, I don't think it's ok to go around bombing anybody. However, I don't think the Western millitary have a de facto right to call their conduct legitmate and that of 'everyone' else illigitmate. When warfare takes place in urban areas it is inevitable that the lines get blurry, that the military target those who are not actively engaged in conflict.

I also think it's a little niave to think that the Generals take the concerns of the civilian populations 'above' those of the men in their command. Clearly that would be ludicrous so it's not a far cry to realise that civilian populations will suffer in times of war. We can dress it up a 'collatoral damage' and 'human shields' all we like, but ultimately both sides are killing people who are not engaged in conflict and that's not something I am comfortable with.

We can call our enemies 'cowardly' and 'evil' but that really doesn't address the fundamental issue, is there some objective yard stick to measure 'honerable' warfare? My opinion is that, it's probably possible to convince oneself that the losses are acceptable if the aims of the conflict are somehow comprehensible. However, if a conflict doesn't make sense then the losses become less easy to understand.

[Ban Hammer 14,200]

We use several thousand feet of air and drop bombs from the safety of a plane, whats the difference?

have you ever heard of a surface to air missile?

and keep in mind all it takes is one bullet.........and that plane comes down.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i am very curious how USCIS,DHS & the FBI would view some of the post that have been made in this thread.

wow that made me want to vomit

you are proud that you live in a country where everything you say and do can be viewed by the government, does that make you feel safer from terrorists?

you are now implying that one should fear speaking out against government action...i thought that is supposed to be one of the rights we are proud to possess in this fine nation...am i mistaken?

Smoke20 doesn't believe in the freedom of speech if he doesn't agree with whats being spoken.

The idea that the authorities would be interested in a theoretical discussion is rather laughable. Pointing out the grey areas of urban warfare and different ideological perceptions pertaining to groups who practice guerila warfare hardly amounts to support for Bin Laden.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

i am very curious how USCIS,DHS & the FBI would view some of the post that have been made in this thread.

wow that made me want to vomit

you are proud that you live in a country where everything you say and do can be viewed by the government, does that make you feel safer from terrorists?

you are now implying that one should fear speaking out against government action...i thought that is supposed to be one of the rights we are proud to possess in this fine nation...am i mistaken?

Smoke20 doesn't believe in the freedom of speech if he doesn't agree with whats being spoken.

well thats been made quite clear...its ok though...many people dont believe that they need civil liberties (ie: illegal search and seizure) unless that have something to hide...same concept really