Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[Heracles 417]

It is not even a mater of the authorities. If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism. People are free to move to a nation where people have more like-minded views. Win Win for everyone. There are a lot of other nations out there with different views.

And I thought there was a diversity of opinion in this country...?

There is a fine line between opinion to simply hating a nation, its history, what it stands for etc.. There is also a huge difference between constructive criticism to simply hating a nation.

[Ban Hammer 14,193]

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.

I don't believe there's a military doctrine calculating x soldiers per x*n population... That said, te first time, in 1991, that we went into Iraq we did it with 600,000 soldiers. Shinseki (the guy who resigned rather than preside over a disaster) argued that in order to take Iraq and ensure that it stayed relatively peaceful, he needed 500,000. This war doesn't look like one that was planned with regards to the aftermath of a regime change, and that, to my mind, is criminal.

and still........not a doctrinal answer he can point to. military doctrine is printed btw, not word of mouth.

[smoke20 0]

It is not even a mater of the authorities. If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism. People are free to move to a nation where people have more like-minded views. Win Win for everyone. There are a lot of other nations out there with different views.

And I thought there was a diversity of opinion in this country...?

There is a fine line between opinion to simply hating a nation, its history, what it stands for etc.. There is also a huge difference between constructive criticism to simply hating a nation.

& that is exactly what is going on in here hating on the US & our military.

[Caladan 19]

Hi. We're in America. We're allowed to disagree here about the actions of our government. Fortunately, the FBI realizes that discussing just war theory isn't material support of terrorism.

And there are whole areas of jurisprudence dedicated to just war theory. (Oddly enough, just war theory has more to it than shouting 'USA! USA! USA!

One of the harder areas in just war theory is developing an account of guerilla warfare tactics: whether they're ever legitimate (due to confusion with civilians.. but this takes out 'just' actions like raids where the resistance disappears back into the civilian populace) or whether banning them unconditionally essentially amounts to telling small legitimate groups (think of a resistance group you like) to bend over because fighting is immoral. It's a pretty hot area: how do you distinguish terrorists (bad) from small-time urban warfare which is the only available option for small groups? Just killing civilians indiscriminately?

It's not just as clear-cut as 'they're cowards.' I can think they're wrong, and I do... but good resistance movements are often hidden in exactly the same way. The groups resisting the Nazis didn't put up a little shingle. They hid in the civilian population. Were they cowards?

[Dan J 277]

It is not even a mater of the authorities. If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism. People are free to move to a nation where people have more like-minded views. Win Win for everyone. There are a lot of other nations out there with different views.

And I thought there was a diversity of opinion in this country...?

There is a fine line between opinion to simply hating a nation, its history, what it stands for etc.. There is also a huge difference between constructive criticism to simply hating a nation.

& that is exactly what is going on in here hating on the US & our military.

If hating works for you thats fine but don't be surprised if your just ignored, I think disagreeing is much more accurate.

[Caladan 19]

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.

I don't believe there's a military doctrine calculating x soldiers per x*n population... That said, te first time, in 1991, that we went into Iraq we did it with 600,000 soldiers. Shinseki (the guy who resigned rather than preside over a disaster) argued that in order to take Iraq and ensure that it stayed relatively peaceful, he needed 500,000. This war doesn't look like one that was planned with regards to the aftermath of a regime change, and that, to my mind, is criminal.

and still........not a doctrinal answer he can point to. military doctrine is printed btw, not word of mouth.

Right, that's why I said 'I don't believe there is a military doctine.' Still, if I tell you we'll fail unless I get X amount, and you give me one fifth of what I ask for, it doesn't look so good.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Attacking from behind a building or other inanimate object is one thing, attacking from behind a child or other bystander is quite another. The first might be considered a legitimate combat tactic, the second absolutely isn't.

But you're supplying your own context to this. It becomes rather less clear if the assumption is being made that guerila fighters operating in urban areas are using human shields by default, simply on the basis that civilians happen to live in a disputed area. The example of the guy literally shooting his AK from behind a child is rather more explicit than that.

and you're cutting the post he was reponding to to fit your need. if the pussies run & hide where children are or shoot from behind a child is no different. chicken sh!t coward is chicken sh!t coward.

& a fuckin azzhole argueing on the cowards behalf is an idiot.

How so?

I guess that "fuckin azzhole argueing on the cowards behalf is an idiot" is directed at me in return for that comment a couple of weeks ago. Fair play - but if you interpreted my posts that way I'd say you wholly missed the sense of my argument. That's ok - I won't repeat it as I'm pretty certain you lack the "processing power" to understand it in anything but an emotional overreaction.

In any case Purple Hibiscus already pointed out that the human shield thing isn't something that can be practically determined - unless the guy runs out with babies strapped all over him, which is well... silly...

It is not even a mater of the authorities. If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism. People are free to move to a nation where people have more like-minded views. Win Win for everyone. There are a lot of other nations out there with different views.

And I thought there was a diversity of opinion in this country...?

There is a fine line between opinion to simply hating a nation, its history, what it stands for etc.. There is also a huge difference between constructive criticism to simply hating a nation.

OK. But where is this happening in this thread?

Edited September 13, 2007 by Number 6

[Ban Hammer 14,193]

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.

I don't believe there's a military doctrine calculating x soldiers per x*n population... That said, te first time, in 1991, that we went into Iraq we did it with 600,000 soldiers. Shinseki (the guy who resigned rather than preside over a disaster) argued that in order to take Iraq and ensure that it stayed relatively peaceful, he needed 500,000. This war doesn't look like one that was planned with regards to the aftermath of a regime change, and that, to my mind, is criminal.

and still........not a doctrinal answer he can point to. military doctrine is printed btw, not word of mouth.

Right, that's why I said 'I don't believe there is a military doctine.' Still, if I tell you we'll fail unless I get X amount, and you give me one fifth of what I ask for, it doesn't look so good.

and that's why i'm still waiting for an answer from him.......

[Heracles 417]

Attacking from behind a building or other inanimate object is one thing, attacking from behind a child or other bystander is quite another. The first might be considered a legitimate combat tactic, the second absolutely isn't.

But you're supplying your own context to this. It becomes rather less clear if the assumption is being made that guerila fighters operating in urban areas are using human shields by default, simply on the basis that civilians happen to live in a disputed area. The example of the guy literally shooting his AK from behind a child is rather more explicit than that.

and you're cutting the post he was reponding to to fit your need. if the pussies run & hide where children are or shoot from behind a child is no different. chicken sh!t coward is chicken sh!t coward.

& a fuckin azzhole argueing on the cowards behalf is an idiot.

How so?

I guess that "fuckin azzhole argueing on the cowards behalf is an idiot" is directed at me in return for that comment a couple of weeks ago. Fair play - but if you interpreted my posts that way I'd say you wholly missed the sense of my argument. That's ok - I won't repeat it as I'm pretty certain you lack the "processing power" to understand it in anything but an emotional overreaction.

In any case Purple Hibiscus already pointed out that the human shield thing isn't something that can be practically determined - unless the guy runs out with babies strapped all over him, which is well... silly...

It is not even a mater of the authorities. If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism. People are free to move to a nation where people have more like-minded views. Win Win for everyone. There are a lot of other nations out there with different views.

And I thought there was a diversity of opinion in this country...?

There is a fine line between opinion to simply hating a nation, its history, what it stands for etc.. There is also a huge difference between constructive criticism to simply hating a nation.

OK. But where is this happening in this thread?

Clearly The_Dip_Sticks

Sh!t

point of views are way over the top..

[Caladan 19]

The usual human shield with terrorists argument is something like this, #6: So, basically, everyone has a duty to minimize civilian casualties. And one way to do that is to ensure that civilians are distinguishable from military targets. A good example of this is wearing uniforms, or not smuggling in weapons in Red Cross trucks. Because if you don't wear uniforms, you increase the risk that your opponent will kill civilians to get at you, and if you smuggle in weapons in hospital trucks, then they'll bomb the trucks, more likely killing innocents.

So one argument against terrorism, aside from the 'you kill civilians!' argument (which I don't think is all that strong) is that they blend in too well with the civilian populace. The flip side of that is that war traditionally conceived is between states, and many terrorists are non-state actors... which means everyone is flying without a net when they try to figure out what to do with an international guerilla group.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Attacking from behind a building or other inanimate object is one thing, attacking from behind a child or other bystander is quite another. The first might be considered a legitimate combat tactic, the second absolutely isn't.

But you're supplying your own context to this. It becomes rather less clear if the assumption is being made that guerila fighters operating in urban areas are using human shields by default, simply on the basis that civilians happen to live in a disputed area. The example of the guy literally shooting his AK from behind a child is rather more explicit than that.

and you're cutting the post he was reponding to to fit your need. if the pussies run & hide where children are or shoot from behind a child is no different. chicken sh!t coward is chicken sh!t coward.

& a fuckin azzhole argueing on the cowards behalf is an idiot.

How so?

I guess that "fuckin azzhole argueing on the cowards behalf is an idiot" is directed at me in return for that comment a couple of weeks ago. Fair play - but if you interpreted my posts that way I'd say you wholly missed the sense of my argument. That's ok - I won't repeat it as I'm pretty certain you lack the "processing power" to understand it in anything but an emotional overreaction.

In any case Purple Hibiscus already pointed out that the human shield thing isn't something that can be practically determined - unless the guy runs out with babies strapped all over him, which is well... silly...

It is not even a mater of the authorities. If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism. People are free to move to a nation where people have more like-minded views. Win Win for everyone. There are a lot of other nations out there with different views.

And I thought there was a diversity of opinion in this country...?

There is a fine line between opinion to simply hating a nation, its history, what it stands for etc.. There is also a huge difference between constructive criticism to simply hating a nation.

OK. But where is this happening in this thread?

Clearly The_Dip_Sticks

Sh!t

point of views are way over the top..

And Smokes aren't?

[smoke20 0]

Attacking from behind a building or other inanimate object is one thing, attacking from behind a child or other bystander is quite another. The first might be considered a legitimate combat tactic, the second absolutely isn't.

But you're supplying your own context to this. It becomes rather less clear if the assumption is being made that guerila fighters operating in urban areas are using human shields by default, simply on the basis that civilians happen to live in a disputed area. The example of the guy literally shooting his AK from behind a child is rather more explicit than that.

and you're cutting the post he was reponding to to fit your need. if the pussies run & hide where children are or shoot from behind a child is no different. chicken sh!t coward is chicken sh!t coward.

& a fuckin azzhole argueing on the cowards behalf is an idiot.

How so?

I guess that "fuckin azzhole argueing on the cowards behalf is an idiot" is directed at me in return for that comment a couple of weeks ago. Fair play - but if you interpreted my posts that way I'd say you wholly missed the sense of my argument. That's ok - I won't repeat it as I'm pretty certain you lack the "processing power" to understand it in anything but an emotional overreaction.

In any case Purple Hibiscus already pointed out that the human shield thing isn't something that can be practically determined - unless the guy runs out with babies strapped all over him, which is well... silly...

yes it was directed at you & dan. if you don't understand the correlation between "strapping babies & running to hide behind them" you are blind.

[Heracles 417]

It is not even a mater of the authorities. If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism. People are free to move to a nation where people have more like-minded views. Win Win for everyone. There are a lot of other nations out there with different views.

or, in a nation like the US, also called a representative democracy, one can try to change the policies of the government under which they reside...has that become a ridiculous concept? we are simply to agree with everything the government does, or leave? for one, not everyone has the means to do so, and for two why live in a democracy if change is not possible? no, we dont live under communism , thats why we should be able to voice our difference in opinion and strive to improve the state of our nation

Personally I do not agree with anyone living in a nation, feeding off it, prospering off it etc; Then only to turn around to dis it and hate everything about it. The founders intended on this country being a place for people who wanted a better life. A place where people where allowed to voice their opinion. Not a place where someone can live off yet absolutely hate it and dis it 24/7. As I said before. There is a fine line between opinion to pure ignorant hatred.

What I do agree with is that the US should keep to itself and not spend anymore time, money, resources or lives on other countries issues. Let the UN or some other country deal with places like Dafur; Which you know absolutely nothing will be done. Or while the UN debates it thousands of people continue to be butchered daily.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yes it was directed at you & dan. if you don't understand the correlation between "strapping babies & running to hide behind them" you are blind.

I understand it in theory - but as other have pointed out, applying it practically to the chaos of an urban battlefield is rather difficult. That's not difficult to see is it?

[smoke20 0]

Attacking from behind a building or other inanimate object is one thing, attacking from behind a child or other bystander is quite another. The first might be considered a legitimate combat tactic, the second absolutely isn't.

But you're supplying your own context to this. It becomes rather less clear if the assumption is being made that guerila fighters operating in urban areas are using human shields by default, simply on the basis that civilians happen to live in a disputed area. The example of the guy literally shooting his AK from behind a child is rather more explicit than that.

and you're cutting the post he was reponding to to fit your need. if the pussies run & hide where children are or shoot from behind a child is no different. chicken sh!t coward is chicken sh!t coward.

& a fuckin azzhole argueing on the cowards behalf is an idiot.

How so?

I guess that "fuckin azzhole argueing on the cowards behalf is an idiot" is directed at me in return for that comment a couple of weeks ago. Fair play - but if you interpreted my posts that way I'd say you wholly missed the sense of my argument. That's ok - I won't repeat it as I'm pretty certain you lack the "processing power" to understand it in anything but an emotional overreaction.

In any case Purple Hibiscus already pointed out that the human shield thing isn't something that can be practically determined - unless the guy runs out with babies strapped all over him, which is well... silly...

It is not even a mater of the authorities. If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism. People are free to move to a nation where people have more like-minded views. Win Win for everyone. There are a lot of other nations out there with different views.

And I thought there was a diversity of opinion in this country...?

There is a fine line between opinion to simply hating a nation, its history, what it stands for etc.. There is also a huge difference between constructive criticism to simply hating a nation.

OK. But where is this happening in this thread?

Clearly The_Dip_Sticks

Sh!t

point of views are way over the top..

And Smokes aren't?

do you remember me saying "you are going to pay for this war"? translation the jihad will follow you.