Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Your emoticons are showing. Seriously, can you really not see that both sides in conflict do things that would be totally unacceptable in times of peace? Or are you really that convinced that somehow the US is always absolutely right and that to fight against a US soldier is fundamentally wrong unless you do it in such a way as to ensure you die, and in so doing secure some kind of honour?

I accept that there are differences in intent between different cultures and nations when it comes to conflict, but I am very hesitant to say that the West is always right. We also know and have proof that Western military have made, do make and probably will continue to make decisions that directly result in civilian death because there is some military expediency that makes this an acceptable in times of conflict.

It's disingenous to label the enemy 'evil and cowardly' but I do understand why some people feel the need to do this.

####### can you not see that using people as shields does happen everyday! yes my emotions are showing & my anger is also. how can you people keep defending this cowards? & say "i'm just showing the other side"

If you'd cool it with your emotional overreaction and actually read what is being written you might see the points being made - which has nothing to do with "defending terrorists" as much as it is about pointing out that the determination of who and what is a valid target in a chaotic urban battlefield situation is anything but clear cut.

Of course this does require me to go out on a limb here and not make the assumption that I'm trying to debate someone with the IQ level of the Geico Caveman and the emotional range of a 2-year old...

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

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?

Having a bunch of people or babies strapped to you would make you easy to find, not mention hard to get away.

oh but shooting from inside a school or a mosque & claiming "victim" when you get smoked is hard to find?

a school or religious building (mosque, church) is a protected building until someone starts shooting from it. then that protected status is instantly suspended.

using a building that is protected to carry out hostile actions like that is a war crime btw. but it's also obe (overcome by events, not officer of the british empire) when the perpetrator is kia.

[Peikko 1,575]

War is bloody, that's news because?

I am not an advocate of war, I would have thought that part was abundantly clear, however, I simply don't understand this notion that somehow the West is fighting a 'clean' war and the 'rest' are fighting a 'dirty' war. That's taking simplification to stupid and is potentially dangerous.

It's important to understand that the military will make decisions that adversly effect the civilians in conflict areas because at some point, when peace breaks out, you have to deal with the relatives of those who have been killed. If you don't recognise that some of them will have been killed because of military expediancy and not just because 'something went wrong' you aren't going to achieve stability. Similiarly, it's important to understand the motivations of those who are fighting against you, and to simply label them as 'evil' and 'cowardly' is again going to do nothing to ensure that there is a positive outcome when the dust does settle.

[Dan J 277]

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.

Your emoticons are showing. Seriously, can you really not see that both sides in conflict do things that would be totally unacceptable in times of peace? Or are you really that convinced that somehow the US is always absolutely right and that to fight against a US soldier is fundamentally wrong unless you do it in such a way as to ensure you die, and in so doing secure some kind of honour?

I accept that there are differences in intent between different cultures and nations when it comes to conflict, but I am very hesitant to say that the West is always right. We also know and have proof that Western military have made, do make and probably will continue to make decisions that directly result in civilian death because there is some military expediency that makes this an acceptable in times of conflict.

It's disingenous to label the enemy 'evil and cowardly' but I do understand why some people feel the need to do this.

####### can you not see that using people as shields does happen everyday! yes my emotions are showing & my anger is also. how can you people keep defending this cowards? & say "i'm just showing the other side"

Assuming they are using human shields, humans are not very good at stopping bullets, especially with some of the weapons the military uses. Considering they are out matched technology wise and training wise to American soldiers. How do you propose they fight? Are they wrong to use any advantage they can get?

If you are looking for a fair fight, then they need to get the training and technology that the US soldiers have. Then you can have your fair fight. But thats obviously not going to happen. These people are not part of any international laws or rules, they don't really fight on the behalf of a state. They are going to use whatever advantage they can get to even the odds. Making it harder to for US soldiers to find them or target them is their advantage. And it works in two ways. One its harder for them to be located, caught or killed. Two, if a US solider accidentally harms a civilian in the process, it turns more of the population against the US soldiers.

Just like our soldiers believe they are fight a just cause. So do those that we are fighting against.

Whats right and whats wrong in the war, its a matter of perspective. How much are you going to be liking the US occupation when they drop a bomb that kills half your family? How do soldiers feel when a roadside bomb takes out a squad? Both are really cowardly in a sense. But both sides are making use of the tools they have at their disposal. Iraqi insurgents Don't have planes to drop bombs on US soldiers. They find other ways to get back at them.

[Heracles 417]

War is bloody, that's news because?

I am not an advocate of war, I would have thought that part was abundantly clear, however, I simply don't understand this notion that somehow the West is fighting a 'clean' war and the 'rest' are fighting a 'dirty' war. That's taking simplification to stupid and is potentially dangerous.

It's important to understand that the military will make decisions that adversly effect the civilians in conflict areas because at some point, when peace breaks out, you have to deal with the relatives of those who have been killed. If you don't recognise that some of them will have been killed because of military expediancy and not just because 'something went wrong' you aren't going to achieve stability. Similiarly, it's important to understand the motivations of those who are fighting against you, and to simply label them as 'evil' and 'cowardly' is again going to do nothing to ensure that there is a positive outcome when the dust does settle.

If the west wanted to and was playing dirty they could level that whole continent.

PS Humans have been at war for 97% of their existence. War is a part of life. No reason to pretend it is a conception of the west or GWB..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Your emoticons are showing. Seriously, can you really not see that both sides in conflict do things that would be totally unacceptable in times of peace? Or are you really that convinced that somehow the US is always absolutely right and that to fight against a US soldier is fundamentally wrong unless you do it in such a way as to ensure you die, and in so doing secure some kind of honour?

I accept that there are differences in intent between different cultures and nations when it comes to conflict, but I am very hesitant to say that the West is always right. We also know and have proof that Western military have made, do make and probably will continue to make decisions that directly result in civilian death because there is some military expediency that makes this an acceptable in times of conflict.

It's disingenous to label the enemy 'evil and cowardly' but I do understand why some people feel the need to do this.

####### can you not see that using people as shields does happen everyday! yes my emotions are showing & my anger is also. how can you people keep defending this cowards? & say "i'm just showing the other side"

Assuming they are using human shields, humans are not very good at stopping bullets, especially with some of the weapons the military uses. Considering they are out matched technology wise and training wise to American soldiers. How do you propose they fight? Are they wrong to use any advantage they can get?

If you are looking for a fair fight, then they need to get the training and technology that the US soldiers have. Then you can have your fair fight. But thats obviously not going to happen. These people are not part of any international laws or rules, they don't really fight on the behalf of a state. They are going to use whatever advantage they can get to even the odds. Making it harder to for US soldiers to find them or target them is their advantage. And it works in two ways. One its harder for them to be located, caught or killed. Two, if a US solider accidentally harms a civilian in the process, it turns more of the population against the US soldiers.

Just like our soldiers believe they are fight a just cause. So do those that we are fighting against.

Whats right and whats wrong in the war, its a matter of perspective. How much are you going to be liking the US occupation when they drop a bomb that kills half your family? How do soldiers feel when a roadside bomb takes out a squad? Both are really cowardly in a sense. But both sides are making use of the tools they have at their disposal. Iraqi insurgents Don't have planes to drop bombs on US soldiers. They find other ways to get back at them.

Can the point be made any clearer I wonder?

[smoke20 0]

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.

Your emoticons are showing. Seriously, can you really not see that both sides in conflict do things that would be totally unacceptable in times of peace? Or are you really that convinced that somehow the US is always absolutely right and that to fight against a US soldier is fundamentally wrong unless you do it in such a way as to ensure you die, and in so doing secure some kind of honour?

I accept that there are differences in intent between different cultures and nations when it comes to conflict, but I am very hesitant to say that the West is always right. We also know and have proof that Western military have made, do make and probably will continue to make decisions that directly result in civilian death because there is some military expediency that makes this an acceptable in times of conflict.

It's disingenous to label the enemy 'evil and cowardly' but I do understand why some people feel the need to do this.

####### can you not see that using people as shields does happen everyday! yes my emotions are showing & my anger is also. how can you people keep defending this cowards? & say "i'm just showing the other side"

If you'd cool it with your emotional overreaction and actually read what is being written you might see the points being made - which has nothing to do with "defending terrorists" as much as it is about pointing out that the determination of who and what is a valid target in a chaotic urban battlefield situation is anything but clear cut.

Of course this does require me to go out on a limb here and not make the assumption that I'm trying to debate someone with the IQ level of the Geico Caveman and the emotional range of a 2-year old...

someone shoots at our soldiers=a valid target. you not debating anything your justifing action of cowardly terrorist. IQ of a Geico caveman & emotional rage of a 2 year old. what would you call insults like that? STFU!

Edited September 13, 2007 by smoke20

[Peikko 1,575]

It's probably a good thing you aren't fighting in this, or any other war. This kind of anger and idiocy would get you killed really very quickly.

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

War is bloody, that's news because?

I am not an advocate of war, I would have thought that part was abundantly clear, however, I simply don't understand this notion that somehow the West is fighting a 'clean' war and the 'rest' are fighting a 'dirty' war. That's taking simplification to stupid and is potentially dangerous.

It's important to understand that the military will make decisions that adversly effect the civilians in conflict areas because at some point, when peace breaks out, you have to deal with the relatives of those who have been killed. If you don't recognise that some of them will have been killed because of military expediancy and not just because 'something went wrong' you aren't going to achieve stability. Similiarly, it's important to understand the motivations of those who are fighting against you, and to simply label them as 'evil' and 'cowardly' is again going to do nothing to ensure that there is a positive outcome when the dust does settle.

accidents, aiming errors, etc can cause civilian deaths and injuries but it's not done intentionally. intent is the key here, along with acceptable risk. while one may not intend to kill civilians by firing artillery at a town with 1000 civilians and one insurgent, it's not an acceptable risk.

in short, the actions every soldier takes can open the individual up to a war crime trial and it's kinda hard to hide the fact something occured as the ammo is accounted for. it's not like someone can decide to shoot up a town with artillery just to ruin some civilians day.

[Heracles 417]

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.

Your emoticons are showing. Seriously, can you really not see that both sides in conflict do things that would be totally unacceptable in times of peace? Or are you really that convinced that somehow the US is always absolutely right and that to fight against a US soldier is fundamentally wrong unless you do it in such a way as to ensure you die, and in so doing secure some kind of honour?

I accept that there are differences in intent between different cultures and nations when it comes to conflict, but I am very hesitant to say that the West is always right. We also know and have proof that Western military have made, do make and probably will continue to make decisions that directly result in civilian death because there is some military expediency that makes this an acceptable in times of conflict.

It's disingenous to label the enemy 'evil and cowardly' but I do understand why some people feel the need to do this.

####### can you not see that using people as shields does happen everyday! yes my emotions are showing & my anger is also. how can you people keep defending this cowards? & say "i'm just showing the other side"

Assuming they are using human shields, humans are not very good at stopping bullets, especially with some of the weapons the military uses. Considering they are out matched technology wise and training wise to American soldiers. How do you propose they fight? Are they wrong to use any advantage they can get?

If you are looking for a fair fight, then they need to get the training and technology that the US soldiers have. Then you can have your fair fight. But thats obviously not going to happen. These people are not part of any international laws or rules, they don't really fight on the behalf of a state. They are going to use whatever advantage they can get to even the odds. Making it harder to for US soldiers to find them or target them is their advantage. And it works in two ways. One its harder for them to be located, caught or killed. Two, if a US solider accidentally harms a civilian in the process, it turns more of the population against the US soldiers.

Just like our soldiers believe they are fight a just cause. So do those that we are fighting against.

Whats right and whats wrong in the war, its a matter of perspective. How much are you going to be liking the US occupation when they drop a bomb that kills half your family? How do soldiers feel when a roadside bomb takes out a squad? Both are really cowardly in a sense. But both sides are making use of the tools they have at their disposal. Iraqi insurgents Don't have planes to drop bombs on US soldiers. They find other ways to get back at them.

Well how many of the insurgent's tactics, you mention, are acceptable under the Geneva convention???

What double standards we have here. If an insurgent was to use a freakin flame thrower to burn people in a market place people would be ow well. YET, if American soldiers used the same tactic on the insurgents and not civilians, Forgetaboutit!!! NYT and every other wanker US hating website would be on to it like a freaking hawk.. I guess you don't see what is wrong with that..

Edited September 13, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

someone shoots at our soldiers=a valid target. you not debating anything your justifing action of cowardly terrorist. IQ of a Geico caveman & emotional rage of a 2 year old

Sure - I can see that. You're in a crowded market place and some shots go off - I can bet you'd know right away who fired it and from where.

[Peikko 1,575]

If the west wanted to and was playing dirty they could level that whole continent.

This is your new best policy is it?

PS Humans have been at war for 97% of their existence. War is a part of life. No reason to pretend it is a conception of the west or GWB..

Where exactly are you going with this and how does it relate to anything I said?

[smoke20 0]

It's probably a good thing you aren't fighting in this, or any other war. This kind of anger and idiocy would get you killed really very quickly.

anger & idiocy? try american pride & a willingness to argue w/ liberal jackasses that think they're right & everyone else is wrong.

[Ban Hammer 14,273]

Assuming they are using human shields, humans are not very good at stopping bullets, especially with some of the weapons the military uses. Considering they are out matched technology wise and training wise to American soldiers. How do you propose they fight? Are they wrong to use any advantage they can get?

If you are looking for a fair fight, then they need to get the training and technology that the US soldiers have. Then you can have your fair fight. But thats obviously not going to happen. These people are not part of any international laws or rules, they don't really fight on the behalf of a state. They are going to use whatever advantage they can get to even the odds. Making it harder to for US soldiers to find them or target them is their advantage. And it works in two ways. One its harder for them to be located, caught or killed. Two, if a US solider accidentally harms a civilian in the process, it turns more of the population against the US soldiers.

Just like our soldiers believe they are fight a just cause. So do those that we are fighting against.

Whats right and whats wrong in the war, its a matter of perspective. How much are you going to be liking the US occupation when they drop a bomb that kills half your family? How do soldiers feel when a roadside bomb takes out a squad? Both are really cowardly in a sense. But both sides are making use of the tools they have at their disposal. Iraqi insurgents Don't have planes to drop bombs on US soldiers. They find other ways to get back at them.

a human shield isn't intended to be a bullet catcher, but a way to prevent the enemy from shooting at you due to not having a clear target.........

most of the situations involving human shields involves small arms fire, and a human shield will stop a .223 bullet.

It's probably a good thing you aren't fighting in this, or any other war. This kind of anger and idiocy would get you killed really very quickly.

and you base that on what?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Your emoticons are showing. Seriously, can you really not see that both sides in conflict do things that would be totally unacceptable in times of peace? Or are you really that convinced that somehow the US is always absolutely right and that to fight against a US soldier is fundamentally wrong unless you do it in such a way as to ensure you die, and in so doing secure some kind of honour?

I accept that there are differences in intent between different cultures and nations when it comes to conflict, but I am very hesitant to say that the West is always right. We also know and have proof that Western military have made, do make and probably will continue to make decisions that directly result in civilian death because there is some military expediency that makes this an acceptable in times of conflict.

It's disingenous to label the enemy 'evil and cowardly' but I do understand why some people feel the need to do this.

####### can you not see that using people as shields does happen everyday! yes my emotions are showing & my anger is also. how can you people keep defending this cowards? & say "i'm just showing the other side"

Assuming they are using human shields, humans are not very good at stopping bullets, especially with some of the weapons the military uses. Considering they are out matched technology wise and training wise to American soldiers. How do you propose they fight? Are they wrong to use any advantage they can get?

If you are looking for a fair fight, then they need to get the training and technology that the US soldiers have. Then you can have your fair fight. But thats obviously not going to happen. These people are not part of any international laws or rules, they don't really fight on the behalf of a state. They are going to use whatever advantage they can get to even the odds. Making it harder to for US soldiers to find them or target them is their advantage. And it works in two ways. One its harder for them to be located, caught or killed. Two, if a US solider accidentally harms a civilian in the process, it turns more of the population against the US soldiers.

Just like our soldiers believe they are fight a just cause. So do those that we are fighting against.

Whats right and whats wrong in the war, its a matter of perspective. How much are you going to be liking the US occupation when they drop a bomb that kills half your family? How do soldiers feel when a roadside bomb takes out a squad? Both are really cowardly in a sense. But both sides are making use of the tools they have at their disposal. Iraqi insurgents Don't have planes to drop bombs on US soldiers. They find other ways to get back at them.

Well how many of the insurgent's tactics, you mention, are acceptable by the Geneva convention???

What double standards we have here. If an insurgent was to use a freakin flame thrower to burn people in a market place people would be ow well. YET, if American soldiers used the same tactic on the insurgents and not civilians, Forgetaboutit!!! NYT and every other wanker US hating website would be on to it like a freaking hawk.. I guess you don't see what is wrong with that..

I like that you put a qualifier in there to exclude civilians from the US example. I think the better (general) example would be firing a machine gun into a crowd. Is it only reprehensible to do this if you're on the "wrong" side?

Edited September 13, 2007 by Number 6