Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

You're a fool if you believe that the military don't make decisions that 'directly' result in civilian death and are not simply the result of aiming errors and accidents.

[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.

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..

How many terrorist groups signed the Geneva convention? You expect them to follow a treaty that they were not apart of?

We signed it, and misused it with creative labeling.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Dan + Gemvita

[Heracles 417]

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?

As you said you hate war. Whereas I am not afraid to fight what I stand for. Many of you fail to realize or accept most nations where built and secured through means of war and not by blogs or forums.

[Caladan 19]

I am against dumb wars. Afghanistan, while a bloody mess, was a just war. Iraq wasn't from the start.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

As you said you hate war. Whereas I am not afraid to fight what I stand for. Many of you fail to realize or accept most nations where built and secured through means of war and not by blogs or forums.

What wars have you fought in then?

[smoke20 0]

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.

i may not know where it came from immediatley, but i sure as hell would find out. i wouldn't say "aahh shucks i guess if they're gonna hide behind a kid i can't return fire".

[Peikko 1,575]

and you base that on what?

If you lose your temper just because you don't agree with someone else's opinion, you aren't going to last very long. Temper and engaging in warfare don't go well together, despite what the films might imply.

[smoke20 0]

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.

You're a fool if you believe that the military don't make decisions that 'directly' result in civilian death and are not simply the result of aiming errors and accidents.

and your a fool if you don't think its nessesary, when they hide behind them.

[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..

How many terrorist groups signed the Geneva convention?

We signed it, and misused it with creative labeling.

Correct. Therefore in a war where the Geneva convention does not apply to one side, it should also not apply to the other. So if the US nukes a town we know the insurgents are hiding, then ###### happens right... Since as you said, they have their guerrilla tactics, we have our technology and should be allowed to use it.

[Ban Hammer 14,276]

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.

You're a fool if you believe that the military don't make decisions that 'directly' result in civilian death and are not simply the result of aiming errors and accidents.

dearie, í spent 20 years in the military. i'm quite aware of military planning, execution and the multitude of restrictions placed upon operations along with the consideration of legal aspects with such, unlike you who have nothing but experience as an armchair general.

[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.

i may not know where it came from immediatley, but i sure as hell would find out. i wouldn't say "aahh shucks i guess if they're gonna hide behind a kid i can't return fire".

How would you find out?

[Peikko 1,575]

As you said you hate war. Whereas I am not afraid to fight what I stand for. Many of you fail to realize or accept most nations where built and secured through means of war and not by blogs or forums.

Some great rhetoric and some failure to understand what I say, but no attempt to construct any form of argument, which leaves us where exactly?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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.

i may not know where it came from immediatley, but i sure as hell would find out. i wouldn't say "aahh shucks i guess if they're gonna hide behind a kid i can't return fire".

How would you find out?

Do terrorists use myspace?

[Ban Hammer 14,276]

and you base that on what?

If you lose your temper just because you don't agree with someone else's opinion, you aren't going to last very long. Temper and engaging in warfare don't go well together, despite what the films might imply.

it's obvious i spent more time cleaning my fingernails while deployed overseas than you spent in the military. people lose their temper all the time in the military. i'd much rather have someone beside me who can get angry than someone who shows no emotion in a firefight.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Correct. Therefore in a war where the Geneva convention does not apply to one side, it should also not apply to the other. So if the US nukes a town we know the insurgents are hiding, then ###### happens right... Since as you said, they have their guerrilla tactics, we have our technology and should be allowed to use it.

What... like VX? I think that should be filed in a deep, dark basement along with your Saudi-Arabian style corporal punishment idea