smoke20

I'll take the unemotional person every time. He's probably crazy, but he'll probably not shoot the 2 year old instead of the guerilla.

if he's holding the 2 year old & shooting at me. its his fault the 2 year old is on his hands. and no i'm not crazy, i'm not wuzzie apologist either.BTW: why don't you start directiong comments about me to me.

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?

any means nessesary

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.

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".

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.

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!

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?

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"

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?

its what happens. its not a theory its a damn fact. can you not see that. quit the BS "other side of the arguement" #######. you know they do it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you for the rules of engagement. I am sure these will prove extremely useful. Seriously, people are fighting for things they fundamentally believe in. As I am not on the ground in Iraq, I have no idea how often this happens, but it doesn't sound very likely (I don't expect civlians wander around waiting to be 'human shields').

when armed gunmen run in your home to hide from the fight they're in you don't have to wander around waiting to be a shield.the coward just made you one.

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.

I started this thread. It's mine. Ya'll hear me? It's MINE! Now behave yo damn selves or I'll have it locked, ya'heard?

Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

& this is exactly what you were looking for. thats why you start 1/2 the thread you do. to start sh!t.

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?

every last word you have written has made me want to vomit. no noone should fear anyone reading this, noone has alerted the authorities.....so hate on.but one should definitley watch ranting against & basically spitting on the the flag of the country you live in.

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.

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

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.

If the result is the same - I don't think the people affected by the terrorism/accident/military strike would much care for the reasoning behind it.

Even so - there is a process of rationalisation that takes place. Someone makes the decision that blowing up a marketplace to achieve their objectives is justified, just as someone makes the decision that the people living in a densely populated area are expendable when considering a military assault. Result is much the same - however much worse the former appears to be to your personal sensibilities.

As to accidents - noone in their right mind can drop a bomb into a densely populated area without considering and somehow rationalising that it will kill and maim very many people. The term "surgical strike" is very much a euphemism. You can't really call a bomb "surgical".

again please clarify. if the target is engaged in battle or recently was & retreats to a populated area(school,mosque,neighborhood,etc). are you saying it is basically the same thing? not only is it fault of the target the innocent people are harmed, it is incredibly chicken sh!t. please tell me you are not saying its the same thing.

As I said - it depends very much on whose perceptions we're talking about. Given the end result of each scenario is death and dismemberment - I don't think a person much cares that their relative was killed by a terrorist bomb or by a stray bullet / bomb or was in the wrong place at the wrong time - and probably wouldn't be much comforted by the knowledge that it was "unintentional".

We can sit here and blame the 'enemy' for the collateral damage resulting from an air-strike, for example, but I think the point is quite clear - That war is a dirty business whose moral and ethical lines are rather shaky at the best of times. Clearly the pilot and military commanders make the ultimate decision whether a bomb should be dropped on an area where they know there is a good chance of killing civilians, and whether or not you want to adopt euphemistic terminology to describe it (the term 'collateral damage' is itself euphemistic) the result is still death.

so what do you suggest? bomb or shoot back only if the enemy is out in the open?

What I 'suggest' in hypothetical situations is irrelevant to that point. Merely pointing out that its easy to fall back on ideology to rationalise the combat death of civilians in war.

lets try cowards using humans as shields.

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.

thank you so much for the clarification.

Another way to put PH's point is this: would you feel better about the destruction on 9/11 if 3,000 in New York had died while al-Qaeda also targeted a military complex? (wait, does the Pentagon count...uh...?) Or if the Towers had collapsed due to bombing that also hit a military target?

that is my point exactly. the towers were not a result of an attack on a military complex. it was an attack on innocent people. no way are the two even comparable. regardless of the number of civilians harmed. two different things.

If the result is the same - I don't think the people affected by the terrorism/accident/military strike would much care for the reasoning behind it.

Even so - there is a process of rationalisation that takes place. Someone makes the decision that blowing up a marketplace to achieve their objectives is justified, just as someone makes the decision that the people living in a densely populated area are expendable when considering a military assault. Result is much the same - however much worse the former appears to be to your personal sensibilities.

As to accidents - noone in their right mind can drop a bomb into a densely populated area without considering and somehow rationalising that it will kill and maim very many people. The term "surgical strike" is very much a euphemism. You can't really call a bomb "surgical".

again please clarify. if the target is engaged in battle or recently was & retreats to a populated area(school,mosque,neighborhood,etc). are you saying it is basically the same thing? not only is it fault of the target the innocent people are harmed, it is incredibly chicken sh!t. please tell me you are not saying its the same thing.

As I said - it depends very much on whose perceptions we're talking about. Given the end result of each scenario is death and dismemberment - I don't think a person much cares that their relative was killed by a terrorist bomb or by a stray bullet / bomb or was in the wrong place at the wrong time - and probably wouldn't be much comforted by the knowledge that it was "unintentional".

We can sit here and blame the 'enemy' for the collateral damage resulting from an air-strike, for example, but I think the point is quite clear - That war is a dirty business whose moral and ethical lines are rather shaky at the best of times. Clearly the pilot and military commanders make the ultimate decision whether a bomb should be dropped on an area where they know there is a good chance of killing civilians, and whether or not you want to adopt euphemistic terminology to describe it (the term 'collateral damage' is itself euphemistic) the result is still death.

so what do you suggest? bomb or shoot back only if the enemy is out in the open? allow them the use of innocent peoples lives as shields. they have already shone they don't care about civilians getting killed. thats what the pussies do kill innocent people.

No, I am saying that during war, military decisions are made that do target civilians, it's not always a matter of them getting hit 'accidentally' because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Conducting urban warfare is difficult and dangerous and the 'enemy' don't conveniently wear badges or stick to 'war zones'

It's also a matter of opinion as to who is the terrorist and who is merely a 'guerrila'. It's a nice idea that we in the West conduct 'civilised' warfare, but that's just ridiculous to me. Yes, I can demonise the enemy in any way I choose to but objectively the lines between 'legitimate targets' and innocent civilians' are way more blurry than you are trying to suggest.

please answer the question w/o changing it. are you saying there is not much difference in a suicide bomber walking into an open market area or a bus terminal or whatever & intentionally killing innocent civilians-non military, woman, kids, peaceful people to make a statement. and a military strike that accidentally misses it target or hits the target that has taken refuge in an area that said target knows innocent civilians will be harmed?

If the result is the same - I don't think the people affected by the terrorism/accident/military strike would much care for the reasoning behind it.

Even so - there is a process of rationalisation that takes place. Someone makes the decision that blowing up a marketplace to achieve their objectives is justified, just as someone makes the decision that the people living in a densely populated area are expendable when considering a military assault. Result is much the same - however much worse the former appears to be to your personal sensibilities.

As to accidents - noone in their right mind can drop a bomb into a densely populated area without considering and somehow rationalising that it will kill and maim very many people. The term "surgical strike" is very much a euphemism. You can't really call a bomb "surgical".

again please clarify. if the target is engaged in battle or recently was & retreats to a populated area(school,mosque,neighborhood,etc). are you saying it is basically the same thing? not only is it fault of the target the innocent people are harmed, it is incredibly chicken sh!t. please tell me you are not saying its the same thing.

I know it's common practice to try to make out that terrorism is somehow worse than other forms warfare, but quite honestly, the lines are way to blurry for my liking.

help me to understand your statement more clearly. are you saying there is not much difference in a suicide bomber walking into an open market area or a bus terminal or whatever & intentionally killing innocent civilians-non military, woman, kids, peaceful people to make a statement. and a military strike that accidentally misses it target or hits the target that has taken refuge in an area that said target knows innocent civilians will be harmed?(basically using them as human shields)