Just tell me what you think. (1 Viewer)

[DivineComedy]

Being against the killing of “innocent” civilians is not good enough!

I am new here and just hit a limit on length, as I am too wordy, there is so much to respond to, so I will just throw some stuff out there. Just tell me what you think.

The real answer to the question as to whether someone is a terrorist (criminal), or legitimate (French) resistance, or “freedom fighter” has to be whether they are playing by the rules of warfare that are agreed upon by civilizations. Saying that the French did something, so why can’t others, is not justification for anything but a reign of terror.

To the terrorists I say: If you cannot honorably accept defeat, and do not have enough of a civilization to buy the tanks and airplanes for victory, or cannot get enough support from your neighbors to fight honorably, spill your own guts and leave the rest of us in peace. The world will be better off.

If someone is “playing by the rules” they cannot be a criminal.

Were the so-called Palestinians playing by the rules of warfare when they shoved the guy in the wheel chair off the cruise ship? Why did the Palestinian Authority bring up the Oslo accords to try and defend such a terrorist criminal after his capture in Iraq? They were bad, and the silly Oslo accords gave aid and comfort to the enemy!

Iraq as a nation is obligated by the rules of warfare, unlike Japan during WWII Iraq is a high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions. But Saddam’s supporters, the so-called insurgents, the foreign fighters, and the various Al Quacka that was in Iraq prior to the invasion, have not been fighting according to the rules when they use civilian guise to plant IED‘s or use a civilian car bomb to attack.

I do not want to be searched on public transportation.

If you believe that Hamas for instance is not criminal when they just restrict themselves to blowing up the Israeli military, I think you should be watched and searched, and wear and ankle bracelet showing us your every move, if you believe in the use of civilian disguise. If a people spontaneously pick up arms upon an invasion, and do not have time to organize and sew a patch on their arm, and they fight according to the laws and customs of war they cannot be held as criminal according to the rules contracted.

If a civilization is going to use civilian disguise as the principle means of warfare, and violate the contracts, then what would make it wrong for the response to be a slaughter of civilians in the village that spawned and supported the ambushing creed? Why not bulldoze their homes (barracks)? Are they innocent because they are wearing civilian clothes? Those are Questions!

*****

Ideas do not need Visas to cross borders; when a state cannot establish and teach what is safe, or prohibit what is unsafe, for our children, we are a people who have no sense.

“[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense.”

The border patrol will save us. {sound of hysterical laughter}

Conquest must have stopped at some point:

“[60.8] Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.”

Too bad their tiny little college educated brains can’t memorize that far, or maybe there is just too little of that to counter all the fighting words.

If you wanted to keep Saddam in power to suppress the scary Shiites, you have probably exceeded the limits and violated some verse of the Koran. Have a nice day!

 

[epr64]

You fight with your possibilities. Do you REALLY see someone in Iraq whose father/mother/sister/brother has been illegally killed starting up an army, with uniforms and tanks? Just because YOU have them? Should the French resistance have started that, because it was "unfair" to target German army, SS and French collaborators without that?

You cannot be serious. OF course, the Iraqis would be fighting through IEDs. Of course, the Iraqis would fight back through kidnappings. Globally, that's what France and Russia told you BEFORE you stupidly invaded Iraq.

What do you expect? You're the bully of the block, but you cry "unfair" when someone doesn't allow you to have him beaten by your big-muscles cronies?

In what world are you living?

Y

 

[mikeey]

DivineComedy there is only one rule and the most important rule is



NOT TO LOOSE

at any cost.

regards mikeey

 

[IValueFreedom]

hmm... not very tactful, but a good point epr64.

I personally believe that there is a moral obligation to defend your homeland against foreign invaders, as long as winning is possible. Now, if there is no better option than to use gorilla or terrorist type attacks against the invading troops (NOT CIVILIANS), then so be it. As this is an unjust war where we have invaded another state, there's no reason to be able to pick and choose which rules are to be followed by them and which ones we can overlook.

If any country occupied U.S., I'd be out there shooting at them too. And I'd be doing it in whatever was the most effective way. 2x as hard if the war was illegal and unjust.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

LOL Rules of war? Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron anyway? Not one country on the face of the Earth completely abides by the rules of war. For example, no country is supposed to have biological or nuclear weapons in it's arsenal nor is any country supposed to have spy satellites.Who doesn't? Besides, the most powerful nations make the rules so they're constantly changing to fit the needs of those countries.

 

[Iriemon]

Being against the killing of “innocent” civilians is not good enough!

The real answer to the question as to whether someone is a terrorist (criminal), or legitimate (French) resistance, or “freedom fighter” has to be whether they are playing by the rules of warfare that are agreed upon by civilizations. Saying that the French did something, so why can’t others, is not justification for anything but a reign of terror.

...

Iraq as a nation is obligated by the rules of warfare, unlike Japan during WWII Iraq is a high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions. But Saddam’s supporters, the so-called insurgents, the foreign fighters, and the various Al Quacka that was in Iraq prior to the invasion, have not been fighting according to the rules when they use civilian guise to plant IED‘s or use a civilian car bomb to attack.

Is intentionally targeting civilians appropriate if you determine by doing so you will break the opponent's will, and ultimately achieve a victory for your side with less bloodshed to your side?

 

[epr64]

Is intentionally targeting civilians appropriate if you determine by doing so you will break the opponent's will, and ultimately achieve a victory for your side with less bloodshed to your side?

Is it appropriate? Certainly not. Was it done before? Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the V1 and 2 on London, 'Nam, Kosovo, Chechnya... are just the first examples that come to my mind.

Noone will say it's appropriate. No army did without.

Now, as far as Iraq is concerned, I'm not really sure that the goal of those blowing kids is to achieve victory against the US occupation forces. The goal is to create total instability, and to try to reach a civil war to seize power for a certain group. The occupation forces are just in the middle of this. They are targeted by resistance fighters, but there are other groups having other goals in mind than fighting those who occupy their country.

Just my opinion.
Y

 

[Iriemon]

Is it appropriate? Certainly not. Was it done before? Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the V1 and 2 on London, 'Nam, Kosovo, Chechnya... are just the first examples that come to my mind.

Noone will say it's appropriate. No army did without.

Now, as far as Iraq is concerned, I'm not really sure that the goal of those blowing kids is to achieve victory against the US occupation forces. The goal is to create total instability, and to try to reach a civil war to seize power for a certain group. The occupation forces are just in the middle of this. They are targeted by resistance fighters, but there are other groups having other goals in mind than fighting those who occupy their country.

Just my opinion.
Y

Civil wars have historically been among the nastiest.

 

[cnredd]

Now, as far as Iraq is concerned, I'm not really sure that the goal of those blowing kids is to achieve victory against the US occupation forces. The goal is to create total instability, and to try to reach a civil war to seize power for a certain group. The occupation forces are just in the middle of this. They are targeted by resistance fighters, but there are other groups having other goals in mind than fighting those who occupy their country. Just my opinion.
Y

PLEASE tell me you meant "blowing UP kids"?

 

[epr64]

PLEASE tell me you meant "blowing UP kids"?

Yup. Sorry, english isn't my mother tongue.

CU
Y

 

[DivineComedy]

You fight with your possibilities. Do you REALLY see someone in Iraq whose father/mother/sister/brother has been illegally killed starting up an army, with uniforms and tanks? Just because YOU have them? Should the French resistance have started that, because it was "unfair" to target German army, SS and French collaborators without that?

You cannot be serious. OF course, the Iraqis would be fighting through IEDs. Of course, the Iraqis would fight back through kidnappings. Globally, that's what France and Russia told you BEFORE you stupidly invaded Iraq.

What do you expect? You're the bully of the block, but you cry "unfair" when someone doesn't allow you to have him beaten by your big-muscles cronies?

In what world are you living?

Y

Epr64 said: “You fight with your possibilities.”

Well no, unlike what you teach we have lots of possibilities our United States military is not using.

You also said: “OF course, the Iraqis would be fighting through IEDs. Of course, the Iraqis would fight back through kidnappings. Globally, that's what France and Russia told you BEFORE you stupidly invaded Iraq.”

Yes Epr64, thank you, and yes as an American citizen I must take responsibility for the invasion of Iraq. With the misfortunate advent of the Democrat appointed CIA guy telling the president that there was a “slam dunk” with the WMD, I can still say Iraq made us do it by clearly not complying with H32 of UN resolution 687. My president Bill Clinton set the policy of regime change, as a foreigner you may claim Clinton committed containment and a “protracted blockade” that resulted in UNICEF saying he murdered 500,000 and Iraq’s Saddam and Osama claiming a million were murdered. I know that you must accuse Democrat Bill Clinton of murdering more people than George Bush has ever killed, with you being so just and all. Now if Clinton committed a crime invading with hundreds of cruise missiles in Operation Desert Fox, which prompted the February 23, 1998 fatwa of Osama, I suggest that you provide that evidence to me. As an American citizen I take full responsibility for seeing to it that Democrat Bill Clinton is brought to justice in a court of law. I admit that it was stupid of America to get involved in the so-called First Gulf War, we should have anticipated that the “liberal” United Nations (of tyrants too) could not be trusted to follow through to bring an end to the war. So yes I guess we Americans do make mistakes out of stupidity. But, regardless of our stupidity we do know that France and Russia have lots of names on the Oil for Food scandal list, we can thank God that the scandal is now out in the open. Because of that list among other things found in Iraq we responsible American citizens also know that France and Russia stupidly dealt with terrorist sponsor Saddam. And we all know the Soviets handed out RPG’s and AK-47’s to every tyrant regime and terrorist on the globe, like candy, we see those weapons on CNN all the time, globally to be sure, that is why Russia held so many massive debts over the heads of the freed Iraqi slaves. We stupid Americans recognize the illegal terrorism you teach, “fight with your possibilities,” how sinful you are, down right barbarian, SAVAGE, but we Americans are just too stupid to surrender in the face of such horror. We will not surrender.

 

[DivineComedy]

I thank all of you for your civil responses. Instead of quoting everyone, as it could get messy, I will just throw the responses out there and you can pick them out.

Iriemon that is a very good question. I would say “YES” if I was the Democratic leader of a NATION convinced that there was no other way to have an unconditional surrender against an enemy NATION that is already violating the rules of warfare with regard to surrender, considering the warrior code that frowned on surrendering, and only if I thought I could save millions of lives of that enemy NATION’S ignorant civilians. Without the word “nation” in there for both sides I would say “NO.” If you happen to have the coordinates of the capital city of the nation of Hamas, I would love to have it for our targeting computers.

Nukes always remind me of Kennedy: “Third: It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.”

Mutual is the fear of any terror,
Assured we contest the allied should partake,
Destructions to apply till equal
portion share,
fear
I
Say to sponsors of terror!​

It seems that most comments seem to support that the Iraq war was illegal, something to get into in another topic, but what if it was not?

Too late now, according to the Secretary-General they have run out of villages to burn, but what about a possible “occupation” of the Sudan to stop the butchery?

Many of you seem to be taking the exact position of the Arab League with response to occupations and the use of terrorism (a word they would like to redefine). Am I wrong?

Isn’t the Dome of the Rock the ultimate symbol of an occupation, and simply King of the Hill?

Is this clear evidence in their own words that the occupiers are guilty:

“’Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it‘ (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).” (The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988)

Is this proof of the depravity and evil of why the occupiers did what they did before:

“The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.’ (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).” (The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988)

So, shouldn’t the obviously guilty illegal occupiers of the temple mount be driven out and destroyed?

That was a question too, and I am certainly not advocating anything.

The point is that either side you take, you will be supporting an occupier and may be accused of being an ally of the occupier. Certainly the ally of an occupier is a enemy too.

Since occupation appears to be the key here, let us consider what an occupation may involve.

If those that are occupied have the right to use terrorism against those that have invaded them. Why should we follow the rules and allow those believers and their fighting words to occupy our lands, when they may one day believe we are the occupiers?

“[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”

Please do not accuse of a taking out of context, unless you want to explain what happened to the formerly occupying idolaters after the forbidden months had passed.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

LOL Rules of war? Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron anyway? Not one country on the face of the Earth completely abides by the rules of war. For example, no country is supposed to have biological or nuclear weapons in it's arsenal nor is any country supposed to have spy satellites.Who doesn't? Besides, the most powerful nations make the rules so they're constantly changing to fit the needs of those countries.

I was unaware of these rules. when did they outlaw nukes and/or bio's. Spy satalites are by nature wrong. Thats why there called spy and not hey you here I am satalites.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Being against the killing of “innocent” civilians is not good enough!

I am new here and just hit a limit on length, as I am too wordy, there is so much to respond to, so I will just throw some stuff out there. Just tell me what you think.

The real answer to the question as to whether someone is a terrorist (criminal), or legitimate (French) resistance, or “freedom fighter” has to be whether they are playing by the rules of warfare that are agreed upon by civilizations. Saying that the French did something, so why can’t others, is not justification for anything but a reign of terror.

To the terrorists I say: If you cannot honorably accept defeat, and do not have enough of a civilization to buy the tanks and airplanes for victory, or cannot get enough support from your neighbors to fight honorably, spill your own guts and leave the rest of us in peace. The world will be better off.

If someone is “playing by the rules” they cannot be a criminal.

Were the so-called Palestinians playing by the rules of warfare when they shoved the guy in the wheel chair off the cruise ship? Why did the Palestinian Authority bring up the Oslo accords to try and defend such a terrorist criminal after his capture in Iraq? They were bad, and the silly Oslo accords gave aid and comfort to the enemy!

Iraq as a nation is obligated by the rules of warfare, unlike Japan during WWII Iraq is a high contracting party to the Geneva Conventions. But Saddam’s supporters, the so-called insurgents, the foreign fighters, and the various Al Quacka that was in Iraq prior to the invasion, have not been fighting according to the rules when they use civilian guise to plant IED‘s or use a civilian car bomb to attack.

I do not want to be searched on public transportation.

If you believe that Hamas for instance is not criminal when they just restrict themselves to blowing up the Israeli military, I think you should be watched and searched, and wear and ankle bracelet showing us your every move, if you believe in the use of civilian disguise. If a people spontaneously pick up arms upon an invasion, and do not have time to organize and sew a patch on their arm, and they fight according to the laws and customs of war they cannot be held as criminal according to the rules contracted.

If a civilization is going to use civilian disguise as the principle means of warfare, and violate the contracts, then what would make it wrong for the response to be a slaughter of civilians in the village that spawned and supported the ambushing creed? Why not bulldoze their homes (barracks)? Are they innocent because they are wearing civilian clothes? Those are Questions!

*****

Ideas do not need Visas to cross borders; when a state cannot establish and teach what is safe, or prohibit what is unsafe, for our children, we are a people who have no sense.

“[59.14] They will not fight against you in a body save in fortified towns or from behind walls; their fighting between them is severe, you may think them as one body, and their hearts are disunited; that is because they are a people who have no sense.”

The border patrol will save us. {sound of hysterical laughter}

Conquest must have stopped at some point:

“[60.8] Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.”

Too bad their tiny little college educated brains can’t memorize that far, or maybe there is just too little of that to counter all the fighting words.

If you wanted to keep Saddam in power to suppress the scary Shiites, you have probably exceeded the limits and violated some verse of the Koran. Have a nice day!

Right on!------

 

[gdalton]

I thank all of you for your civil responses. Instead of quoting everyone, as it could get messy, I will just throw the responses out there and you can pick them out.

Iriemon that is a very good question. I would say “YES” if I was the Democratic leader of a NATION convinced that there was no other way to have an unconditional surrender against an enemy NATION that is already violating the rules of warfare with regard to surrender, considering the warrior code that frowned on surrendering, and only if I thought I could save millions of lives of that enemy NATION’S ignorant civilians. Without the word “nation” in there for both sides I would say “NO.” If you happen to have the coordinates of the capital city of the nation of Hamas, I would love to have it for our targeting computers.

Nukes always remind me of Kennedy: “Third: It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.”

Mutual is the fear of any terror,
Assured we contest the allied should partake,
Destructions to apply till equal
portion share,
fear
I
Say to sponsors of terror!​

It seems that most comments seem to support that the Iraq war was illegal, something to get into in another topic, but what if it was not?

Too late now, according to the Secretary-General they have run out of villages to burn, but what about a possible “occupation” of the Sudan to stop the butchery?

Many of you seem to be taking the exact position of the Arab League with response to occupations and the use of terrorism (a word they would like to redefine). Am I wrong?

Isn’t the Dome of the Rock the ultimate symbol of an occupation, and simply King of the Hill?

Is this clear evidence in their own words that the occupiers are guilty:

“’Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it‘ (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).” (The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988)

Is this proof of the depravity and evil of why the occupiers did what they did before:

“The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.’ (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).” (The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988)

So, shouldn’t the obviously guilty illegal occupiers of the temple mount be driven out and destroyed?

That was a question too, and I am certainly not advocating anything.

The point is that either side you take, you will be supporting an occupier and may be accused of being an ally of the occupier. Certainly the ally of an occupier is a enemy too.

Since occupation appears to be the key here, let us consider what an occupation may involve.

If those that are occupied have the right to use terrorism against those that have invaded them. Why should we follow the rules and allow those believers and their fighting words to occupy our lands, when they may one day believe we are the occupiers?

“[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”

Please do not accuse of a taking out of context, unless you want to explain what happened to the formerly occupying idolaters after the forbidden months had passed.

Damn you’re good.
Those who justify terrorist on any level should take a closer look at what they believe is right and wrong and what, with their justifications, they are supporting.

 

[mikeey]

If someone is “playing by the rules” they cannot be a criminal.

what rules, your rules that is the problem.

regards mikkey

 

[epr64]

Epr64 said: “You fight with your possibilities.”

Well no, unlike what you teach we have lots of possibilities our United States military is not using.

You also said: “OF course, the Iraqis would be fighting through IEDs. Of course, the Iraqis would fight back through kidnappings. Globally, that's what France and Russia told you BEFORE you stupidly invaded Iraq.”

Yes Epr64, thank you, and yes as an American citizen I must take responsibility for the invasion of Iraq. With the misfortunate advent of the Democrat appointed CIA guy telling the president that there was a “slam dunk” with the WMD, I can still say Iraq made us do it by clearly not complying with H32 of UN resolution 687. My president Bill Clinton set the policy of regime change, as a foreigner you may claim Clinton committed containment and a “protracted blockade” that resulted in UNICEF saying he murdered 500,000 and Iraq’s Saddam and Osama claiming a million were murdered. I know that you must accuse Democrat Bill Clinton of murdering more people than George Bush has ever killed, with you being so just and all. Now if Clinton committed a crime invading with hundreds of cruise missiles in Operation Desert Fox, which prompted the February 23, 1998 fatwa of Osama, I suggest that you provide that evidence to me. As an American citizen I take full responsibility for seeing to it that Democrat Bill Clinton is brought to justice in a court of law. I admit that it was stupid of America to get involved in the so-called First Gulf War, we should have anticipated that the “liberal” United Nations (of tyrants too) could not be trusted to follow through to bring an end to the war. So yes I guess we Americans do make mistakes out of stupidity. But, regardless of our stupidity we do know that France and Russia have lots of names on the Oil for Food scandal list, we can thank God that the scandal is now out in the open. Because of that list among other things found in Iraq we responsible American citizens also know that France and Russia stupidly dealt with terrorist sponsor Saddam. And we all know the Soviets handed out RPG’s and AK-47’s to every tyrant regime and terrorist on the globe, like candy, we see those weapons on CNN all the time, globally to be sure, that is why Russia held so many massive debts over the heads of the freed Iraqi slaves. We stupid Americans recognize the illegal terrorism you teach, “fight with your possibilities,” how sinful you are, down right barbarian, SAVAGE, but we Americans are just too stupid to surrender in the face of such horror. We will not surrender.

I don't think you understood what I said.

I don't care 'bout what president of the US said what, or what the Un said.

What I said is that the WHOLE world, except some puppets (and within these, a few european countries) said it was a mistake. You didn't listen, you get what you sewed.

You hate France and Russia? That's OK with me, they're both right-wing dictatorships. You hate the UN? So do I, because they didn't act in Darfur.

You want to throw the baby away with the bathwater? that's your problem.

The basic point is that, even if Clinton (not the brightest bulb on earth, if you want my advice) and Bush (even dimmer) said so, invading Iraq was the most stupid thing to do. And stating to do it so because it's "better to fight them in Bagdad than in Boston" is the most cowardly thing to do.

Maybe you agree with that.. It just shows who you are.

CU
Y

 

[epr64]

hmm... not very tactful, but a good point epr64.

I personally believe that there is a moral obligation to defend your homeland against foreign invaders, as long as winning is possible. Now, if there is no better option than to use gorilla or terrorist type attacks against the invading troops (NOT CIVILIANS), then so be it. As this is an unjust war where we have invaded another state, there's no reason to be able to pick and choose which rules are to be followed by them and which ones we can overlook.

If any country occupied U.S., I'd be out there shooting at them too. And I'd be doing it in whatever was the most effective way. 2x as hard if the war was illegal and unjust.

Thx IVF.
Just one thing..

I personally believe that there is a moral obligation to defend your homeland against foreign invaders, as long as winning is possible.

In don't agree with that. It's ALWAYS possible. When you fight an occupying power, all possibilities are OK. Get them out is the motto. And it remains true even after 4 or 5 years (see the European resistance to the nazis in WWII. They couldn't think they could do it, still they did).

And that's why I'm worried 'bout the US soldiers in Iraq. I don't like to see them killed. But they will continue to be killed untill the moment they leave. And then, the Iraqi soldiers and police will be killed (not that they are not right now, mind me..)

This all thing is as stupid as it can get.

CU
Y

 

[DivineComedy]

The basic point is that, even if Clinton (not the brightest bulb on earth, if you want my advice) and Bush (even dimmer) said so, invading Iraq was the most stupid thing to do. And stating to do it so because it's "better to fight them in Bagdad than in Boston" is the most cowardly thing to do.

Maybe you agree with that.. It just shows who you are.

CU
Y

I want to throw out the terrible bathwater so that the baby will not be so sickly, and you want the baby to wallow in it.

As to reaping what we have sown, I hope that we will.

For it is noble to pay the cost and work to enfranchise a nation so their young sprouts can vote as to whether they want to sponsor terrorism and threaten others or live to be productive in peace. Tilling the field and allowing it to go fallow may increase fertility of the soil, but if you never sow any good seed, or allow the weeds to take control, you will not have peace at the thanksgiving table. The weed is called terror, which is a tyrannical weed, and it was sown in that Middle Eastern region of the field by Islamic satanic forces while our plot in the West was policed and grew to be productive through crop rotation. Crop rotation is important, even if you do not consider Arafat to have been a weed, a field that every season only contains a crop of Arafat or Saddam or Mubarak is just asking for an infestation that produces a tyranny of weeds; such containment can only lead to famine and death. It is only good husbandry to hoe the row so that future sprouts can have a civilized chance to grow up and produce good fruit. A slothful gardener can only have a wild and unproductive garden.

We are all God’s children so it is evil that slaves work for food and worship the idols of their masters; such idolatry throughout the Middle East should be ended, just as the many idols of the terrorist sponsor Saddam were thrown down and trampled under foot.

The slaves should get on their effeminate knees and worship Mubarak, Bashar Al-Assad, and all the rest of the false gods, but that would be evil, for such false gods by their nature support dishonorable squat to urinate criminals like Hamas that dress in civilian clothes and hide behind women’s skirts. On the other hand, those men of honor, that as men organized by governments of the people, pledging their lives and sacred honor, that are unafraid to openly wear the insignia of a nation/state and carry arms openly, should join us in ringing the liberty bell.

There is nothing to be respected or that is brave in dying for a reward, but dying for another so all men can be free from tyranny and terror deserves respect; love a tyrant or squat to urinate terrorist and you disrespect your neighbor: enfranchise your neighbor, and respect his vote, and respect you shall reap. A faith is not a faith if it must be forced. So end the tyranny, end the terror, enfranchise all of the people, and respect their faith and cultural state: reap what you sow.

Those that did not respect the self-determination and cultural state of Israel have reaped what they have sown. And they have failed to enfranchise themselves time and again while Israel has had many crop rotations and a productive farm. In sowing the PLO the so-called Palestinians have reaped a wild field of Hamas, and they have become slaves to every whim of the same tyranny and terror they arrogantly would impose on others. If so-called Palestinians ever decide to do the right thing about self-determination, and choose to respect their neighbors as they want themselves to be respected, the wild savages will turn on them, as they have in Iraq, so it will be a long time before they can have peace. If they choose to appease the weeds they can only expect to have them take control and starve them, and good farmers will be forced to take control of their fields to keep the seeds of their weeds from invading good and productive land. History has shown that former slaves need help learning to grow, they need education, they need organization, they need the implements to cultivate and destroy weeds, and most of all THEY must WORK for peace of mind!

If we are so afraid that we just build great walls for our own safety, and let the rest of the world go to hell, then we are cowards. There is nothing wrong with fighting the terrorists in the terrorist sponsoring countries, for they have reaped what they have sown.

 

[Parmenion]

Divinecomedy:

Please remember that rules which were "agreed" upon by civilisations are not a premise for how to fight a war. They are guidelines. the fact remains that when an enemy is superior in firepower and resources one must resort to Sun Tzu for the teachings of how best to battle a superior foe. Whether or not it is wrong or right is a matter of debate for people who believe that certain things are wrong or right based upon their subjective views of certain actions. If a nation or organisation restricts itself to waging war with the same rules as a superior foe it is assured to be defeated. Example: Ireland fought the British Empire for 600-700 years in straight up battles and we got butchered every time. When we changed tactics and used guerilla warfare we won back our freedom after nearly 800 years of occupation. Our tactics were not honourable and ni this day and age we easily could have been seen as terrorists considering how long the occupation lasted, we perhaps should have accepted it. I feel that if one must wage a war, one must wage it with every tool and under-handed tactic one can possibly imagine possible. To do otherwise, is to simply run to the demise of one's cause.

I note that you mentioned that Iraq is a signatroy party to the Geneva Convention and should abide by it. By the same token so is the American Nation. Need I point out that Article 13 of the third convention, concerning the treatment of prisoners, insists that they "must at all times be protected... against insults and public curiosity".

The prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28, religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38, access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).

They were not "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" (118), because, the US authorities say, their interrogation might, one day, reveal interesting information about al-Qaida. Article 17 rules that captives are obliged to give only their name, rank, number and date of birth. No "coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever". In the hope of breaking them, however, the authorities have confined them to solitary cells and subjected them to what is now known as "torture lite": sleep deprivation and constant exposure to bright light. Unsurprisingly, several of the prisoners have sought to kill themselves, by smashing their heads against the walls or trying to slash their wrists with plastic cutlery.

The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war.

Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal". But when, two months ago, lawyers representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory, the men have no constitutional rights. Many of these prisoners appear to have been working in Afghanistan as teachers, engineers or aid workers. If the US government either tried or released them, its embarrassing lack of evidence would be brought to light. So before you go citing the Geneva Convention i would be obliged if you made yourself aware that you hurt your own case also.

Iremon:

Yes it is appropriate in so far as it creates instability. If your country was ever occupied like mine was your views may be very different.

DivineComedy:

You make mention that France and Russia sold weapons to Iraq, more specifically Russia. I would ask you to listen to this speech by Naom Chomsky which details how America were selling weapons to Iraq during the period when Saddam was allegedly murdering his own people. By proxy, America was supporting these murders by arming his state.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/C231.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq_1973-1990

If we are so afraid that we just build great walls for our own safety, and let the rest of the world go to hell, then we are cowards. There is nothing wrong with fighting the terrorists in the terrorist sponsoring countries, for they have reaped what they have sown.

I would also like you to take on board that America has sponsored states (and they are not the only nation mind you) who have committed atrocities and acts of terrorism against their own people. After the American defeat in Vietnam where 2 million Vietnamese died and years of carpet bombing of Cambodia (side-show) resulted in the deaths of at least 1 million Cambodians directly by American sponsored terrorism, Kissenger left and sanctioned the Indonesian invasion of East Timor where with American weapons, helicopters and political support saw a further 1 million East Timorese die. Then we have Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Brazil, Nicuragua, Palestine and Argentina where similar sponsorship took place. Need I say more. America has always been the largest sponsor of state-terrorism in the world. Whether its against its own people, against the native Indians or the afro-Ameican population or in its foreign policy. America is and always will be the most barbarous nation the world has ever seen. Conservative figures estimate that America is directly and indirectly reponsible for the muders of over 30 million people since it dropped 2 atomic bombs on the innocent civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

www.chomsky.info

Thank god there is a voice of reason in the USA.

 

[DivineComedy]

The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war.

I thought that sounded familiar so I will only respond to that cut and paste as I did before:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=65050&postcount=34

Parmenion I will repeat the following demand:

“Give me the coordinates of the capital city of the High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions that claims al-Qaida as their volunteer corps, we need it for our targeting computers.”

Divinecomedy:

Please remember that rules which were "agreed" upon by civilisations are not a premise for how to fight a war. They are guidelines. the fact remains that when an enemy is superior in firepower and resources one must resort to Sun Tzu for the teachings of how best to battle a superior foe. Whether or not it is wrong or right is a matter of debate for people who believe that certain things are wrong or right based upon their subjective views of certain actions. If a nation or organisation restricts itself to waging war with the same rules as a superior foe it is assured to be defeated. Example: Ireland fought the British Empire for 600-700 years in straight up battles and we got butchered every time. When we changed tactics and used guerilla warfare we won back our freedom after nearly 800 years of occupation. Our tactics were not honourable and ni this day and age we easily could have been seen as terrorists considering how long the occupation lasted, we perhaps should have accepted it. I feel that if one must wage a war, one must wage it with every tool and under-handed tactic one can possibly imagine possible. To do otherwise, is to simply run to the demise of one's cause.

Since depending on due process you can possibly be held as a criminal and legally hung by the neck, after you surrender, before you complete your mission, for violating the contracted rules of warfare, the Geneva Conventions treaties we are a party to are not simply “guidelines” but law. There are US soldiers in US prisons for violating the rules of warfare in Iraq, do you understand that?

When dishonorable barbarians like you approach any civilization you should be searched with an anal probe as if you are going to explode, just for what we think you believe, and you should be followed everywhere you go under twenty-four hour surveillance, and that is only because modern day civilizations rarely have the stomach to exterminate entire tribes. Like Abraham we seem to think that there might be one among you worth saving, but do not push us too far, as you seem to know us.

If your cause is possibly to exterminate every civilian in your tribe, then you would be correct about waging war with every tool available (like the dishonorable use of civilian disguise), and you’re right, your “tactics were not honorable.”

The question is, can you be honorable? What collateral can your tribe put up, for us to trust that you can be honorable to walk our streets in civilian clothes?

 

[Parmenion]

Divine - I didn't personally insult you. Find it interesting you would stoop... carrying on regardless...

So can I take it from your post that you think we waged an unjust war upon our oppressors to gain our freedom?

In our defence we were hardly given an option. Please do not think that I believe that al-quaks or their organisation are in any way right in what they are doing or how they behave. But based on national experience I can state that there is much more we need to do to understand their cause and the reasons behind it before the issue of "why" can be addressed and dealt with legitimately.

 

[DivineComedy]

Divine - I didn't personally insult you. Find it interesting you would stoop... carrying on regardless...

So can I take it from your post that you think we waged an unjust war upon our oppressors to gain our freedom?

In our defence we were hardly given an option. Please do not think that I believe that al-quaks or their organisation are in any way right in what they are doing or how they behave. But based on national experience I can state that there is much more we need to do to understand their cause and the reasons behind it before the issue of "why" can be addressed and dealt with legitimately.

Parmenion I did not mean to personally insult you, I am sorry but that just happens to be the way I had to argue the point I was trying to make. Hopefully you will understand, I could not see your hand held up to see if you had a sword in it, nor could I see if you had a bomb under your shirt. You believe you waged war dishonorably as you said “Our tactics were not honourable,” so I argued from the assumption that I was talking to someone that is dishonorable. If I cannot trust your civilian clothes then why should I trust you? Shouldn’t you be insulted, held in contempt, and probed?

Because you admitted that you were dishonorable you waged war unjustly. The rules of warfare are not designed to take sides as to the morality of your cause.

One of our rich millionaires has not taken a civilian plane dressed up as a plane full of pilgrims and nuked the idol at Mecca yet. Certainly, considering the wording of the satanic verses, the millionaire could claim to have a just cause to nuke the idol that the idolaters swirl around.

To most people the morality of their cause is just, but if your tactics are dishonorable your cause can be made unjust. The existence of Civilization itself depends upon trust and the honorable ethical behavior that makes trust possible, so if your known rule of warfare is to use civilian disguise to wage war then your cause must be unjust as a result. Not being able to get enough people to fight honorably for your cause is also a good indicator that your cause is unjust. How does Scotland look this time of year?

If you want to understand Al Quacka’s cause and the reasons behind it start with the February 23, 1998 fatwa, "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; all you need is the ninth chapter of the satanic verses to find out the issue of “why.” Should all Moslem women have every orifice searched with a robot probe before being allowed to walk about in civilization? They might be hiding a salami bomb.

 

[Parmenion]

America may not have taken a plane and flown it into Mecca but I urge you to take a look at American foreign policy since world war 2 and the state-sponsored terrorism is financially and militarily supported. I have cited examples here in my last post. I am not here to condemn sides nor to preach a "they deserved it" stand point.

But actions have reactions. Sponsoring state-terrorism in the cases I have outlined (and many more) would eventually have led to the development of an organisation which is against this neo-imperialism of the modern world. It comes as no surprise that an organisation of people against such policies has sprung up. No more than it came as a surprise during the 19th century that Communism, which represents the working class, strove to seek political and worldy unification against the neo-bourgeoisise of the era.

History teaches us that actions have eractions and reactions have more reactions. In this case something happened. It did not happen without reason. A group of people didn't just decide they didnt particularly like the USA and construct a complicated plan to decimate two buildings and their inhabitants. People construct complex plans because they have been given motivation to do so, and in this instance I would argue that the motivation is not the Koran, but foreign policy.

The honour of tactics remains a matter of perception. Irish tactics would be seen as dishonourable in this day and age. I would consider them to have been necessary and within the character of our race to take back what we felt was ours.

I would ask you Divinecomedy - if this planet hypothetically was invded by an alien force far superior to us. In open battle it would anhiliate an army we put before it. America is taken over and ruled by this foreign power. How do you fight it? According to our premise of honour it would be unethical to wage a guerrilla war. What would you encourage the American people to do in such a circumstance?

 

[DivineComedy]

A group of people didn't just decide they didnt particularly like the USA and construct a complicated plan to decimate two buildings and their inhabitants. People construct complex plans because they have been given motivation to do so, and in this instance I would argue that the motivation is not the Koran, but foreign policy.

Yes they did!

Their foreign policy is against pagans and Jews, and we are supposed to reason with that?

I will repeat again:

“Give me the coordinates of the capital city of the High Contracting Party to the Geneva Conventions that claims al-Qaida as their volunteer corps, we need it for our targeting computers.”

I would ask you Divinecomedy - if this planet hypothetically was invded by an alien force far superior to us. In open battle it would anhiliate an army we put before it. America is taken over and ruled by this foreign power. How do you fight it? According to our premise of honour it would be unethical to wage a guerrilla war. What would you encourage the American people to do in such a circumstance?

Hypothetically, the aliens are coming because as long as you waged war against your own kind while using civilian disguise it was no threat to the peace of the universe, but now with the advent of atomic weapons and space fight, things have changed. I would advise Americans to fight honorably, for it is the only way to come to a mutual agreement with the aliens to join forces for your eradication.

Gort! Klaatu barada nikto!