- Joined
- Aug 11, 2005
- Messages
- 2,231
- Reaction score
- 129
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
DivineComedy said: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 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.Iriemon said: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 said: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
epr64 said: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
Yup. Sorry, english isn't my mother tongue.cnredd said:PLEASE tell me you meant "blowing UP kids"?
epr64 said: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
Napoleon's Nightingale said: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.
DivineComedy said: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!
DivineComedy said: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.
I don't think you understood what I said.DivineComedy said: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.
Thx IVF.IValueFreedom said: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.
I personally believe that there is a moral obligation to defend your homeland against foreign invaders, as long as winning is possible.
epr64 said: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
DivineComedy said: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 said: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.
Parmenion said: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.
Parmenion said: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 said: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.
Parmenion said: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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?