Thought for the day.

[miked10270 0]

If you kill one person... You are a mrderer.

If you kill 6 people... You are a serial killer.

If you kill 100 people, you are a mass murderer.

If you kill 2,000 people... You are a part of the political process!


Or, as Uncle Joe was fond of saying... One death is a tragedy... A million deaths is a statistic.

Mike.

As you may gather I'm currently pi$$ed off at Al-Sadr's latest "ceasefire" while his (amateur) Mahdi Army regroups and re-arms. Isn't there a warrant for his arrest in force?

.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[billvon 3,111]

>Or, as Uncle Joe was fond of saying... One death is a tragedy... A
> million deaths is a statistic.

From the Meaning of Life


Ainsworth: Nasty wound you've got there, Potter.

Private: Thank you very much sir!

Ainsworth: Come on private - we're making up a search party.

Private: Better than staying at home, eh sir! At home if you kill someone they arrest you. Here they give you a gun, and show you what to do, sir. I mean, I killed fifteen of those buggers sir! Now at home they'd hang me. *Here* they give me a fucking medal sir!

[Frenchy68 0]

Biggest misunderstanding of our times in my opinion:
One man's terrorism is another man's heroism

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[Kennedy 0]

That statement is patently false for one simple reason:

Terrorists don't limit themselves to military/enemy targets. Can you say there is something heroic about hijacking an airliner and crashing it into non-military building?

Terrorists declare war on entire populations and seek to instill fear. Heros and soldiers fight their war on the enemy and seek to destroy the enemy.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Frenchy68 0]

True statement by post 9/11 definition (actually more like post Munchen 1972 definition). However, since the concept of political "terror" was introduced (late 18th Century), there has been many cases where that line was blured. I actually believe that if the concept of terrorism had been introduced earlier, the British would probably have applied it to the American Patriots who would practice "hit and run" tactics (which was not part of the known rules of engagement at the time) during the revolutionary wars. The Germans used to qualify the (oh so few) French resistance fighters who would conduct sabotage actions during WWII as terrorists (as well, of course, as any UK/US/Allied soldier being involved in these acts behind German lines). The Soviets called terrorists the same Afghans we used to call Freedom fighters.
And the Palestinian who blows himself up in an Israeli supermarket, killing women and children, is seen as a hero/martyr by some.
DO NOT GET ME WRONG. I am certainly not trying to justify such an act. And anyone who preaches doing so should be "terminated with extreme prejudice" in my opinion. But what makes one volunteer to commit such an act? And then be seen as a hero by some? Until we start trying to comprehend it, we will not be able to fight it. And eventually defeat it.

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[billvon 3,111]

>Terrorists don't limit themselves to military/enemy targets.

Neither do 'the good guys.' "Make the South howl", Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden come to mind.

>Terrorists declare war on entire populations and seek to instill fear.

So do smart armies.

>Heros and soldiers fight their war on the enemy and seek to destroy
> the enemy.

Again, there used to be 350,000 innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki who might disagree with you. There is nothing heroic about war. You do what you have to to win, even if it means killing a third of a million innocent people to terrify a country and bring about the end of the war a little more quickly.

If we had to fly jetliners into the Kremlin to win World War III, do you honestly think we'd hesitate even a second?

[Zenister 0]

Terrorists who win are referred to as "freedom fighters". The victor makes the rules remember? In war anything that gives you an advantage over your enemy is a legitimate target

it isn’t as if we have never waged war against entire populations either, or used less than honorable means to do so...

it's all about how you define your 'enemy'

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Terrorists declare war on entire populations and seek to instill fear. Heros and soldiers fight their war on the enemy and seek to destroy the enemy.

I see you're not very familar with what happened in Europe during WWII. So just as a refresher, you can see that both the Allies and Germany were terrorists (by your definitions). Both sides bombed the civilian population to not only destroy the industrial infrastructures, but to also terrorize the innocent private citizens.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[jazzjumper 0]

Quote

[snip]But what makes one volunteer to commit such an act? And then be seen as a hero by some? Until we start trying to comprehend it, we will not be able to fight it. And eventually defeat it.

I disagree. There is no comprehending the terrorist mindset from a western judea-christian point of view. We value individual life and liberty, they do not. We can peacefully co-exist with our neighbors, but the terrorists refuse to regardless of the situation. We are fighting it (I've been twice, and going back again next month). We will defeat it, but unfortunately not through reasoning, diplomacy, or mutual understanding. It will be a victory of attrition, because the enemy has no desire to peacefully co-exist with us (just as the Palestinians have no desire to with the Israelies.)

No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is
sick of her shit!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

That statement is patently false for one simple reason:

Terrorists don't limit themselves to military/enemy targets. Can you say there is something heroic about hijacking an airliner and crashing it into non-military building?

Terrorists declare war on entire populations and seek to instill fear. Heros and soldiers fight their war on the enemy and seek to destroy the enemy.

Lame!

In the thousands of years of recorded history, that idea has only come about in the last 50 years, and mostly in the west.

And we still have stockpiles of strategic nuclear nukular weapons, designed to destroy civilian population centers. Maybe you're too young to remember "duck and cover" drills. I remember them well!

Ancient and medieval rules of siege warfare: if the city capitulates without resistance you only kill the soldiers. If the city resists, you kill everyone.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

[snip]But what makes one volunteer to commit such an act? And then be seen as a hero by some? Until we start trying to comprehend it, we will not be able to fight it. And eventually defeat it.

I disagree. There is no comprehending the terrorist mindset from a western judea-christian point of view. We value individual life and liberty, they do not.

The western judeo-christian mindset brought us WWI, WWII, the holocaust, the Civil War, the extermination of entire Indian tribes, Hiroshima, the Inquisition, the London Blitz....

So much for "We value individual life and liberty".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 10]

Quote

>Terrorists don't limit themselves to military/enemy targets.

Neither do 'the good guys.' "Make the South howl", Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden come to mind.

1. That was the war wars were fought back then.
2. Those were WARS.

Hiroshima and Nakasaki saved Hundreds of thousands of lives.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[juanesky 0]

It ir business as usual for these liberals....Japan sneaks an attack on US forces. We go there trying to win the war, the resist. US fights as hell, heavy losses, taken Japanese Islands, where CVILIANS commit suicides by the hordes......it scapes their intelect (or maybe they pretend they are being intelligent) that quarters were given to surrender.

It also scapes that after the first bomb went off, they STILL DID NOT SURRENDERED.

Come the victory, we help them out, to rebuild, and eventually they become on superpower. As a difference to their occupied territories, where murder, slavery and plain brutality was part of normal life.

They get to keep their culture, their freedoms, and a chance to succeed later in life. Thanks to the many US folks who lost their lives in pursuit of this victory.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[billvon 3,111]

>1. That was the war wars were fought back then.
>2. Those were WARS.

I agree. So is this. Terrorists don't limit themselves to military/enemy targets, neither do armies. We would have flown those airliners into buildings in Nagasaki ourselves if it could have ended the war back in 1945.

>Hiroshima and Nakasaki saved Hundreds of thousands of lives.

By taking even more. Like I said, that's war. It's not noble, or heroic, or even right. It's how you win wars - you destroy the enemy. To try to claim that "our wars" are noble and honorable while everyone else is a vile, moral-less terrorist misses the point. War itself is vile, and is no more heroic than brain cancer - even if some people who get brain cancer are brave and heroic in the face of their disease.

[Kennedy 0]

Frenchy: the difference there is between guerilla fighters and terrorists. I accept the statement that "one man's guerilla is another man's hero."

Bill: "There is nothing heroic about war."
True, however heroic things are done in war, and people who do them become heroes. Just look at Medal of Honor recipients.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[outrager 6]

Quote

Terrorists don't limit themselves to military/enemy targets. Can you say there is something heroic about hijacking an airliner and crashing it into non-military building?

Absolutely! Giving your life for a cause you believe in, for your people or your country is heroic by definition. Meanwhile bombing defensless enemy with B52s or even fighting up close with nearly absolute superiority giving 100 to 1 casualty rates is not considered heroic by independent observers. Such observers would call heroes those standing up for their cause knowing they will almost certainly die fighting.

Further on, in this example terrorists (or heroes) did hit an enemy target. While not a military target, it can be easily argued that a majority of casualties (a voting population in a democratic country) are directly responsible for that country's behavior. The rest are collateral damage.

The same cannot be said about Iraq, for example, that was/is a dictatorship where a population does not rule the country and therefore all killed civilians (an order of magnitude more than WTC vasualties) fall into collateral damage category.

Basically from a Western point of view terrorists have "bad intentions" and kill a lot of innocent people, while US has "good intentions" and kills a whole lot more of innocent people. Good intentions pave the road to hell.

bsbd!

Yuri.

[billvon 3,111]

>True, however heroic things are done in war, and people who do them
>become heroes. Just look at Medal of Honor recipients.

Oh, I agree. I know some people who are, to me, heroes for battling cancer and AIDS. But when it comes to disease, no one makes the mistake that getting AIDS or leukemia is heroic. That's not always true for wars. There are people who see it as an ultimate proving ground, a noble sport of kings, where men (and legends) are made.

Someone who went through it almost a century ago had a more realistic view:

Wilfred Owen

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.

GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!-- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.--
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,--
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

(last line translates as: It is sweet and noble to die for one's country.)

[Ron 10]

Quote

I agree. So is this. Terrorists don't limit themselves to military/enemy targets, neither do armies.

Ah, but the big difference is we TRY to limit civilian losses and Terrorists try to inflict losses on civilians.

Quote

We would have flown those airliners into buildings in Nagasaki ourselves if it could have ended the war back in 1945.

So why bitch about the use of Fatman and Little Boy?

Quote

>Hiroshima and Nakasaki saved Hundreds of thousands of lives.

By taking even more

BUZZZZ ...Wrong. More lives were saved OVERALL by dropping those two weapons than a land invasion of Japan.

Don't forget that they didn't surrender till after the SECOND weapon was used....Even after we asked before the first, and after the first.

A Land invasion of Japan would have been costly in American lives and in the lives of Japanese...They would have fought to the last person standing if they were asked from the Emperor.

To think otherwise is to ignore history.

And MUCH more American lives were saved...Kinda the point in War huh?

Quote

Like I said, that's war. It's not noble, or heroic, or even right

Your OPINIONS only. War can be justified and when justified it is "right".

By your standards we would still be English under the Queen, or Germany would have ruled the world.

Quote

To try to claim that "our wars" are noble and honorable while everyone else is a vile, moral-less terrorist misses the point.

I made no such claim.

I did say there was a difference between a Terrorist that targets civilians and a Soldier that trys to avoid civilian losses.

Unless you claim that the US is TRYING to kill civilians...Is that your claim Bill?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

Further on, in this example terrorists (or heroes) did hit an enemy target. While not a military target, it can be easily argued that a majority of casualties (a voting population in a democratic country) are directly responsible for that country's behavior. The rest are collateral damage.

Glad to see you support OBL against the US

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

That's not always true for wars. There are people who see it as an ultimate proving ground, a noble sport of kings, where men (and legends) are made.

You mena like your hero Kerry?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 2,146]

I had to learn that poem as part of the English Lit class in High School!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,111]

>You mena like your hero Kerry?

He ain't my hero. And you yourself called him a flip-flopper because he came out AGAINST the Vietnam War.

[Ron 10]

Quote

He ain't my hero

You seem to support him a lot.

Quote

And you yourself called him a flip-flopper because he came out AGAINST the Vietnam War.

He came out against it AFTER he went there and got a few medals, made a few home-made hero movies starring himself and then came home and found that the war was unpopular...Then he was anti-war. But he was quite Pro-war until he came home and found it was unpopular to be pro-war.

The same thing he did with the war in Iraq...He was pro-war till he found that the Dems wanted an Anti-war canidate....So in true Kerry fashion...He changed his opinion...Call it a nuance, or "Seeing Complexities" if ya like...I'll call it changing his mind to try and be popular.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,111]

>Ah, but the big difference is we TRY to limit civilian losses . . .

By dropping nuclear weapons on civilian cities? What you mean is that we try to limit civilian losses as long as it's convenient. Which is nice of us. But to claim that we always try to limit civilian losses is absurd. During WWII we did everything in our power to MAXIMIZE civilian losses. Look up the firebombing of Dresden.

>and Terrorists try to inflict losses on civilians.

Then we're terrorists too, if that's your definition.

>So why bitch about the use of Fatman and Little Boy?

I'm not bitching. It's war. You do those sort of things in a war, whether it's flying airplanes into buildings or dropping nuclear bombs on civilians. To claim that it's not OK to destroy buildings but is OK to nuke civilian cities is hypocritical. Neither is good; both are simply examples of what happens in war.

>Don't forget that they didn't surrender till after the SECOND weapon
>was used....Even after we asked before the first, and after the first.

?? So bravery is a bad quality, then? Would it behoove the US to surrender if China nuked LA, and said that NY would be next?

>And MUCH more American lives were saved...Kinda the point in War huh?

No. Doctors save lives. Armies kill and destroy. That is their purpose. To pretend otherwise is to believe in the "glory and honor that is war" crap. The point of war is to destroy your enemy and his possessions until he either stops fighting or is gone.

>I did say there was a difference between a Terrorist that targets
> civilians and a Soldier that trys to avoid civilian losses.

And there are terrorists that target buildings and soldiers that kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. There is a difference there too.

>Unless you claim that the US is TRYING to kill civilians...Is that your
> claim Bill?

Of course we have tried to kill civilians! You yourself gave reasons why it was OK to kill civilians in Nagasaki! Are you reading what you write?

[Ron 10]

Quote

>Ah, but the big difference is we TRY to limit civilian losses . . .

By dropping nuclear weapons on civilian cities?

Try reading history...That is look at WWII in the HISTORY books. That was 50+ years ago..Not today.

Wars were fought differently at different times in history.

Quote

But to claim that we always try to limit civilian losses is absurd. During WWII we did everything in our power to MAXIMIZE civilian losses. Look up the firebombing of Dresden.

Reference the above comment about 50 YEARS AGO vs TODAY.

Quote

I'm not bitching. It's war. You do those sort of things in a war, whether it's flying airplanes into buildings or dropping nuclear bombs on civilians.

So you also support OBL..Nice to know your stand.

Again the big difference was in WWII we were moving towards Japan in an Island by Island set of battles. We asked that they surrender and they did not. We were going to lose MANY of our troops lives and MANY Japanese lives if we had to invade.

OBL and your and his buddies flew planes into the WTC to strike terror into civilians without any warning.
The US dropped fliers telling people to leave the cities we dropped bombs on.

Also IT WAS OVER 50 YEARS AGO when Dresden and the bomb attacks on Japan took place...TODAY the US tries like hell to avoid civilian losses...

Unless you are trying to tell me that TODAY the US does not care?

Quote

Don't forget that they didn't surrender till after the SECOND weapon
>was used....Even after we asked before the first, and after the first.

?? So bravery is a bad quality, then? Would it behoove the US to surrender if China nuked LA, and said that NY would be next?

Who said bravery was bad?...You are the one saying there is no honor in war.

Quote

No. Doctors save lives. Armies kill and destroy. That is their purpose. To pretend otherwise is to believe in the "glory and honor that is war" crap. The point of war is to destroy your enemy and his possessions until he either stops fighting or is gone.

And if you can't understand how killing 5 people can save 10 I don't think you will every have a clue.

Quote

>Unless you claim that the US is TRYING to kill civilians...Is that your
> claim Bill?

Of course we have tried to kill civilians! You yourself gave reasons why it was OK to kill civilians in Nagasaki! Are you reading what you write?

50 years ago it was a valid solution. It is not today.

But then again your buddy OBL and you don't see that do you?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334