Terrorism works

Crav · Post by **Crav** » August 12, 2004, 7:18 pm

Did I miss a news report where the insurgents in Iraq were killing women and children? From everything I've read they have been targeting adults. If I am wrong on this then please correct me I am more than willing to admit my mistake. From everything I've read the only people responsible for the deaths of women and children in this war has been us. Oh I know it was unintentional still that is a very hallow excuse.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 12, 2004, 7:26 pm

So now we must resort to using facts to back up our arguments?

WTF?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 12, 2004, 8:32 pm

Crav wrote:Did I miss a news report where the insurgents in Iraq were killing women and children? From everything I've read they have been targeting adults. If I am wrong on this then please correct me I am more than willing to admit my mistake. From everything I've read the only people responsible for the deaths of women and children in this war has been us. Oh I know it was unintentional still that is a very hallow excuse.

Targeting third nation truck drivers is on the same level of cowardice as targeting women and children.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 12, 2004, 8:37 pm

Anyone helping the terrorsits is no more guilty then the terrorists (according to the US). So by that logic, anyone helping the armies are just the same as being in the army.

When playing starcraft, you target those little helper robots that collect the gas and minerals to cut off the opposing army. Its a startegy.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 12, 2004, 8:45 pm

Attacking soliders running supply columns is one thing, killing, capturing torturing civilians is another, it is called cowardice and proves that pussy little bitches are not limited to being Christian, but a lot of them are Islamic too.

Face facts, there is a difference, if there was not, then the US would have more states to the north and south, and there would not be a single middle eastern independent government.

If Saddam Hussein of Khomeni had the level of military domination the US has, then the entire world would be forced to convert to Islam or die. If Ho Chi Minh had the power the US does we would all be eating rice and praising communism. You can attack the US as much as you want but the truth is that no other government on the planet would have been half as responsibile with the same level of power.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 12, 2004, 9:10 pm

Targeting third nation truck drivers is on the same level of cowardice as targeting women and children.

Uh no, not even close. You pulled that one out of your ass bigtime to not look stupid. Attacking supply lines is a strategy that has been used for as long as there has been warfare.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 12, 2004, 9:14 pm

Crav wrote:Did I miss a news report where the insurgents in Iraq were killing women and children? From everything I've read they have been targeting adults. If I am wrong on this then please correct me I am more than willing to admit my mistake. From everything I've read the only people responsible for the deaths of women and children in this war has been us. Oh I know it was unintentional still that is a very hallow excuse.

So your saying if went sent some American Children over there they would not be killed?

If I remember Muslims dont really care Ala World Trade Center.

Thank You try again

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » August 12, 2004, 10:08 pm

Cartalas wrote:If I remember Muslims dont really care Ala World Trade Center.

Thank You try again

Fucking muslims. Always blowing up world trade centres. I can't tell you how many muslims I've had to disassociate myself from because all they ever fucking talked about was "ohh, ohhhh, let's blow up the world trade centre today". Fuck, just take up paintball or something. Assholes.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 12, 2004, 10:16 pm

Kylere wrote:Attacking soliders running supply columns is one thing, killing, capturing torturing civilians is another, it is called cowardice and proves that pussy little bitches are not limited to being Christian, but a lot of them are Islamic too.

Civilians from other nations have no business in a war zone. What I find funny is that when the enemy hides in churches, they are cowards because the US was forced to blow them up, but when people hide behind the fact that they are civilians transporting supplies to their enemy, they should not be touched and are heroes.

Stop living in double standards geeze.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 12, 2004, 10:38 pm

Kelshara wrote:
Targeting third nation truck drivers is on the same level of cowardice as targeting women and children.
Uh no, not even close. You pulled that one out of your ass bigtime to not look stupid. Attacking supply lines is a strategy that has been used for as long as there has been warfare.

Perhaps you feel a need to remove things from your rectal cavity in argument but I simply pointed out fact, these are cowards who attack civilians as primary targets, if they possessed anything resembling honor they would attack soldiers. This is not a make or break supply line issue, they will not reduce our capability in the region, nor cause American forces to leave.

There are two types of people, those who would shoot an unarmed man and those who would not. In the end, I am a better person for being among those who would not. Terrorists are scum who would.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 12, 2004, 10:44 pm

Kylere wrote:There are two types of people, those who would shoot an unarmed man and those who would not. In the end, I am a better person for being among those who would not. Terrorists are scum who would.

And those that bomb churches and cemeteries.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » August 12, 2004, 11:17 pm

Kylere wrote:
Crav wrote:Did I miss a news report where the insurgents in Iraq were killing women and children? From everything I've read they have been targeting adults. If I am wrong on this then please correct me I am more than willing to admit my mistake. From everything I've read the only people responsible for the deaths of women and children in this war has been us. Oh I know it was unintentional still that is a very hallow excuse.
Targeting third nation truck drivers is on the same level of cowardice as targeting women and children.

I ask for an article or any source that would back your argument that insurgents are killing women and children and you support your argument with the logic that grown adults who choose of their own free will to enter a combat zone to supply an army are the same as women and children.

Kylere wrote:Attacking soliders running supply columns is one thing, killing, capturing torturing civilians is another, it is called cowardice and proves that pussy little bitches are not limited to being Christian, but a lot of them are Islamic too.

Face facts, there is a difference, if there was not, then the US would have more states to the north and south, and there would not be a single middle eastern independent government.

If Saddam Hussein of Khomeni had the level of military domination the US has, then the entire world would be forced to convert to Islam or die. If Ho Chi Minh had the power the US does we would all be eating rice and praising communism. You can attack the US as much as you want but the truth is that no other government on the planet would have been half as responsibile with the same level of power.

Yes I'm sure that all the South American countries that we intervened in during the 80s would agree of how responsible we are with our power. They are still trying to recover from our meddling, propping up military dictators and our support for "freedom fighters" to go against the elected governments. Just because we didn't use brute force it doesn't erase our covert operations to reshape the world into the image that we see as correct. Comparing the policies of dictators to U.S. Presidents is absurd, U.S. power is only curtailed by the freedoms we have as a people not by some magic restraint by the government.

Kylere wrote:
Kelshara wrote:
Targeting third nation truck drivers is on the same level of cowardice as targeting women and children.
Uh no, not even close. You pulled that one out of your ass bigtime to not look stupid. Attacking supply lines is a strategy that has been used for as long as there has been warfare.
Perhaps you feel a need to remove things from your rectal cavity in argument but I simply pointed out fact, these are cowards who attack civilians as primary targets, if they possessed anything resembling honor they would attack soldiers. This is not a make or break supply line issue, they will not reduce our capability in the region, nor cause American forces to leave.

There are two types of people, those who would shoot an unarmed man and those who would not. In the end, I am a better person for being among those who would not. Terrorists are scum who would.

Honor? In war, what do you think this is the 17th century? Perhaps we should ask them to bunch up and meet us on some open ground and we can have it out. War is one people forcing their will on another, we put limitations on war to try to sooth our guilt at committing the most heinous act a people can on another, but don't kid yourself there is no honor in war. There are people that do heroic things in war, but there is no honor in attempted to force your will on another.

If someone was helping another person in forcing their will on you and it was a life or death situation you would do nothing to stop them? I would honestly love to believe that, but some how I highly doubt that. After all you are the one throwing around the words like coward. Tell me is it more cowardly to allow someone to force their will on you and do nothing or to fall into your instincts and kill the people who are doing it?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 13, 2004, 8:42 am

Lynks, go look up Geneva Convention, the US does not intentionally target Churches and such unless the enemy uses them as strong points. However the enemy has no such points of honor holding them in check. Yeah, do we blow up shit by accident, sure, but not deliberately and when people do go off their rocker and kill indiscriminantly we charge them and try them.

Crav, you are in denial if you think that the majority of those attacking people in Iraq place any limitation on their targeting, they have been killing women and children in bombs from the get go. I am sure there are one of two of the hundred thousand who have pure hearts and attack only military targets, but those are not the ones announcing Al Quada membership and beheading people. Attacking civilians be it men women or children is cowardice, face reality.

There is honor in war, there is honor in all things if you choose to be honorable. If you deny its very existance it does not surprise me based on your attitudes. Chivalry is not dead it is just target of disdain from the ignorant, honor is not dead, it is just attacked by the ignorant. Only barbarians think otherwise.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 13, 2004, 8:48 am

If we fought this war as some of you are suggesting is a right and good war for people to fight against us, we should just have dropped a 10 meg nuke on the population centers, then dusted the entire country with fallout using western air bursts. Waited 10 years then walked in.

We have the ability to do so, no one could stop the US if we did The difference? We have soldiers not terrorists.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 13, 2004, 9:19 am

Crav, you are in denial if you think that the majority of those attacking people in Iraq place any limitation on their targeting, they have been killing women and children in bombs from the get go.

Are you implying that they are intentionally targeting women and children?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 13, 2004, 9:32 am

miir wrote:
Crav, you are in denial if you think that the majority of those attacking people in Iraq place any limitation on their targeting, they have been killing women and children in bombs from the get go.
Are you implying that they are intentionally targeting women and children?

To a point yes the Terrorist know women and children are in the area of car bombs.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » August 13, 2004, 9:33 am

Hesten wrote: Look at that sencence. Do you see anything about civilians there? I dont. The keyword in that sentence is INVADING ARMY. If Bush for example decide to say that Denmark go WMDs and invade Denmark (and yes, i know it wont happen, since our current government are Bush lapdogs, but its an example), i sure as hell would fight the invaders

Was Denmark the lapdog of Clinton? Bush Sr., Reagan... and so on?

If Kerry is elected is Denmark going to be Kerry's lapdog? Or is it that Denmark is a lapdog of America?

I personally don't think Denmark is anything of the sort. Denmark is just dependent on other countries for resources (much like any country).

miir · Post by **miir** » August 13, 2004, 9:42 am

Cartalas wrote:
miir wrote:
Crav, you are in denial if you think that the majority of those attacking people in Iraq place any limitation on their targeting, they have been killing women and children in bombs from the get go.
Are you implying that they are intentionally targeting women and children?

To a point yes the Terrorist know women and children are in the area of car bombs.

Would that not make them collateral damage?

The US knew that their airstrikes could potentially cause civilian casualties (including women and children) but to think they intentionally targeted them would be silly.
Could you not say the same about the Iraqi insurgents? Their car bombs and attacks seem to have specific targets (police stations, embassies, checkpoints) so implying that they are intentionally targeting civilians is silly.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » August 13, 2004, 11:47 am

miir wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
miir wrote:
Crav, you are in denial if you think that the majority of those attacking people in Iraq place any limitation on their targeting, they have been killing women and children in bombs from the get go.
Are you implying that they are intentionally targeting women and children?

To a point yes the Terrorist know women and children are in the area of car bombs.
Would that not make them collateral damage?

The US knew that their airstrikes could potentially cause civilian casualties (including women and children) but to think they intentionally targeted them would be silly.
Could you not say the same about the Iraqi insurgents? Their car bombs and attacks seem to have specific targets (police stations, embassies, checkpoints) so implying that they are intentionally targeting civilians is silly.

Agree Ill give you that one

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 13, 2004, 12:04 pm

I simply pointed out fact, these are cowards who attack civilians as primary targets, if they possessed anything resembling honor they would attack soldiers. This is not a make or break supply line issue, they will not reduce our capability in the region, nor cause American forces to leave.

If you think Americans wouldn't do the same in a similar situation you are fooling yourself. Look back through the wars and see what underground resistance groups did: They mostly targeted supply lines etc, they very very rarely took on soldiers head on. Why? Because they got zero chance. If you don't want civilians to die stop hiding behind them (you know, like you bitch about the opposition doing ALL THE TIME). When you enter a war zone driving a truck with supplies for the enemy you are.. an enemy!

It makes perfect sense to go for supply lines. Nothing wrong with that at all. And comparing it to intentionally targetting women and children is.. well.. ridiculous.

And talking about honor.. how much honor is there in bombing a country back to the stone age before moving in with technology vastly overpowering the enemy and then bragging about how easy it was? It's war, there is no honor in war. There is no honor in killing other people.

Lynks, go look up Geneva Convention, the US does not intentionally target Churches and such unless the enemy uses them as strong points.

hum didn't the US refuse to sign the latest version of the Geneva Convention? Seem to recall that being brought up here before..

If we fought this war as some of you are suggesting is a right and good war for people to fight against us, we should just have dropped a 10 meg nuke on the population centers, then dusted the entire country with fallout using western air bursts. Waited 10 years then walked in.

You've done it twice before and plenty of people (crazy idiots I might add) argued and still argue for it. You do realize that a lot of people rank the US at the top of the list of possible countries to use a nuke along with Pakistan and India, right?

The war is ugly. You are fighting people who wotn stop fighting, just like anyone invading the US would fight similar people here. You think you are a lot better than them, but put on a level playfield I am willing to bet a LOT that you would fight the same way. When your back is against the wall and you fight an overpowering enemy you do what you can, HOW you can.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » August 13, 2004, 2:03 pm

Kelshara wrote: hum didn't the US refuse to sign the latest version of the Geneva Convention? Seem to recall that being brought up here before..

Hate to remove your latest rhetoric, but the US military DOES make it policy to abide by the Geneva Convention, regardless of the shennanigans that went on at that facility in Iraq.

Just because the United States didn't sign the document, doesn't mean we don't abide by it's guidelines.

Besides, there is some pretty silly stuff in the Geneva Cnnvention in places.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 13, 2004, 2:08 pm

Then why does the US still use landmines.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » August 13, 2004, 3:18 pm

Kylere wrote: Crav, you are in denial if you think that the majority of those attacking people in Iraq place any limitation on their targeting, they have been killing women and children in bombs from the get go.

Again as I've said twice already please give me a news article or source that states that the insurgents are targeting women and children. Please no more stating your opinion that attacking grown adults who choose to enter a war zone to supply an army are the same as women and children.

Kylere wrote: I am sure there are one of two of the hundred thousand who have pure hearts and attack only military targets, but those are not the ones announcing Al Quada membership and beheading people. Attacking civilians be it men women or children is cowardice, face reality.

No one in this world has a completely pure heart thinking that you do is arrogance on a divine level. How soon we forget that, "He who has no sins, cast the first stone."

Kylere wrote: There is honor in war; there is honor in all things if you choose to be honorable. If you deny its very existance it does not surprise me based on your attitudes. Chivalry is not dead it is just target of disdain from the ignorant, honor is not dead, it is just attacked by the ignorant. Only barbarians think otherwise.

When did I ever say that there is no honor in the world? I simply stated there is no honor in war. Why do our soldier not do the honorable thing and thrown away their advanced weaponry, stop using their tanks and give up their air supremacy? They could just arm themselves with similar weapons at the insurgents, reduce the number of troops and then once both sides were completely even have it out? That would be very honorable and chivalrous wouldn't it? Let me take the words out of your mouth no that would be very stupid.

Honor can be found in a lot places, from the poor underpaid worker doing their job to the best of their ability knowing that in the end the only thing shameful in this world is not doing the best you can at whatever you do. Honor can be found in the spouse of a service person trying to keep their families together and prospering while their husband/wife is off running a fools errand. There is a lot of honor in this world; there just isn't any in war. Power can be found in war, as can fear and death, but honor, honor left war a long time ago. Perhaps it was never there to begin with.

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » August 13, 2004, 3:50 pm

Aruman wrote:
Hesten wrote: Look at that sencence. Do you see anything about civilians there? I dont. The keyword in that sentence is INVADING ARMY. If Bush for example decide to say that Denmark go WMDs and invade Denmark (and yes, i know it wont happen, since our current government are Bush lapdogs, but its an example), i sure as hell would fight the invaders
Was Denmark the lapdog of Clinton? Bush Sr., Reagan... and so on?

If Kerry is elected is Denmark going to be Kerry's lapdog? Or is it that Denmark is a lapdog of America?

I personally don't think Denmark is anything of the sort. Denmark is just dependent on other countries for resources (much like any country).

Learn to read Aruman, if you look at what i typed, it say "our CURRENT government". The party in charge in denmark at the moment only got in charge at the last election, and since they, our Prime minister have almost drooled all over himself every chance he had to agree with the US.
You know that the first military item we send to the Iraq war was? A submarine. A fucking u-boat to a DESERT war. On the good side it mean that noone inside it got hurt, although the embarrasment was pretty big when its motor broke down on the way home, and we had to get it dragged home, then sail the last 100 meters or so into harbour to the greeting masses

Personally i know 25 people who voted for the party in charge, 6 of them lifelong voters of it, and NONE of them would even consider doing that again after having them in power for 3 years. So hopefully well get someone in charge next time who dont just follow in the US footsteps.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » August 13, 2004, 4:00 pm

Kylere wrote:
Kelshara wrote:
Targeting third nation truck drivers is on the same level of cowardice as targeting women and children.
Uh no, not even close. You pulled that one out of your ass bigtime to not look stupid. Attacking supply lines is a strategy that has been used for as long as there has been warfare.
Perhaps you feel a need to remove things from your rectal cavity in argument but I simply pointed out fact, these are cowards who attack civilians as primary targets, if they possessed anything resembling honor they would attack soldiers. This is not a make or break supply line issue, they will not reduce our capability in the region, nor cause American forces to leave.

There are two types of people, those who would shoot an unarmed man and those who would not. In the end, I am a better person for being among those who would not. Terrorists are scum who would.

Once they enter a war zone and start supporting an army, they are not civilians. Its war for christ sake, there is no such thing as honor. Aiding and Abeting... Guilty by Association... besides, they know the risks when they go, the trade off is upwards of 80k a quarter.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 13, 2004, 6:31 pm

The US never left the Geneva Convention at all, we did not sign the Agreement to not use land mines under under Bush 1, Clinton, or Bush 2, so drop the partisan bullshit on the issue.

Honor can be practiced under any circumstance the fact that some of you think that it is not true goes to show why you are barbarians.

Even some of the fucking Nazis behaved with some honor.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 13, 2004, 6:40 pm

Honor can be practiced under any circumstance the fact that some of you think that it is not true goes to show why you are barbarians.

Barbarians? Well considering the option (you) I'll gladly be a barbarian..

And for goodness sake not signing the land mines part is huge. Land mines should be banned from production, deployment and every storage of it should be dismantled immediately. I find it hillarious that you talk so much about honor yet brush off the land mines part so lightly considering that is probably the ultimate of dirty warfare. It does very little against organized forces but is dangerous for the civilian population for decades afterwards.

Cotto · Post by **Cotto** » August 13, 2004, 6:59 pm

Completely unrelated to this specific post, but to the Iraq situation in general, for me at least, it has relevance.

When, in the last 50 years, have we had peace. And if so, out of 50 for how many years have we had in total. I was going to say 100, but WWI and WWII take up a big chunk, and they arent the "type" of war im trying to nail down.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » August 13, 2004, 9:10 pm

The Geneva convention is irrelevant in this day and age. You have to remember, back when it was written we were fighting white people.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » August 13, 2004, 9:32 pm

Hesten wrote: Learn to read Aruman, if you look at what i typed, it say "our CURRENT government". The party in charge in denmark at the moment only got in charge at the last election, and since they, our Prime minister have almost drooled all over himself every chance he had to agree with the US.
You know that the first military item we send to the Iraq war was? A submarine. A fucking u-boat to a DESERT war. On the good side it mean that noone inside it got hurt, although the embarrasment was pretty big when its motor broke down on the way home, and we had to get it dragged home, then sail the last 100 meters or so into harbour to the greeting masses
Personally i know 25 people who voted for the party in charge, 6 of them lifelong voters of it, and NONE of them would even consider doing that again after having them in power for 3 years. So hopefully well get someone in charge next time who dont just follow in the US footsteps.

Learn to comprehend Hesten.

I asked you if Denmark was going to be a lapdog if Kerry wins the election. Does the lapdog title go away the second Kerry completes his oath of office if he wins?

After your additional comments it appears that you need to blame your own population for voting whoever it is into office.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » August 14, 2004, 1:12 am

Cotto wrote:Completely unrelated to this specific post, but to the Iraq situation in general, for me at least, it has relevance.

When, in the last 50 years, have we had peace. And if so, out of 50 for how many years have we had in total. I was going to say 100, but WWI and WWII take up a big chunk, and they arent the "type" of war im trying to nail down.

1954 to 2004

1956-1975 Vietnam
1958 Intervention in Lebanon
1965 Domincan Intervention
1975 Khmer Rouge Hostage Rescue
1980 Iranian Hostage Rescue
1981, 1986 Libya
1982-84 Lebanon
1983 Grenada
1987-88 "The Tanker War" Iran
1989 Panama
1990-91 Gulf War 1
1991-2003 No Fly Zone Iraq
1992-1994 Somailia
1994-1995 Bosnia
1998 August Embassy Strikes
1998 Desert Fox Iraq
1999 Kosovo
2000 USS Cole
2001 Twin Towers
2001- Prsent Afghanistan
2003 - Present Gulf War 2
2004 Haiti

So lets see in 50 years, we have had 8 years of peace, surprisingly 2 in Reagan, 4 in Carter ( Unless you count the 444 hostage days), and 2 under Eishenhower.

Heh 4 Republican, 4 Democrat