Newsflash - Saddam captured!
Sunday, December 14, 2003 by Fuzzy Logic | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
News just out that Saddam Hussein has been captured in Iraq. Tune in to your local news station for live reports.
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
 |
|
Page 11 of 12 | |
|
|---|
IPlural
Reply #202 Monday, December 15, 2003 4:57 PM
Yep years and years, it was first coined and mentioned with the French Revolution...
Reply #202 Monday, December 15, 2003 4:57 PM
| terrorism has been arround for ages |
Yep years and years, it was first coined and mentioned with the French Revolution...
bakerstreet
Reply #203 Monday, December 15, 2003 4:58 PM
Reply #203 Monday, December 15, 2003 4:58 PM
"In modern days of conquest it is called collateral damage."
No, another glaring, irresponsible misrepresentation. Terrorism is purposely targeting civilians to cause terror and thereby further your cause. These people wouldn't fight a war militarily if they could. It isn't even close to 'conquest'.
Surely you can't equate 'collatoral damage' to strapping a bomb onto yourself and visiting an Israeli wedding party. 'Collateral Damage' and 'Friendly Fire' is actively avoided, while terrorism omits the legitimate military action and just kills innocents. Pretty sick comparison.
Over coffee that attitude furthers your argument against war, but in a more public venue it just makes terrorists feel their acts are just as legitimate as anyone else's.
[Message Edited]
No, another glaring, irresponsible misrepresentation. Terrorism is purposely targeting civilians to cause terror and thereby further your cause. These people wouldn't fight a war militarily if they could. It isn't even close to 'conquest'.
Surely you can't equate 'collatoral damage' to strapping a bomb onto yourself and visiting an Israeli wedding party. 'Collateral Damage' and 'Friendly Fire' is actively avoided, while terrorism omits the legitimate military action and just kills innocents. Pretty sick comparison.
Over coffee that attitude furthers your argument against war, but in a more public venue it just makes terrorists feel their acts are just as legitimate as anyone else's.
[Message Edited]
kongit
Reply #204 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:05 PM
Reply #204 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:05 PM
I agree with bakerstreet. Terrorism targets innocent people to strike terror. That terror is supposed to cause change for the terrorists benefit, but often it just makes things worse for the terrorists. If only they would realize this.
Collateral damage occurs and by no means was the damage meant to cause terror to achieve a goal.
Collateral damage occurs and by no means was the damage meant to cause terror to achieve a goal.
bakerstreet
Reply #205 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:06 PM
Reply #205 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:06 PM
Re: #201
I'm sorry, but that is a really ghastly comparison. Soldiers have to strike 'surgically', and have to make immediate decisions. To equate them, even when they inevitably err, with terrorism is a really shoddy way to make a point. All you need is a human shield and the opposing parties are terrorists, I suppose.
If you have a problem with war, fine, but terrorism is about intent.
[Message Edited]
I'm sorry, but that is a really ghastly comparison. Soldiers have to strike 'surgically', and have to make immediate decisions. To equate them, even when they inevitably err, with terrorism is a really shoddy way to make a point. All you need is a human shield and the opposing parties are terrorists, I suppose.
If you have a problem with war, fine, but terrorism is about intent.
[Message Edited]
kongit
Reply #206 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:09 PM
Reply #206 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:09 PM
It is a ghastly comparison, but sometimes true.
If soldiers were perfect there would be no collateral damage. However soldiers aren't perfect and damage occurs.
If soldiers were perfect there would be no collateral damage. However soldiers aren't perfect and damage occurs.
IPlural
Reply #207 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:22 PM
Reply #207 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:22 PM
I guess it depends on which side of the situation you find yourself as to which it would end up being...
For instance the 9 children who died when they called in a A-10 Tank Killer to destroy a home in Afghanistan...
First there was claims that a terrorist was there and he had been killed, but they had also found that some children had been in the compound. Then within 12 hours a story comes out that there was no terrorist there and the children where in their yard playing when bombed, for the villagers.
Then the US Military comes out and states that no terrorist was killed, but 9 children had been killed, the terrorist had been there but had left earlier.
So, explain to me how bombing that home and yard with a Jet designed to make piles of metal out of fully operational tanks, killing 9 children with no proof in the least that any terrorist had been in or near that home is not a cause of terror?
I do not blame the pilot in the least, but whom ever gave the orders for that mission does hold fault.
Also, in previous comments about a President having the right to take credit for the actions of the armed forces... I would assume that this feeling holds true when it comes to killing 9 kids, oh BTW 6 others had been killed right before this within a 24 hour period. The acting Leader of Afghanistan went as far to say that he really sees the US as friends and such but could we please stop killing the kids because it would eventually have some really negative affects on the people of Afghanistan...
Also, if you want to make jumps to connecting our military being equivalent to terrorists then so be it, but you own that sucker, not me...
Or for example Israel firing a Side Winder or Hellfire Missile into an apartment building full of civilians to take out one Hamas member.
State sanctioned is called WAR, they have a flag, they have a government body, they have some standing in the world...
Frankly, I see no difference between throwing a Grenade into a room full of civilian and dropping 1000 - 2000 pound bombs into a housing center other than the numbers maimed and killed.
For instance the 9 children who died when they called in a A-10 Tank Killer to destroy a home in Afghanistan...
First there was claims that a terrorist was there and he had been killed, but they had also found that some children had been in the compound. Then within 12 hours a story comes out that there was no terrorist there and the children where in their yard playing when bombed, for the villagers.
Then the US Military comes out and states that no terrorist was killed, but 9 children had been killed, the terrorist had been there but had left earlier.
So, explain to me how bombing that home and yard with a Jet designed to make piles of metal out of fully operational tanks, killing 9 children with no proof in the least that any terrorist had been in or near that home is not a cause of terror?
I do not blame the pilot in the least, but whom ever gave the orders for that mission does hold fault.
Also, in previous comments about a President having the right to take credit for the actions of the armed forces... I would assume that this feeling holds true when it comes to killing 9 kids, oh BTW 6 others had been killed right before this within a 24 hour period. The acting Leader of Afghanistan went as far to say that he really sees the US as friends and such but could we please stop killing the kids because it would eventually have some really negative affects on the people of Afghanistan...
Also, if you want to make jumps to connecting our military being equivalent to terrorists then so be it, but you own that sucker, not me...
Or for example Israel firing a Side Winder or Hellfire Missile into an apartment building full of civilians to take out one Hamas member.
State sanctioned is called WAR, they have a flag, they have a government body, they have some standing in the world...
Frankly, I see no difference between throwing a Grenade into a room full of civilian and dropping 1000 - 2000 pound bombs into a housing center other than the numbers maimed and killed.
bakerstreet
Reply #208 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:24 PM
Reply #208 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:24 PM
"It is a ghastly comparison, but sometimes true."
No, only if the soldiers are really terrorists. Damning the military because they aren't perfect or because the enemy placed his missile battery beside a hospital is unfair. I would hate to have to read such opinion and then go off fight. If i miss, or am forced to make a hard decision, I'm a terrorist. How awful.
"Frankly, I see no difference between throwing a Grenade into a room full of civilian and dropping 1000 - 2000 pound bombs into a housing center other than the numbers maimed and killed."
This comparison is more about debate tactics than battle tactics. It completely ignores 'intent'. Drunk drivers are terrorists, then, too. It was something to say to drive home an opposition to war in general. Sadly it is just enabling to people who really are terrorists.
[Message Edited]
No, only if the soldiers are really terrorists. Damning the military because they aren't perfect or because the enemy placed his missile battery beside a hospital is unfair. I would hate to have to read such opinion and then go off fight. If i miss, or am forced to make a hard decision, I'm a terrorist. How awful.
"Frankly, I see no difference between throwing a Grenade into a room full of civilian and dropping 1000 - 2000 pound bombs into a housing center other than the numbers maimed and killed."
This comparison is more about debate tactics than battle tactics. It completely ignores 'intent'. Drunk drivers are terrorists, then, too. It was something to say to drive home an opposition to war in general. Sadly it is just enabling to people who really are terrorists.
[Message Edited]
Tech-Cat
Reply #209 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:30 PM
The UniBomber is real. Real people got injured or killed by real mail bombs. Do you want to try to tell the survivors that the guy who attacked them doesn't exist. The Unibomber is real and now resides in prison. Are you going to give me a black helicopter theory about the vast right wing conspiracy creating the Unibomber to make liberals look bad?
Reply #209 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:30 PM
| Did the 'UniBomber' really exist is this another popular urban myth? |
The UniBomber is real. Real people got injured or killed by real mail bombs. Do you want to try to tell the survivors that the guy who attacked them doesn't exist. The Unibomber is real and now resides in prison. Are you going to give me a black helicopter theory about the vast right wing conspiracy creating the Unibomber to make liberals look bad?
IPlural
Reply #210 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:33 PM
Oh no, don't get me wrong, an active terrorist is only good when dead, without question...
It is a crime making use of murder as a means to achieve a goal. But legitimizing terrorism with a label such as "War On Terrorism" raising them above their station in the schema of things. They are no long a group of murdering gooks but are now a force to be reckoned with.
Odd thing is, we turned out back on that War on Terror to go into Iraq. Which posed no emanate threat to the USA and had nothing to do with the terrorists attack on 9/11.
Anyone have any idea just how many home grown terrorist groups set bombs, rob banks, stash illegal weapons, convert semi to fully auto, build bombs and so on in the USA over the period of a year?
I watched a special about the Christian Identity movement, and the FBI rep stated that there was at least 4000 murders on down to basic theft of explosive materials each year directly connected to such groups and it was on a rise. That was a year ago, but I would be interested to know the numbers now...
Up until the point that someone takes upon them self the idea that the only means of giving momentum to a religious, political or social goal is to pick up a weapon or strap a bomb on and start killing people, then they are someone who can be shown other possible paths to a mutual goal or at least as close to a mutually acceptable goal as they might reach. Once they take force as the path then they are dead man walking and the faster someone makes em a martyr the better...
Reply #210 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:33 PM
| Over coffee that attitude furthers your argument against war, but in a more public venue it just makes terrorists feel their acts are just as legitimate as anyone else's. |
Oh no, don't get me wrong, an active terrorist is only good when dead, without question...
It is a crime making use of murder as a means to achieve a goal. But legitimizing terrorism with a label such as "War On Terrorism" raising them above their station in the schema of things. They are no long a group of murdering gooks but are now a force to be reckoned with.
Odd thing is, we turned out back on that War on Terror to go into Iraq. Which posed no emanate threat to the USA and had nothing to do with the terrorists attack on 9/11.
Anyone have any idea just how many home grown terrorist groups set bombs, rob banks, stash illegal weapons, convert semi to fully auto, build bombs and so on in the USA over the period of a year?
I watched a special about the Christian Identity movement, and the FBI rep stated that there was at least 4000 murders on down to basic theft of explosive materials each year directly connected to such groups and it was on a rise. That was a year ago, but I would be interested to know the numbers now...
Up until the point that someone takes upon them self the idea that the only means of giving momentum to a religious, political or social goal is to pick up a weapon or strap a bomb on and start killing people, then they are someone who can be shown other possible paths to a mutual goal or at least as close to a mutually acceptable goal as they might reach. Once they take force as the path then they are dead man walking and the faster someone makes em a martyr the better...
IPlural
Reply #211 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:37 PM
Truth in that without a doubt...
mmm.. yeah
Reply #211 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:37 PM
| Sadly it is just enabling to people who really are terrorists. |
Truth in that without a doubt...
mmm.. yeah
IPlural
Reply #212 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:50 PM
Reply #212 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:50 PM
I'm odd, ya'll are witness to that 
but I'm of a mind that there are a lot of people out there who belong dead. Real people who do real evil, including terrorists.
I guess what I was thinking more about before was not intent, but affect with taking everything into consideration. For the life of me I can not see it ever really ending until that is done and figured out. Terrorism and Terrorists are like Colonies of Cockroach-Roaches in some respects.
With a Cockroach colony, if you fumigate a number of them will slip away until it is safe to return. They will also start breeding at a faster pace, which in the end can leave you with a worse infestation or your neighbors house is going to end up taking the brunt of the move and the newly hatching roaches.
Terrorists are the same in the respect that when you go into to take them out a number slip away and with each that you kill more are created and they either hunker down and wait to come back out or the move to a neighboring place and infest it.
Sooner or later South America is going to be the major hot spot and I wonder if they will run north? One of the reason I wonder about border security and lack of it. Also immigration is something that gives me pause. I mean I can not for the life of me figure out how in the heck anyone can justify giving Illegals citizenship for any reason. I mean "Illegal" by definition means against the law, and they want to reward law breakers who are not even citizens? Hell no wonder this nation finds its self in the state it is in most of the time "Confusion based on totally contradictory political pandering on all sides, half truths are no better than the worse lies"...
anyway...
point taken and no more on it from me....
but I'm of a mind that there are a lot of people out there who belong dead. Real people who do real evil, including terrorists.I guess what I was thinking more about before was not intent, but affect with taking everything into consideration. For the life of me I can not see it ever really ending until that is done and figured out. Terrorism and Terrorists are like Colonies of Cockroach-Roaches in some respects.
With a Cockroach colony, if you fumigate a number of them will slip away until it is safe to return. They will also start breeding at a faster pace, which in the end can leave you with a worse infestation or your neighbors house is going to end up taking the brunt of the move and the newly hatching roaches.
Terrorists are the same in the respect that when you go into to take them out a number slip away and with each that you kill more are created and they either hunker down and wait to come back out or the move to a neighboring place and infest it.
Sooner or later South America is going to be the major hot spot and I wonder if they will run north? One of the reason I wonder about border security and lack of it. Also immigration is something that gives me pause. I mean I can not for the life of me figure out how in the heck anyone can justify giving Illegals citizenship for any reason. I mean "Illegal" by definition means against the law, and they want to reward law breakers who are not even citizens? Hell no wonder this nation finds its self in the state it is in most of the time "Confusion based on totally contradictory political pandering on all sides, half truths are no better than the worse lies"...
anyway...
point taken and no more on it from me....
IPlural
Reply #213 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:51 PM
Reply #213 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:51 PM
Anyway, Saddam is going to have something slapped on his butt that AJAX ain't going to touch! 
kongit
Reply #214 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:53 PM
Reply #214 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:53 PM
I can't discern a single topic in this thread anymore so i will try to put together what's going on here and someone tell me if I am correct.
Terrorism is bad. Terrorism is hard to get rid of. Soldiers are not terrorists, but sometimes in error their actions come off as close to the same. The unibomber is real. I wish there were no terrorists.
In my opinion this thread has finally met a somewhat middle ground.
Terrorism is bad. Terrorism is hard to get rid of. Soldiers are not terrorists, but sometimes in error their actions come off as close to the same. The unibomber is real. I wish there were no terrorists.
In my opinion this thread has finally met a somewhat middle ground.
kongit
Reply #215 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:53 PM
Reply #215 Monday, December 15, 2003 5:53 PM
I guess now and more to the topic is what to do with saddam.
IPlural
Reply #216 Monday, December 15, 2003 6:03 PM
Reply #216 Monday, December 15, 2003 6:03 PM
Yeah
hey pass the salt please? I think someones on a sodium free popcorn binge or sumtin.
hey pass the salt please? I think someones on a sodium free popcorn binge or sumtin.
kongit
Reply #217 Monday, December 15, 2003 6:11 PM
Reply #217 Monday, December 15, 2003 6:11 PM
Salt? I ain't got no salt. I got butter though. Want some butter?
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 11 of 12 | |
|
|---|
Reply #201 Monday, December 15, 2003 4:44 PM
In modern days of conquest it is called collateral damage.
Acceptable civilian losses and or Friendly Fire (though I am hard pressed to figure out how any bomb, missile or bullet unleashed upon a human being for any reason could be considered friendly in even the most broad definition)