kallend 1,635 #1 September 6, 2006 www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060905-033639-5554r Well, someone in the Pentagon seems to have it figured out. Declaring "war" on them just elevates them to a status they don't deserve. Tony Blair has been calling them "criminals" for some time now.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #2 September 6, 2006 > Declaring "war" on them just elevates them to a status they don't deserve. Right, but calling them common criminals does not generate a lot of fear in the US populace. A fearful populace is a _lot_ easier to control. I mean, what's more scary - sporadic threats by a bunch of thugs, or an organized terror network dedicated to the systematic destruction of the US, perhaps by detonating weapons of unimaginable destructive power within your very neighborhood? Which scenario is going to make voters think they need protection by a big, powerful empire? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #3 September 6, 2006 One man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. The IRA come to mind. are they soldiers? or terrorists? Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 93 #4 September 6, 2006 I don't find the term terrorist/terrorism very useful. What is essential is that Al Qaeda has explicitly declared war against us. Many would deny that we are at war. Many would choose to pretend like it is just a nuisance, treat it as a law enforcement issue.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #5 September 6, 2006 Quote The IRA come to mind. are they soldiers? or terrorists? Soilders do not deliberately target civilians.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #6 September 6, 2006 By no definition were they even remotely soldiers. They were Christian baby-killing-bastard terrorists funded to a large extent by Americans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 49 #7 September 6, 2006 QuoteQuote The IRA come to mind. are they soldiers? or terrorists? Soilders do not deliberately target civilians. That would cause many soldiers to be re-classified as terrorists. Dresden, London, Tokyo, Hiroshima & Nagasaki come immediately to mind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #8 September 6, 2006 QuoteOne man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. The IRA come to mind. are they soldiers? or terrorists? Absolutely. Nelson Mandela springs to mind fighting apartheid? Little doubt in my mind who the terrorists were there. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #9 September 6, 2006 It's one of those irregular verbs; meaning to fight for differing beliefs: I am a soldier. You are a terrorist. We are freedom-fighters. They are criminals. Mike. 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #10 September 6, 2006 Yes, poor axis powers, they were never given the chance to surrender!. How conveniently you state things out of context of what was happening."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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #11 September 6, 2006 QuoteYes, poor axis powers, they were never given the chance to surrender!. How conveniently you state things out of context of what was happening. I believe you're ignoring the fact that he included London in his list (i.e., Germans bombing London & other Brit population centers), so he is being even-handed. In any event I agree with his basic point: of course soldiers deliberately target civilians. It may make them war criminals under the Geneva Convention, but they do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #12 September 6, 2006 QuoteIt may make them war criminals under the Geneva Convention, but they do it. Which would of course answer the question of whether or not they were soldiering at the time or conducting a crimial act... ie were they soldiers or criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,406 #13 September 6, 2006 >Soilders do not deliberately target civilians. Paul Tibbetts was a terrorist? Odd, we gave him a medal for killing civilians. A quote of his about the dropping of the first nuclear weapon on civilians: "That’s their tough luck for being there." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #14 September 7, 2006 QuoteBy no definition were they even remotely soldiers. They were Christian baby-killing-bastard terrorists funded to a large extent by Americans Just the response i'd expect from a brit....and I don't agree with what the IRA has done. but I do support the cause. Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #15 September 7, 2006 Quotesoilders do not deliberately target civilians. No reason for me to repeat what others say...but this is kind of a ludicrous statement. Have you seen the news lately? or is that just the media making all of that up?? Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #16 September 7, 2006 I guess that by cause, you mean getting the Brits out of Ireland? So do you also support other peoples causes like getting the foriegn invading armies out of ... say Iraq? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #17 September 7, 2006 Which cause? The attempt to subjugate one and a half million people to live under their rule against their will? Seems like a pretty oppressive and totalitarian concept to me. No wonder they sided with the Nazis during WWII. Or do you support their ethos of killing Protestants simply because... well, because they worship the same God in an ever so slightly different way? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #18 September 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteBy no definition were they even remotely soldiers. They were Christian baby-killing-bastard terrorists funded to a large extent by Americans Just the response i'd expect from a brit....and I don't agree with what the IRA has done. but I do support the cause. Thats most likely because you don't understand the situation. I'm sitting in Belfast as I type this and belive me its not over and the situation is highly complex.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #19 September 7, 2006 QuoteOne man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. The IRA come to mind. are they soldiers? or terrorists? Terrorists. There is not even the slightest doubt about that.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #20 September 7, 2006 It wouldn't be nice on your eyes to read my opinion on some of the things in this thread, nevertheless, here is something about terrorists that I came across somewhere: A terrorist is a man with a bomb but no air force. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #21 September 7, 2006 > "That’s their tough luck for being there." Gene Hackman, "You bastard, you just shot an unarmed man." Clint Eastwood, "He should have armed himself." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #22 September 7, 2006 Quoteyou mean getting the Brits out of Ireland? yes...absolutely. Why can't ireland live as ONE country???? QuoteSo do you also support other peoples causes like getting the foriegn invading armies out of ... say Iraq? ABSOLUTELY!!!! My country and the UK is wasting thousands of good men and women on this stupid war. For absolutely no reason. We absolutely are an invading army....but then again I think we learned from the best when it comes to empires. Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skymedic 0 #23 September 7, 2006 QuoteThats most likely because you don't understand the situation. I'm sitting in Belfast as I type this and belive me its not over and the situation is highly complex. Of course it's not over....and I do understand the situatioin. To call the situation highly complex would be an understatment. Marc otherwise known as Mr.Fallinwoman.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #24 September 7, 2006 QuoteWhy can't ireland live as ONE country???? The vast proportion of Brits would love them to do so... the problem is the Irish don't. Waaay back in 1921 when Ireland was in the process of emerging out of civil war, the English and Irish Governments got together set the whole of Ireland up as a "free state" – ie a completely new country, united and whole. Northern Ireland promptly ceded from that free state and joined the UK of it's own volition. Britain didn't want Northern Ireland. It went to some pains to set it up as part of a united Ireland - just as the murdering bastards in PIRA wanted. It was Northern Ireland itself that didn't want to be part of a united Ireland. It was Northern Ireland that ceded from the united state that Britain set up. They chose this. Now why in the hell should one and a half million people be forced by a bunch of murdering bastards to live under their rule when they have consistently decided THEY do not want that to happen? Why in the hell should the rest of the UK force people who actively chose to become part of this country to go against their will and live under the rule of a bunch of murdering bastard terrorists? Do you think that the US govt in Washington should force the residents of Texas to become part of Mexico again? Even if the majority of Texans don't want to be part of Mexico?? What if some Mexicans started blowing shit up, murdering school children, and kneecapping people who didn't agree with them? Is that the point that Washington should force Texas to cede from the Union? A little bit of bloody education would go a long way I tell you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #25 September 7, 2006 1st.. it's good that we agree on the 2nd part of your post Next... with my flippant head on.. <> There's no rule to say that a single piece of land has to be a single country . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
