Oh yes I know that, but The colonists did not Adhear to the rules of War as they were in that given time in history. As the Terrorists are not Adhear to our modern rules of War. If We wish to talk about americans and the murdering of women and children we can gladely talk about our the United states efforts to remove native americans from their lands.
Oh yes I know that, but The colonists did not Adhear to the rules of War as they were in that given time in history. As the Terrorists are not Adhear to our modern rules of War. If We wish to talk about americans and the murdering of women and children we can gladely talk about our the United states efforts to remove native americans from their lands.
Neither of these links indicatest that we are bombing areas. Bombing one house is not saturation bombing. I can pick a window of a house in Fallujah and throw a JDAM through it. Is this not at least attempting to minimize civilian casualties?
Any linksup? I don't watch the news, as all it is here on the public airwaves in St. Louis is "twelve more murders last night." National and international news don't make the cut here, apparently.Originally posted by: Infohawk
Watched the news lately? Israel engages in ethnic cleansing. They want all of Israel to themselves and they frequently kill women and children. Hint: stop watching 700 club and you may hear about some of this.Cheers.
There is no justification, but there is a REASON. I don't believe anyone becomes a terrorist just because they think it as a nice job. These people probably think that they did what was right, they had a "cause" that they were willing to die for; and something gave them the idea that what they did was a good thing that served some higher purpose.
ETA and IRA are both examples of groups that are/were inspired by a more mainstream movements that had many supporters; if the conflict in Spain and Britain were as brutal as the conflict in Caucasus it would just be matter of time before somehing similar happened there.
There is no getting round the fact that those kids died because of the ongoing conflict in Caucasus, that does NOT justify what they did but it gives a context.
This is not an attempt at justification. That is not the point. I do not understand why it is so hard for you cons to see that. It is perfectly viable to be able to distinguish between cause and effect. Just becasue you can identify a reason for an action does not mean that the you cannot condemn that action as reprehensible. The point is to show that, when it comes to terrorism, there is a causal effect.
If somebody became a terrorist after their family was killed having been raped and tortured first (rape and torture was not unusual in Checnhya) does that not mean that there was a reason that somebody became a terrorist? That also does not mean that their act of terrorism is right, only that there was a reason, in the mind of the terrorist, for the terrorist's action.
Btw. Rumsfeld signed several orders during the invasion of Iraq that authorized the US Air Force to strike targets it knew was likely to kill civilians (as I understand it the defense secretary has to authorize air strikes that are likely to kill more than a given number of civilians). Evidently the Bush administration does not agree with your reasoning regarding the intentional targeting of children.
"Under US army rules of engagement, Mr Rumsfeld was required to authorize any air strike that was likely to result in the deaths of 30 or more civilians.
Fifty such attacks were proposed, and approved, according to the air force commander during the war, General Michael Moseley. But attacks that were time-critical were not subject to such a process. Accordingly, says the Human Rights Watch report, "attacks on leadership likely resulted in the largest number of civilian deaths from the air war". link
Who knows - maybe Rumsfeld's decision is the cause of future terrorist attacks against the US because it helped create a terrorist.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
I don't see anyone denying that we've (as a country) committed atrocities throughout our history. But the fact that *some* of our history is sullied by these acts still does not excuse, nor justify, the use of terrorism against civilians as a legitimate political tool.
Besides, The Law of Nations allowed privateering. England even used privateers p...e American Revolution.
Bulk Beef
Diamond Member
- Aug 14, 2001
- 5,466
- 0
- 76
agreed. there is No Justification. Its Wrong. But it happens and has happened Thoughout the history of man. Evil has plaqued Man and Will in the future. The thirst for Power , either To gain or maintain, Often causes man to Do horrific things.
That's because you're obviously biased - there's no alternative. If we were in the market for civilian killing, we could have killed every civilian in Iraq by now with hardly a thought. Rather than badmouthing, why don't you go try to develop better weapons systems that can single out one person from space and zap them with a laser? This is essentially what it would take to avoid civilian casualties more than we do now.
:thumbsup:
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,778
- 6,338
- 126
MegaWorks
Diamond Member
- Jan 26, 2004
- 3,819
- 1
- 0
Badmouthing! look who's talking, "the army will "try" to avoid killing civilians". I'm not intersted in building weapons, I don't have an agenda like the neo-cons to invade other nations. You're the one who's supporting these attack and claim that the army is trying to avoid civilian casualties. Its seems that you're of fan of this war, go ahead and build that "laser cut" BS weapon you're talking about. Your not biased right?
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Only if you mean in the sense of knowing what the "core issues" of the terrorists are so that we can ensure exactly the opposite happens. Blowing sh!t up because you want a Palestinian state? Great, you just ensured there won't be one. Killing 300 kids because you're pissed that Russia is in Chechnya? Great, you just ensured that I'll support Russia being there for another generation.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Why do you care why? I give a flying f**k about why. Most of the time the "why" is blatantly obvious since they'll announce themselves their reasons for doing what they did. What more do you need to know? Would you ask a rape victim why she thinks her attacker sexually assaulted her? If someone snipes an abortion doctor do you sit around pondering the "why" of someone would do that?
If the military wasn't trying to 'avoid' killing citizens then there would be a hell of a lot more dead. Why would they even bother with precision bombing?
There are a lot of people dead, but that doesn't mean that the military didn't try to avoid killing them in whatever task it was assigned to accomplish.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
So better to just surrender to the demands of their "core reasons" than deal with terrorist acts? Because otherwise understanding them doesn't mean sh!t. If I take the time to learn your "core reasons" and decide not to do what they want, how is that somehow more noble than never learning what their core reasons are at all and still not doing what they want?
I'll ask you again. If you knew a rape was going to be committed, do you think it's important to get a list of reasons why the rapist is going to commit the act? Would it make a difference to you in whether or not you decided to condemn it or not, or seek to stop it from happening?
And the goose-stepping fools fall right into lock-step with the "appeasement" crap.
It's mentalities like that will guarantee terrorism will always exist. They don't understand that eliminating the core reasons takes away the cause of the terrorists.
There was an excellent interview on NPR this afternoon re:the history of the Chechens. They are more primitive in their desire to be free to be "masters of the air they breathe". I don't remember the show it was on but it was rather revealing. But, that doesn't justify their actions in killing hundreds of innocent children.
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Okay, let's put your theory into practice. Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which I think we can agree was a terrorist act. His stated "core reason" for doing so was belief in a militia mentality hatred of the Federal government. How would you "eliminate" this core reason, or stop others from adopting the same philosophy? Or if you prefer, the Unabomber. His stated "core reason" posted in his "manifesto" was basically a hatred of technology in the generic sense. How would you go about eliminating that core reason?
I'll name a dozen more if you want me to. I'm eager to hear your ideas about how you plan to eliminate the "core reasons" for all these movements.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
Originally posted by: sandorski
Yup, there's only one solution, perpetual violence!
But if we don't give them what they want............well, I'll let you complete that thought.
Funny how the bleeding hearts here (and elsewhere) are so quick to determine what drives these murderers: Usually something along the lines of "repressive" governments, lack of education, and of course poverty. Am I wrong?
But then we remove a brutal dictator in Iraq with the intent to bring democracy and all the wonderous benefits of freedom said democracy has the potential to bring--yet that merely breeds more terrorists.
The cold hard fact of reality is that there will always be some perceived *reason* for anyone to commit any and all manner of atrocity. Whether or not that reason has merit or justification, the fact is that there will always be a reason nonetheless--and the perpuation of violence will continue. Give in to the demands of the terrorist, then the next slighted group will issue their demands. You tell me Sandorski, when and how, will the cycle end?
I don't believe it can ever end. The unfortunate reality is that in every society there is a segment that delights in the suffering of others, either acting alone or in organized groups.
You can go ahead and encourage them to organize by appeasing them, or attempting to rationalize their behavior by legitimizing their supposed grievances. I prefer to support those that wouldn't offer them that carrot.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter