we gave Iraq back to them!!!

Post by **Nanohedron** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:25 pm

Chuck_Clark wrote:I know I should stay out of this...

I have to come down on Blackhawk's "side" on this. I have the same feeling about the Palestinian suicide killers that I had about te bombers of the IRA a few years back.

A soldier or a warrior picks up his weapons and goes out to meet his enemy as a man.

A terrorist sets off bombs in secret in an attempt to damage those who are least capable of hurting him in return. The suicide terrorist is just the more fanatical of the murderous subspecies.

And for the elders of Palestine: A COWARD sends his children out to blow themselves up because he isn't man enough to do his own fighting.

In matters bellicose, that's how I see it. BUT: when you are dealing with a worldview that promises paradise for martyrdom -even if you rationalise it like hell to fit your particular purposes, and arguments have been made on both sides about this in the Islamic community- only few may see it your way, too, Chuck. I think that that sort of willingness to commit such mayhem is nuts. But not so long ago a lot of Western Civilisation wasn't so very different in religion permeating everything at least at face value and being used to justify anything. Suicide just happened to be expressly proscribed. Context matters more in Islam, it seems. Sending little Malik to paradise? Some will say it's sad but laudable, and it reinforces the perception of the desperation of their case. The biggest problem in Islam right now, according to some thinkers, is the place of education. It's considered enough to be versed in the Qur'an, and when that's all you get (and it happens), plus the constant bombardment of Western culture through the media, it's a potentially volatile mix. I don't see an easy resolution soon.

Cyfiawnder · Post by **Cyfiawnder** » Tue Jun 29, 2004 11:36 pm

I want this question answered... Why can't our Administration leave the rest of the damn world alone? They don't want our "help" fine pull back all our troupes, all our "relief aid" all our Overseas Operations, and Fortify our own borders. We have enough resources to support ourselves. If the US government spent all the Money we waste on foreign soil fighting Illegal wars on something beneficial to ourselves and mankind, we WOULD be the richest country in the world. Just think if each bullet costs roughly $20 to make now think about how many bullets have been fired by US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US spends too much time Spending money feeding the hungry and housing the Homeless in other countries... How many of you have been to Washington DC... it's a sh*thole once you get away from the monuments. We have plenty of Homeless hungry people right at home. So I say Oh, my goodness! What in the world? are we doing sticking our noses in other people problems when we have plenty of our own. Our foreign policies need some serious re-writing. My only hope is the Bush administration gets severely trounced in the upcoming election. The USA's least intelligent President EVER needs to go back to something easier for his Sub average IQ... like building Popsicle stick houses... or watching an ant farm. I mean the guy can even talk right. Why do you think the Bush administration coined the Phrase Weapons of Mass destruction? Because those are word that are slow witted president can pronounce. Apparently new-CLAY-er is too hard for him. I couldn't stop laughing every time he referred to Iraq's (non existent) New-kee-ya-ler weapons lol. The other thing we need to do is stop Electing Business men into Offices. That's the worst thing we can do. The USA is not a Business it's a damn country!!! Stop electing People that are using our taxes as their own personal Piggy bank.

Fine we gave Iraq back to it’s people… Oh uh waitaminute… we never had it… More of our troupes were killed AFTER “all hostilities” had ended. So basically what we did was fly over there “blow stuff up” and then stood around while we got our asses shot off. Sound like a Texan recipe for Mailbox baseball… get good and drunked up, and drive around smacking mailboxes, then wait for the cops to come arrest us as they follow the trail of broken mailboxes back to the house. In the list of truly bad presidents, G.W. Bush has to be the head of the class. I mean that’s a heck of an Accomplishment when you think about Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, and George Senior.
Peace in the Light /|\
Cyfiawnder

Jens_Hoppe · Post by **Jens_Hoppe** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:52 am

Chuck_Clark wrote:A soldier or a warrior picks up his weapons and goes out to meet his enemy as a man.

A terrorist sets off bombs in secret in an attempt to damage those who are least capable of hurting him in return. The suicide terrorist is just the more fanatical of the murderous subspecies.

Sorry, I don't suppose you think the Palestinians use suicide bombers out of choice, do you? As Az implied, try letting the US grant the Palestinians a couple billion dollars in annual military aid, and see what tactics they will employ then.

Or better yet, stop the military aid to Israel, which might force some sense into their government.

Hrmph!
Jens

ChrisLaughlin · Post by **ChrisLaughlin** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 7:22 am

Too say the Palestinians should fight the Israeli army face to face is just absurd. The Israeli army has billions of dollars worth of military support from the USA, while Palestine has none. There is no way in heck Palestine could fight Israel face to face. Besides, even the major armed powers like the US and Israel don't fight face to face. The US drops carpet bombs on cities from 30,000 feet, while Israel sends bomber jets and helicopter gunships into refugee camps to assassinate resistance leaders (and inevitably kill numerous civilians in the process, destroy homes, destroy infrastructure, etc).

As has already been mentioned, the US fought for it's freedom from England using guerilla tactics - ambushes, traps, kidnapping, ransoms, hijacking, pirating - for the exact same reason - because they were sorely oppressed and didn't, at least in the early stages, have any sort of army that could face the British on a battlefield.

The so-called rules of engagement are made to benefit the most powerful, guaranteeing that the most powerful wins and remains the most powerful.

As for courage, try telling me that sending helicopter gunships into a refugee camp and killing innocent people is courageous.

As for building a giant wall with armed guards to keep the Palestinians in their "ghetto".....

Chris

Chuck_Clark · Post by **Chuck_Clark** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:33 pm

Jens_Hoppe wrote:
Chuck_Clark wrote:A soldier or a warrior picks up his weapons and goes out to meet his enemy as a man.

A terrorist sets off bombs in secret in an attempt to damage those who are least capable of hurting him in return. The suicide terrorist is just the more fanatical of the murderous subspecies.
Sorry, I don't suppose you think the Palestinians use suicide bombers out of choice, do you? As Az implied, try letting the US grant the Palestinians a couple billion dollars in annual military aid, and see what tactics they will employ then.

Or better yet, stop the military aid to Israel, which might force some sense into their government.

Jens (and Chris and Azalin)

I'm all for getting the hell out of SaddamWorld and giving a little of Halliburton's unbelievable graft to the Palestinians. And I 'm equally cool with cutting Israel's military aid and giving some of it in non-military form to the Palestinians. I don't understand why we give miltary aid to one of the World's top arms exporters, anyway.

But when you talk about the terrorists "having no choice" but to send children out with bombs to die while murdering Israeli children, THAT, my friends, is pure sophist BULLS**T! There is ALWAYS a choice, including that adopted by moderate Palestinians, i.e. NOT running around provoking Israeli retaliation.

And spare me that silly horespuckey about the American colonist revolutionaries being equivalent. Sure, they used non-standard combat methods, like shooting from behind trees, against British troops and armed colonial Loyalists. But there is no evidence whatsoever to support claims of terrorism agains non-combatant populations. If you're going to continue such nonsense, please provide valid historical references to instances of colonial terrorists hiding (or better yet carrying) bombs into English or Tory churches and marketplaces. I'll also settle for instances (remember, historical, not fantasy) of colonial troops or irregulars deliberately gunnig down unarmed women and children, burning orphanages, assassinating churchmen or of carrying the war IN ANY WAY to civilians in England itself. Remember, too, we're talking about the conflict with England, not the Indian Wars, Vietnam, whatever.

PhilO · Post by **PhilO** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 5:35 pm

The deal's been on the table for 56 years, Chris. Fifty-six years in the desert and they've done nothing but play all or nothing and kill and teach hatred. The land could have been shared since 1948; the Israelis have offered compromise while the Palestinians espouse only driving the Jews into the sea. Perhaps an oversimplification, perhaps not. When do they take hold and begin to build something worthwhile?

PhilO

Azalin · Post by **Azalin** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:33 pm

Chuck_Clark wrote:Jens (and Chris and Azalin)

I'm all for getting the hell out of SaddamWorld and giving a little of Halliburton's unbelievable graft to the Palestinians. And I 'm equally cool with cutting Israel's military aid and giving some of it in non-military form to the Palestinians. I don't understand why we give miltary aid to one of the World's top arms exporters, anyway.

But when you talk about the terrorists "having no choice" but to send children out with bombs to die while murdering Israeli children, THAT, my friends, is pure sophist BULLS**T! There is ALWAYS a choice, including that adopted by moderate Palestinians, i.e. NOT running around provoking Israeli retaliation.

And spare me that silly horespuckey about the American colonist revolutionaries being equivalent. Sure, they used non-standard combat methods, like shooting from behind trees, against British troops and armed colonial Loyalists. But there is no evidence whatsoever to support claims of terrorism agains non-combatant populations. If you're going to continue such nonsense, please provide valid historical references to instances of colonial terrorists hiding (or better yet carrying) bombs into English or Tory churches and marketplaces. I'll also settle for instances (remember, historical, not fantasy) of colonial troops or irregulars deliberately gunnig down unarmed women and children, burning orphanages, assassinating churchmen or of carrying the war IN ANY WAY to civilians in England itself. Remember, too, we're talking about the conflict with England, not the Indian Wars, Vietnam, whatever.

Okay Chuck, you've done it! I've decided to leave the board FOREVER!!!

Just kidding of course, it's the first time I see Chuck really argue, it's worth a pint!

PS: It's worth many pints, it's Canada Day, yeah!!!

Monster · Post by **Monster** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 8:45 pm

Chuck_Clark wrote:
Jens_Hoppe wrote:
Chuck_Clark wrote:
Jens (and Chris and Azalin)

I'm all for getting the hell out of SaddamWorld and giving a little of Halliburton's unbelievable graft to the Palestinians. And I 'm equally cool with cutting Israel's military aid and giving some of it in non-military form to the Palestinians. I don't understand why we give miltary aid to one of the World's top arms exporters, anyway.

But when you talk about the terrorists "having no choice" but to send children out with bombs to die while murdering Israeli children, THAT, my friends, is pure sophist BULLS**T! There is ALWAYS a choice, including that adopted by moderate Palestinians, i.e. NOT running around provoking Israeli retaliation.

And spare me that silly horespuckey about the American colonist revolutionaries being equivalent. Sure, they used non-standard combat methods, like shooting from behind trees, against British troops and armed colonial Loyalists. But there is no evidence whatsoever to support claims of terrorism agains non-combatant populations. If you're going to continue such nonsense, please provide valid historical references to instances of colonial terrorists hiding (or better yet carrying) bombs into English or Tory churches and marketplaces. I'll also settle for instances (remember, historical, not fantasy) of colonial troops or irregulars deliberately gunnig down unarmed women and children, burning orphanages, assassinating churchmen or of carrying the war IN ANY WAY to civilians in England itself. Remember, too, we're talking about the conflict with England, not the Indian Wars, Vietnam, whatever.

Right, while your comments are not directed towards me, Im jumping back in anyway.

Okay Chuck, I'll have to agree with you that while the American Colonists used guerilla warfare on the Brits, they did not resort to terrorism. I think perhaps I used the idea to suggest that expecting anybody to fight fair is a bit perhaps a bit too idealistic. I mean sure the French and the British used line up in perfect formation and shoot each other to ribbons, maybe this is what you mean by facing your enemy like a man? But even then I'm sure the French weren't concerned that the British had gunpowder that was as good as theirs, or they weren't worried that perhaps the British guns would not shoot as straight as the French ones, no, each side was really only concerned with winning.

Same today, each side is concerned with winning. Terrorists can only play a psychological game, one that shows that they are willing to fight dirty and that they are not going to quit. They are going to kill when and where they can. The terrorists know that the retaliation is likely to be much worse than their initial attack, but still they attempt to employ a psychological edge through their tactics. The terrorists know the dice are loaded, but feel they must play anyway, I'm not talking about moderates here, moderates usually don't send out suicide bombers. It's not very neat, but it seems to be at the very center of modern day conflicts, sorry but that's reality.

Look at the bombing of Nagasaki, look at Hiroshima, was that fair? No, but arguably it was necessary. (Jim Stone really covered this thoroughly a while back in OT Politica, good luck trying to find that.)

If you can find a recent example of some nice clean war where everything is fair and everyone comes out and fights like a man, please let's hear about it. I agree that in an ideal world the non-combatants would be safe from harm, hostages would not be taken, children would be safe, but hey everybody knows the world is rotten.

Cyfiawnder · Post by **Cyfiawnder** » Wed Jun 30, 2004 11:38 pm

This is what I have to say:
Me---> <img src="http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung030 ... ey-073.gif"> <--Bush any Questions?
Me--><img src="http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung030 ... ey-046.gif"> <--Bush. And yes that is a Herring. <img src="http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung030 ... ey-014.gif">
Me after Taco Bell--><img src="http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung030 ... ey-020.gif"> <---Bush

Caj · Post by **Caj** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 12:02 am

Chuck_Clark wrote: A soldier or a warrior picks up his weapons and goes out to meet his enemy as a man.

And spare me that silly horespuckey about the American colonist revolutionaries being equivalent. Sure, they used non-standard combat methods, like shooting from behind trees, against British troops and armed colonial Loyalists. But there is no evidence whatsoever to support claims of terrorism agains non-combatant populations.

Absolutely, guerilla warfare and "terrorism" are two different things. Guerilla warfare does not have to involve civilians at all---terrorism involves civilians pretty much by default.

Nevertheless, we have dismantled the idea that "a soldier or a warrior picks up his weapons and goes out to meet his enemy as a man." Nobody has done this for a long time. All warfare today is either remote bombing from miles or thousands of miles away, or guerilla warfare. Even in the old days when opposing armies actually met on a battlefield, generals were remembered for ingenious ways to trick the enemy rather than defeat them straight on w/ superior firepower.

Caj

Jens_Hoppe · Post by **Jens_Hoppe** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 1:45 am

Chuck_Clark wrote:
Jens_Hoppe wrote:
Chuck_Clark wrote:A soldier or a warrior picks up his weapons and goes out to meet his enemy as a man.

A terrorist sets off bombs in secret in an attempt to damage those who are least capable of hurting him in return. The suicide terrorist is just the more fanatical of the murderous subspecies.
Sorry, I don't suppose you think the Palestinians use suicide bombers out of choice, do you? As Az implied, try letting the US grant the Palestinians a couple billion dollars in annual military aid, and see what tactics they will employ then.

Or better yet, stop the military aid to Israel, which might force some sense into their government.
But when you talk about the terrorists "having no choice" but to send children out with bombs to die while murdering Israeli children, THAT, my friends, is pure sophist BULLS**T! There is ALWAYS a choice, including that adopted by moderate Palestinians, i.e. NOT running around provoking Israeli retaliation.

Well, actually I think you read too much into (at least) my statement: I am most emphatically not supportive of Palestinian suicide bomber tactics and agree that a moderate stand is infinitely morally superior to the extremist tactics being practiced now. But one must also realize that extremism is currently being practiced by both sides, so one can't expect just the Palestinians to back down.

What I did question was your comment about manly warriors fighting the enemy in an honorable way, which just doesn't make sense outside of a pre-20th century romanticized view of warfare. When Palestinians - rightly or wrongly - decide to take the fight to the Israelis, they of course utilize the weapons they have available.

/Jens

energy · Post by **energy** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 3:46 am

Caj wrote:Nevertheless, we have dismantled the idea that "a soldier or a warrior picks up his weapons and goes out to meet his enemy as a man."

Tell that to the American troops in Iraq who perfom combat patrols everyday. In the reality of modern guerilla warfare, the overwhelming majority of combat occurs head-to-head between soldiers with guns. Guerilla warfare is available to the Palestinians as an option, and while perhaps not meeting your opponent head on in the traditional, "honorable" European manner, it's does focus on combating enemy military units (and thus is a form of warfare rather than terrorism), which is I think what Chuck was getting at.

Monster · Post by **Monster** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 7:51 am

Although I just put up a rather long post explaining why I think terrorists act like terrorists, some things they do still boggle the mind. Sending children in to do suicide bombing? What are the adults thinking when the send the little ones off, "Allah will reward you"? maybe, maybe that combined with the money they will receive from those who fund such things is what justifies it in their minds. I don't enjoy this tactic either, not one bit. I don't enjoy the U.S. bombing "safe houses" either.

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 8:17 am

Monster wrote:Although I just put up a rather long post explaining why I think terrorists act like terrorists, some things they do still boggle the mind. Sending children in to do suicide bombing? What are the adults thinking when the send the little ones off, "Allah will reward you"? maybe, maybe that combined with the money they will receive from those who fund such things is what justifies it in their minds. I don't enjoy this tactic either, not one bit. I don't enjoy the U.S. bombing "safe houses" either.

It only starts making sense after a few generations have lived in hopelessness and abject poverty, being treated as less than human and stomped on. If there is no hope, why not blow yourself up?

GaryKelly · Post by **GaryKelly** » Thu Jul 01, 2004 8:29 am

Monster wrote:What are the adults thinking when the send the little ones off, "Allah will reward you"?

Don't underestimate the power of those four words. They may boggle western minds, but to the devout they are believed absolutely. The fundamental concept they represent drove thousands 'willingly' to their deaths in the Iran/Iraq war, thousands more since.