London blasts cause chaos on Tube (12 Viewers)

[madlawyer1]

++ [ originally posted by swag ] ++
Terrorist attacks like those recently in London are never justified. You can never justify a group of people who feel morally entitled to massacre others as a way to assuage their own feelings of humiliation.

Is it then ok to slaughter innocent people to feel good like the American and British soldiers are doing?

I read that in Vietnam, it got to a stage where all American Central Command cared about was how many Vietnamese died, whether they were combatants or not. It was this attitude that led to the My Lai massacre in which an entire village of non-combatant civilians was wiped out by an American platoon. The Americans will soon find themselves staring down that same abyss again.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Emma]

Noone is putting them to akin to terrorists. Its a different scale.

 

[#10]

++ [ originally posted by madlawyer1 ] ++


Is it then ok to slaughter innocent people to feel good like the American and British soldiers are doing?

I read that in Vietnam, it got to a stage where all American Central Command cared about was how many Vietnamese died, whether they were combatants or not. It was this attitude that led to the My Lai massacre in which an entire village of non-combatant civilians was wiped out by an American platoon. The Americans will soon find themselves staring down that same abyss again.

do the british follow this shotgun rodeo style attitude?

 

[Respaul]

Its also interesting that some 150 000 refugees of iraq... that have lived in and been looked after by britain have since the "invasion" of iraq for the first time in in some cases as much as 20 years felt safe to return to their home land ... Oh yes, we are such cunts!

 

[Chxta]

Mr. Gol, in combat there is always the victor and the vanquished. In some cases, the vanquished stays vanquished (Germany after World War 2) in other cases, the vanquished doesn't accept defeat and goes underground (De Gaulle and co in World War 2).

When the second case happens, the vanquished resorts to the only other alternative available to him, and that is guerilla tactics. Now according to the rule book of guerilla warfare, there are no defined combatants. Any body from the opposing side civilian or uniformed is a potential target, as is any installation. Any means that will drive home the point is acceptable. De Gaulle's people blew up power plants and restaurants. Same as the insurrectionists in Guatemala (backed by the CIA). Same as HAMAS. That is just the way it is. You can't convince me that the Amis and Brits didn't know at the highest levels that this was a potential fall out of their actions. They did, and they took the plunge. For what? WMDs that didn't exist? You want WMDs in the Mid-East? Look no further than Israel, but instead they look the other way. You want someone currently in power in a Mid-Eastern country who has been responsible for massacres of innocent unarmed civilians? Look no further than Ariel Sharon.

When the world is run by double standards, you will create a million bin Ladens among the people who feel hard done by your actions. And that is what is happening now.

If it is an isolate case of one person committing suicide, then that person deserves to be in an asylum. But when you have a whole race of young men prepared to end their lives (along with their perceived enemies) when their futures 'are so bright', then the root cause of that kind of behaviour has to be established and addressed. The West has failed to do that, so sadly the suicide bombings will go on.

 

[Chxta]

++ [ originally posted by Shadowfax ] ++
I can understand (though do not agree) people who acuse bush and blair of being akin to terrorists... But the absolute ignorance and sheer fvcking stupidity of comparing british or american soldiers (men who did not ask to be there, men that do not want to be there, men who are purely doing their duty.. men who are doing their job... no more , no less) to terrorists is absolutely fvcking unbelievable... Completely ridiculous

Erm, Paul when I was in the army, it was drummed into our heads that as a fallout of the Nuremberg trials that if your superior gives you an order that your conscience is against (which I believe is what you are implying here) then you are in the right to disobey such an order.
So if those men do not really want to be there, why did they go?

 

[Emma]

Its a job innit

 

[madlawyer1]

++ [ originally posted by Shadowfax ] ++
I can understand (though do not agree) people who acuse bush and blair of being akin to terrorists... But the absolute ignorance and sheer fvcking stupidity of comparing british or american soldiers (men who did not ask to be there, men that do not want to be there, men who are purely doing their duty.. men who are doing their job... no more , no less) to terrorists is absolutely fvcking unbelievable... Completely ridiculous

You think the men who carry out suicide attacks wouldn't have preferred to be somewhere else? You think they wouldn't rather be spending time with their wives, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, parents and friends? Human life is precious, especially to its owner. The human instinct of self-preservation or will to live is one of the most powerful forces in nature, hence the many news stories of people who get buried in alvalanches for days and are still found alive after all hope has been lost by the searchers.

For a person to make a conscious choice to end his life, he must have been driven to the very edge of despair, and so make the choice to end it all. The suicide bombers are not comfortable, happy people. They have been grieviously hurt by something or someone. Perhaps they lost some of their dearest friends and/or relatives to the bombs in Baghdad and environs, so they strap a few pounds of c4 or plastique or dynamite to their chests and detonate it along with the persons who they feel are responsible for putting in place the government that cost them the lives of their friends and relatives.

Are they right to target the civilians? I don't agree, but seeing as the government figures are so well protected, the guy sipping his coffee on his way to work in the morning becomes the next best target.

They are doing their duty too, and I'm sure they all look forward to a day when such drastic actions will no longer be needed.

 

[Chxta]

Where's Tom? I told you this argument will go nowhere...

 

[#10]

++ [ originally posted by Chxta ] ++
Mr. Gol, in combat there is always the victor and the vanquished. In some cases, the vanquished stays vanquished (Germany after World War 2) in other cases, the vanquished doesn't accept defeat and goes underground (De Gaulle and co in World War 2).

When the second case happens, the vanquished resorts to the only other alternative available to him, and that is guerilla tactics. Now according to the rule book of guerilla warfare, there are no defined combatants. Any body from the opposing side civilian or uniformed is a potential target, as is any installation. Any means that will drive home the point is acceptable. De Gaulle's people blew up power plants and restaurants. Same as the insurrectionists in Guatemala (backed by the CIA). Same as HAMAS. That is just the way it is. You can't convince me that the Amis and Brits didn't know at the highest levels that this was a potential fall out of their actions. They did, and they took the plunge. For what? WMDs that didn't exist? You want WMDs in the Mid-East? Look no further than Israel, but instead they look the other way. You want someone currently in power in a Mid-Eastern country who has been responsible for massacres of innocent unarmed civilians? Look no further than Ariel Sharon.

When the world is run by double standards, you will create a million bin Ladens among the people who feel hard done by your actions. And that is what is happening now.

If it is an isolate case of one person committing suicide, then that person deserves to be in an asylum. But when you have a whole race of young men prepared to end their lives (along with their perceived enemies) when their futures 'are so bright', then the root cause of that kind of behaviour has to be established and addressed. The West has failed to do that, so sadly the suicide bombings will go on.

word.

Ariel Sharon and Israel.....rumour has it funded by rich american jews....hence nothing is done about them hijacking the Ghaza Strip

 

[Emma]

Shadowfax, your telling me alot of soldiers arent in hog heaven in war? Your telling me many many iraqis are beaten shitless, killed and insulted for being an iraqi?

I wouldnt know, but I would imagine. The Brits and Americans are far from innocent.

 

[Tom]

++ [ originally posted by madlawyer1 ] ++
Well, seeing as American and British occupation of their country and tanks tearing up their infrastructure are so much more to their liking, given the number of "America must go now" protests that have been broken up by American and British troops firing into the crowds, I'm sure they are very happy with the new arrangement.

If we left the country now, there would probably be a massive civil war and most of the population would be wiped out. In fact probably the biggest humanitarian disaster for many years, if ever would ensue. The people that are wanting us to leave don't seem to be getting the bigger picture. We don't want to be there any more than you lot want us there but at the end of the day we're going nowhere until the country is stable - which at present with no authority of government, no real law/constitution or what have you.. its not going to be any time soon!

 

[#10]

++ [ originally posted by madlawyer1 ] ++


You think the men who carry out suicide attacks wouldn't have preferred to be somewhere else? You think they wouldn't rather be spending time with their wives, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, parents and friends? Human life is precious, especially to its owner. The human instinct of self-preservation or will to live is one of the most powerful forces in nature, hence the many news stories of people who get buried in alvalanches for days and are still found alive after all hope has been lost by the searchers.

For a person to make a conscious choice to end his life, he must have been driven to the very edge of despair, and so make the choice to end it all. The suicide bombers are not comfortable, happy people. They have been grieviously hurt by something or someone. Perhaps they lost some of their dearest friends and/or relatives to the bombs in Baghdad and environs, so they strap a few pounds of c4 or plastique or dynamite to their chests and detonate it along with the persons who they feel are responsible for putting in place the government that cost them the lives of their friends and relatives.

Are they right to target the civilians? I don't agree, but seeing as the government figures are so well protected, the guy sipping his coffee on his way to work in the morning becomes the next best target.

They are doing their duty too, and I'm sure they all look forward to a day when such drastic actions will no longer be needed.

im not sure, but most of the confirmed bomber WERE NOT IRAQI.

 

[/usr/bin]

++ [ originally posted by John #10 ] ++


word.

Ariel Sharon and Israel.....rumour has it funded by rich american jews....hence nothing is done about them hijacking the Ghaza Strip

That's not a rumour.. I mean, they even have the American Govt. on their side, FFS.. :groan:

 

[#10]

++ [ originally posted by Nawaf ] ++


That's not a rumour.. I mean, they even have the American Govt. on their side, FFS.. :groan:

That is the biggest joke...Usa totally ignore the fact the are funding a more refined for of terrorist.

 

[madlawyer1]

++ [ originally posted by Shadowfax ] ++
Its also interesting that some 150 000 refugees of iraq... that have lived in and been looked after by britain have since the "invasion" of iraq for the first time in in some cases as much as 20 years felt safe to return to their home land ... Oh yes, we are such cunts!

I never said Saddam Hussein was a saint. And them people who fled his dictatorship only had to flee because at that time, Saddam was a 'good boy' to both #10 Downing Street and The White House. The Americans sold him mustard gas ffs. But, as soon as they decide they have some overwhelming interest which superceded keeping Saddam around, they whip up more excuses than Alex Ferguson after losing a match and invade.

 

[Respaul]

++ [ originally posted by Chxta ] ++


Erm, Paul when I was in the army, it was drummed into our heads that as a fallout of the Nuremberg trials that if your superior gives you an order that your conscience is against (which I believe is what you are implying here) then you are in the right to disobey such an order.
So if those men do not really want to be there, why did they go?

Maybe in yours chxta... but in the british army.. you refuse an order.. you will be court marshalled... you sign up, you do what you are told!

 

[Chxta]

Iraq, John #10 is an artificial creation of the West. All Arabs feel kinship to one another.

@ Tom, sure there'd be a massive civil war if you left now. And the blame is yours, because you removed the one force that knew how to keep the oppossing forces in the region very quiet!

What you Westerners don't understand is that democracy as yo define it is not applicable in every culture. Trying to impose it can only lead to scenarios such as this. Try implementing 'democracy' in China. Or closer to you, in Russia...

 

[swag]

++ [ originally posted by John #10 ] ++


That is the biggest joke...Usa totally ignore the fact the are funding a more refined for of terrorist.

And if you think what the US gov't did to originally put Saddam in power and support him was a joke, that's nothing compared to the completely f%#@ed up sh*t the CIA did in Central America over the last several decades.

 

[/usr/bin]

++ [ originally posted by John #10 ] ++


That is the biggest joke...Usa totally ignore the fact the are funding a more refined for of terrorist.

You know, your avatar seems appropriate, somehow..