IRA Scum

Remove all ads!

You're right, I'm not familiar with the incidents. But I've been in the area and seen some really stupid things individual pilots have done (sorry, I jumped to a conclusion).

Communications sites are certainly valid targets if used by the military. Most communication sites are regulated by the government and would be considered valid targets by most militaries (after all, they can be used to pass command information at any time with very minor equipment changes). I'm really not sure about targeting a TV station and whether that would be targeting civilians or a government communication station. If it was a civilian run station then I would agree with you -- the strike was a violation of ethics.

We differ here in that I can believe General Clark. I've seen inputs the CIA has given commanders in the field -- although I'm not sure whether such poor inputs are incompetance, intentional, or the results of some poor overworked analyst who grabbed the wrong file.

I guess we'll just disagree on this point.

 

Sorry to go back to an early quote but...

I know what my choice is - terrorism is far worse. I go back to my initial statement, that so long as you do not have dealings with organized crime, the chances of you being harmed by someone in an organized crime ring are pretty damn near non-existent. However, you don't have to do much of anything to become a victim of a terrorist attack? What did the people killed on 9/11 and on 7/7 do? They went to work.

 

I dont agree to that, I want a struggle!

I would also really want to know why you and so many more view the US as different from any other power throughout human history.

 

terrorism is a word used far to often and wrongly, terrorism is the use of force for the purpose of intimidation or coercion - if its not terrorism when we bomb iraq becuase were at war, then why is it terrorism when these groups use it, they are at war with us, just because we dont recognise that state of war doesnt make it any more real.

as the saying goes "one mans patriot is another mans terrorist".

 

You differ from the conclusion reached by a lot of European observers and commentators of that war. The bombing of the Chinese embassy was commonly interpreted as a deliberate action and provocation on side of the US. Or a display of power towards China, aka intimidation? Something like that.

At the cost of civilians? Oh, that reeks of terrorism.

 

T2Bruno,

Does cowardice mean something different in american english? I have hard time imagining something braver the deliberatly killing yourself to wittle down your enemy.
If I wanted too use a negative connotation for this act I would chose despicable, abominable, immoral, but cowardly? That’s the one thing it manifestly is not.

When they plan an attack they know they will kill civilians and they deliberatly chose to do so in order to get at their enemies. And that is how I see the terrorism campaign in the west, I doubt the the average bomber feel some great malice towards the victims he doesn’t know, they are just numbers, a means to put pressure and take away resources from the the western goverments.

The reason civilians isn’t a primary target for the US forces is that the conflict is so extremely assymetrical. In a real war, like say WWII the US forces killed hundred thousands of civilians as primary target in order to win. I’m sure they would do the same today if it could would further their objectives.

I don’t have a link now, but last time I saw this discussed, Busch and Americas war on terror has cost between 50 000 and 100 000 civilian lifes. Al-queda is simply competing out of is league for terrorism.

I’m sure that if you offered Osama and his merry men the opportunity to inflict massive damage to military and political targets at a distance, increase the civilian death toll by a factor of ten with negliable losses to themselves, and be the good guys at the same time, they will happily abstain from the beheadings and sucide bombings.

 

@Dendri, your accusations may be true, but the tactical commander would not have the authority to attack an embassy (nor would any member of the military). If such an attack was orchestrated it would have been authorized at much higher levels (i.e., the President).

Actually, joacqim, the nature of war has changed. If we go back in history, the victors raped the women and killed all males -- then salted the fields. In WWII the allies carpet bombed Berlin -- virtually nothing was left standing. Neither of these tactics are acceptable today. Mass killings of civilians are treated harshly by the international community and we try such criminal actions (granted, the US has refused to take part in this, which I think is a mistake).

In America, we understand that surgical strikes can be carried out in populated areas -- and we expect it. The average American finds indiscriminate killing offensive -- only military targets are acceptable. CNN has brought about many of these changes as Americans in general do not have the stomach for some of the harsher aspects of war.

Please back up that statement if you can. My experience has been the exact opposite -- the US military will call off missions where there are concerns for causing civilian casualties.

True, an image of bravery is the young man charging the machine gun nest, bullets flying all around as he sends his grenade into the enemy -- but that's not what's happening here is it? Instead we have the valiant fighter walking on a bus, standing bravely in the midst of vicious women, children and elderly. Boom. Yeah, he's a coward.

[ July 29, 2005, 20:42: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

It wasnt my intend to accuse. I guess my wording was too harsh. My point is that the US forces - or those commanding them - are apparently not above certain actions when it comes to, well, reaching their goals, no matter what the official line is they want others to believe. There was also the case of that italian journalist. Forgot her name. And reports of so many other shootings that leave you with a doubt, really.

Still, while much is heard of willfull destruction of archeological treasures and civilians dying in Iraq (and Afghanistan), I still want to think the US enforces a comparatively humane policy in its army. Most of the time.

 

These terrorists don't believe that they are dying. They are brainwashed to believe that they are going to heaven and are going to receive virgins and nubile young boys to use carnally for all eternity.

It is bravery or cowardice on the part of the terrorists who blows themselves up, it is avarice and ignorance.

Now for Bin Laden, Zarqawi and their ilk, pure cowardice, but then according to some, they are just following in the footsteps of their spiritual leader; Battle of Uhud

edit:

The Italian journalist was killed do to the incompetence of her "rescuers". You don't drive up on a checkpoint that is a hotbed for terrorist activities at high speed and not expect to get shot. The checkpoint was well established, marked, and the checkpoint was not notified that they would have any visitors.

 

Bruno you don’t strike me as stupid or slow, so I’m amazed you argue this way. How would you defeat the US overwhelming technological resource superiority? You can’t charge machine gun nests. Surveillance will inevitably pick you up and gunships and guided missiles will take out you people. If you wan’t to win you’ll have kick your enemy in the shins until they don’t want to play anymore, I see no other way, do you?

Fair enough, but would you concede that the US armed forces has inflicted more civilian deaths then al-queda? And what do you say to the last part of my post? Hitting civilians is sign of weakness, yet obviously many terrorists are not afraid to die, Don't you think they would rather killl US soldiers then women and children if that was an option?
Give al-queda cruise missiles and stealth bombers and you will almost certainly get a more sporting adversary. They can kill more civilians as collateral damage and put some real hurt in american military targets without having to blow themselves up in the process and they are suddenly nicer and braver people too.

 

Arawn,

I am sorry, but your opinion that these people would refrain from striking at civilian targets rings hallow given the rhetoric they use, that is incidentally quoted from their holy book.

Just one example:

 

And the rhetoric of the US to spare civilians is any less hollow? I dont think so.

I know its kind of totally off topic, but I cannot let it stand as it is.

Incompetent rescuers. Jau. Sgrena had something very different to say about that unfortunate incident. I assume all here have heard her version of the drama before, but for sake of backing up:

here

here


I need not mention what party has the far greater credibility.

With these 'incidents' happening I am not altogether sure I want to know what the Iraqis are going through in their own nation. I suppose there is very good reason for the US not to keep count of dead civilians.

Btw, I dont remember a thread in the Alley dealing with Sgrena and her little flirt with US bullets. That's odd.

 

I've read about the 100,000 deaths to Iraqi citizens -- if you look closely, the margin of error on the statistics is 92,000. Wow. I think the more accurate estimates are ~20,000 to 30,000 (which is still horrific). Of these, at least half have been caused by the insurgents. Also, the Iraqi forces have done a bit of damage themselves, but I guess you could classify them as US forces (I don't).

So, have the Americans cost more lives than AQ, probably -- but I would not concede the American forces have killed more civilians than the insurgents (including AQ operatives).

To be honest I do not believe AQ is capable doing anything other than terror-based attacks. Do I believe AQ would choose to attack military targets AT THE EXCLUSION of civilian targets? No, not ever. AQ had the opportunity to hit nearly any military target they wanted and instead hit the world trade towers.

The suicide terrorist is one of the most cowardly forms of criminal there is -- the murder-suicide. The murder-suicide criminal doesn't even have the balls to face punishment for the crime.

 

Yes we are off topic, but as it happens, evidence in the form of multiple satellite photos that show the car have been presented. It has been determined by measuring the distance traveled by the car and the time between the pictures that the car was in fact traveling at a high rate of speed.

Wow, that is a really convincing piece of evidence, especially as it is coming from someone who you have already admitted had a grudge against the US.

The Italians botched the job, and now they are scrambling to cover their mistake, and it fits perfectly with MS. Sgrena political objectives, so of course she is going to go along with it.

 

I started to rant. Then I reconsidered and decided to let that post speak all for itself.

In my opinion it does my job so much better.

 

Darkwolf, if you are into that stuff you can always find passages in holy books that encourage murder and mutilation.
Christianity for instance, has an impressive number of atrocities to it’s name, but in it’s present form it seem to have adopted to the modern world.
I see no reason why this will not be the fate of Islam as well. In the end there are always going to be some extremists that feels it’s necessary to blow up other people for some higher reason, but these Waco style faithful are much less dangerous if they aren't supported by normal people with rational grudges.


Bruno,

I’m going to google this tomorrow would you know any sources that support your claim?

AQ cannot win a battle of military attrition with the US. Only if this is possible, does it make sense to focus on military targets. The objective of 711 as I understood it, was to demonstrate the power of the organization, so the target was chosen for maximum attention. Hitting a number of military bases wouldn’t have made the same impact and wouldn’t have impaired the US military capabilties in any way.

Now I’m disappointed, do you wish to discuss this or rant?

And I still would like to know what you would do in their place, that is both effective and morally satisfactory.

 

Oh dear. Are we actually suggesting that the US military deliberately targeted this Italian journalist simply because she was critical of the US?

Paranoia's an interesting trait.

Unfortunately, terrorism isn't effective. So it's neither effective nor morally satisfactory. That dog won't hunt.

 

This thread is beginning to degenerate into an anti-US thread. Hmm...

 

So the enemy is not only evil, but stupid too. It's seems we won't get any further.