easilly surrender.
----------------------
If they will surrender so easily why shoot when they retreat? Bang.
I can completely understand the shoot on sight command in that instance though, it would have been very very dangerous to keep him alive.
....................
I think so to.
Are there war crimes being commited though (at least to the scale of some of the terrorist attacks on the US and other western countries)?
-------------------------------------
Not sure if it's a fair argument though - Terrorist attacks, by their very nature, have to be big and brash to garner attention and to be 'efficient' with the limited supplies and opportunities they get.
--------------------------
The key is who are they targeting. The World Trade Centre and the London underground are not strategic military targets. They were looking to kill civilians. The US and Ally forces for any wrongs they may have done over the course of the Iraq/Afghanistan are not targeting civilians.
Macca - Fair enough, i see what you mean. I can see why my first post reads a bit like I'm siding with the 'Thatcher death street party' brigade but that wasn't my intention. Whilst I'm not going to be out partying about it, I definitely don't have anything positive to say about her
Sounds awfully like an argument in support of large-scale terrorist attacks as a necessity. Do Special Branch know about you (if not i'm gonna send my friend an email )
--------------------------------
Stating a fact isn't supporting a group Like I've said countless times on this thread already, I would condemn both sides of this crappy war. Both go around killing indiscriminately.
Noam Chomsky calls American militarism state sponsored terrorism - Does it make him a supporter of Al Qaeda? Not at all, it makes him an opponent of war.
easilly surrender.
----------------------
If they will surrender so easily why shoot when they retreat? Bang.
------
because they are retreating to fight another day, not surrendering
If they will surrender so easily why shoot when they retreat?
.............
WTF?
The US and Ally forces for any wrongs they may have done over the course of the Iraq/Afghanistan are not targeting civilians.
------------------------
But they did in Vietnam
The US and Ally forces for any wrongs they may have done over the course of the Iraq/Afghanistan are not targeting civilians.
------------------------
But they did in Vietnam
-----
In the 60s
WTF?
-----------------------
The Belgrano you short minded simpleton! If the Argentinians were surrendering so easily, why destroy a boat that was leaving the war zone?
In the 60s
-------------------
Still happened.
The reason they use terrorist attacks is because they are weak.
Not mentally or willed or anything, just in terms of military strength they do not have the power to carry out their goals so they resort to terrorism.
The USA has the military strength to complete it goals so doesn't resort to terrorism.
They both kills lots of people, in fact the USA does it much more to other people than other people do it to Americans.
Whether one is morally better than the other seems a bit silly to me...
Would I rather get blown up by a fighter jet or a nutter with a bomb vest?
I couldn't care less.
WTF?
-----------------------
The Belgrano you short minded simpleton! If the Argentinians were surrendering so easily, why destroy a boat that was leaving the war zone?
-----
because after repair that ship could have taken hundreds of english lives..
was only working on the evidence you put in front of me.
----
From the guy who swallows what the mainstream media tell him wholesale.
Awww, you're so naive it's almost cute.
Keep soldiering on VC, your government really needs you and your ilk.
The Crusades also happened
In the 60s
-------------------
Still happened.
------
Yes, and the Romans committed genocide against millions. Let's place sanctions on Italy.
Yes, and the Romans committed genocide against millions. Let's place sanctions on Italy.
---------------------------------------------------
The Roman Empire is long gone - And note it wasn't 'Italy' it was 'Rome', the clue is in the name - The American Empire is still ticking along nicely. The idea that these attacks were 'unprovoked' is just as wrong as the actual attacks were.
The Belgrano you short minded simpleton!
...........
Was the Belgrano surrendering?
No, it wasn't, so again, WTF?
Why sink it? Because it was an enemy warship, full of the enemy, and enough fire powere to do damage to our forces.
Yes, and the Romans committed genocide against millions. Let's place sanctions on Italy.
---------------------------------------------------
The Roman Empire is long gone - And note it wasn't 'Italy' it was 'Rome', the clue is in the name - The American Empire is still ticking along nicely. The idea that these attacks were 'unprovoked' is just as wrong as the actual attacks were.
-----
I'm sorry, but you can't pick and choose what is relevant. We are living in the here and now, and in the here and now there are nutcases in the middle east determined to commit atrocities against our troops and civilian populations.
Does Dresden count as terrorism?
Perhaps somebody could help me out here?
There were certainly military targets in the City but the whole City itself was not a military target.
People have no trouble justifying that because we were at war with the Na.zis, a huge and terrifying enemy...
In comparison though we were much closer in terms of military strength to the Na.zi's than modern day terrorists are to the military strength of America.
Stating a fact isn't supporting a group Like I've said countless times on this thread already, I would condemn both sides of this crappy war. Both go around killing indiscriminately.
----------------
That where you are wrong
Al Qaedo deliberately targeted civilians. Hussain targteted civillions in his own country
We do not deliberately target Civilians, Do you not remember the precision of shock and awe?
Robb has stated that over a million civilians have died in Iraq since the invasion but doesn't mention that the majority have been killed by Iraqis rather than the coalistion
My eldest's mate's father is Iraqi and goes home regularly.
He says that it is probably worse than it was but in they are all glad Hussain was taken care of and thank goodness that the invasion was successful because if it had failed, well, we won't mention what the ramifications would have been with Hussain's finger back on the trigger
Would I rather get blown up by a fighter jet or a nutter with a bomb vest?
I couldn't care less.
...............
Which would be more likely on the streets of Manchester?
I don't think the RAF are going to bomb Mancheser. They might have a case for Liverpool.
The Belgrano you short minded simpleton! If the Argentinians were surrendering so easily, why destroy a boat that was leaving the war zone?
------------------------------------------------
No it wasn't - it was zig zagging around the 200 mile exclusion zone !
Was the Belgrano surrendering?
------------------------------------
You're not getting it If the Argentinians were surrendering so easily - which your argument really hinged upon - Why sink the Belgrano? Why not let them return home and never come back? Why not let them surrender and not kill them?
Sign in if you want to comment
Thatcher dies
Page 10 of 32
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
posted on 8/4/13
easilly surrender.
----------------------
If they will surrender so easily why shoot when they retreat? Bang.
posted on 8/4/13
I can completely understand the shoot on sight command in that instance though, it would have been very very dangerous to keep him alive.
....................
I think so to.
posted on 8/4/13
Are there war crimes being commited though (at least to the scale of some of the terrorist attacks on the US and other western countries)?
-------------------------------------
Not sure if it's a fair argument though - Terrorist attacks, by their very nature, have to be big and brash to garner attention and to be 'efficient' with the limited supplies and opportunities they get.
--------------------------
The key is who are they targeting. The World Trade Centre and the London underground are not strategic military targets. They were looking to kill civilians. The US and Ally forces for any wrongs they may have done over the course of the Iraq/Afghanistan are not targeting civilians.
posted on 8/4/13
Macca - Fair enough, i see what you mean. I can see why my first post reads a bit like I'm siding with the 'Thatcher death street party' brigade but that wasn't my intention. Whilst I'm not going to be out partying about it, I definitely don't have anything positive to say about her
posted on 8/4/13
Sounds awfully like an argument in support of large-scale terrorist attacks as a necessity. Do Special Branch know about you (if not i'm gonna send my friend an email )
--------------------------------
Stating a fact isn't supporting a group Like I've said countless times on this thread already, I would condemn both sides of this crappy war. Both go around killing indiscriminately.
Noam Chomsky calls American militarism state sponsored terrorism - Does it make him a supporter of Al Qaeda? Not at all, it makes him an opponent of war.
posted on 8/4/13
easilly surrender.
----------------------
If they will surrender so easily why shoot when they retreat? Bang.
------
because they are retreating to fight another day, not surrendering
posted on 8/4/13
If they will surrender so easily why shoot when they retreat?
.............
WTF?
posted on 8/4/13
The US and Ally forces for any wrongs they may have done over the course of the Iraq/Afghanistan are not targeting civilians.
------------------------
But they did in Vietnam
posted on 8/4/13
The US and Ally forces for any wrongs they may have done over the course of the Iraq/Afghanistan are not targeting civilians.
------------------------
But they did in Vietnam
-----
In the 60s
posted on 8/4/13
WTF?
-----------------------
The Belgrano you short minded simpleton! If the Argentinians were surrendering so easily, why destroy a boat that was leaving the war zone?
posted on 8/4/13
In the 60s
-------------------
Still happened.
posted on 8/4/13
The reason they use terrorist attacks is because they are weak.
Not mentally or willed or anything, just in terms of military strength they do not have the power to carry out their goals so they resort to terrorism.
The USA has the military strength to complete it goals so doesn't resort to terrorism.
They both kills lots of people, in fact the USA does it much more to other people than other people do it to Americans.
Whether one is morally better than the other seems a bit silly to me...
Would I rather get blown up by a fighter jet or a nutter with a bomb vest?
I couldn't care less.
posted on 8/4/13
WTF?
-----------------------
The Belgrano you short minded simpleton! If the Argentinians were surrendering so easily, why destroy a boat that was leaving the war zone?
-----
because after repair that ship could have taken hundreds of english lives..
posted on 8/4/13
was only working on the evidence you put in front of me.
----
From the guy who swallows what the mainstream media tell him wholesale.
Awww, you're so naive it's almost cute.
Keep soldiering on VC, your government really needs you and your ilk.
posted on 8/4/13
The Crusades also happened
posted on 8/4/13
In the 60s
-------------------
Still happened.
------
Yes, and the Romans committed genocide against millions. Let's place sanctions on Italy.
posted on 8/4/13
Ji - No probs
posted on 8/4/13
Yes, and the Romans committed genocide against millions. Let's place sanctions on Italy.
---------------------------------------------------
The Roman Empire is long gone - And note it wasn't 'Italy' it was 'Rome', the clue is in the name - The American Empire is still ticking along nicely. The idea that these attacks were 'unprovoked' is just as wrong as the actual attacks were.
posted on 8/4/13
The Belgrano you short minded simpleton!
...........
Was the Belgrano surrendering?
No, it wasn't, so again, WTF?
Why sink it? Because it was an enemy warship, full of the enemy, and enough fire powere to do damage to our forces.
posted on 8/4/13
Yes, and the Romans committed genocide against millions. Let's place sanctions on Italy.
---------------------------------------------------
The Roman Empire is long gone - And note it wasn't 'Italy' it was 'Rome', the clue is in the name - The American Empire is still ticking along nicely. The idea that these attacks were 'unprovoked' is just as wrong as the actual attacks were.
-----
I'm sorry, but you can't pick and choose what is relevant. We are living in the here and now, and in the here and now there are nutcases in the middle east determined to commit atrocities against our troops and civilian populations.
posted on 8/4/13
Does Dresden count as terrorism?
Perhaps somebody could help me out here?
There were certainly military targets in the City but the whole City itself was not a military target.
People have no trouble justifying that because we were at war with the Na.zis, a huge and terrifying enemy...
In comparison though we were much closer in terms of military strength to the Na.zi's than modern day terrorists are to the military strength of America.
posted on 8/4/13
Stating a fact isn't supporting a group Like I've said countless times on this thread already, I would condemn both sides of this crappy war. Both go around killing indiscriminately.
----------------
That where you are wrong
Al Qaedo deliberately targeted civilians. Hussain targteted civillions in his own country
We do not deliberately target Civilians, Do you not remember the precision of shock and awe?
Robb has stated that over a million civilians have died in Iraq since the invasion but doesn't mention that the majority have been killed by Iraqis rather than the coalistion
My eldest's mate's father is Iraqi and goes home regularly.
He says that it is probably worse than it was but in they are all glad Hussain was taken care of and thank goodness that the invasion was successful because if it had failed, well, we won't mention what the ramifications would have been with Hussain's finger back on the trigger
posted on 8/4/13
Would I rather get blown up by a fighter jet or a nutter with a bomb vest?
I couldn't care less.
...............
Which would be more likely on the streets of Manchester?
I don't think the RAF are going to bomb Mancheser. They might have a case for Liverpool.
posted on 8/4/13
The Belgrano you short minded simpleton! If the Argentinians were surrendering so easily, why destroy a boat that was leaving the war zone?
------------------------------------------------
No it wasn't - it was zig zagging around the 200 mile exclusion zone !
posted on 8/4/13
Was the Belgrano surrendering?
------------------------------------
You're not getting it If the Argentinians were surrendering so easily - which your argument really hinged upon - Why sink the Belgrano? Why not let them return home and never come back? Why not let them surrender and not kill them?
Page 10 of 32
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15