Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   War and Morality. Al Qaeda v USA
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 31 of 175 (621544)
06-26-2011 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Phat
06-26-2011 8:00 PM


Re: The Ideology Behind Global Terrorism
A base was in Afghanistan. They also used all the available resources in this mobile world and so were not tied to Afghanistan in any major way.
But Al Qaeda is still not Afghanistan or Iraq.
We did not invade Al Qaeda.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Phat, posted 06-26-2011 8:00 PM Phat has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 175 (621553)
06-26-2011 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by frako
06-26-2011 12:11 PM


frako writes:
And buzz if you read the quoran you will find that about 80% is IDENTICAL to the bible.
Yea the christian church was way more inventive when they killed someone who did not believe in their imaginary friend
Frako, two clarifications.
1. Christianity is based on the New Testament. Jesus and his apostles advocated no killing of anyone, even one's enemies for individuals. Jesus and his apostles were all martyred but killed none, unlike Mohammed and his apostles.
All religions are laced with some good in them to bring in the sheeple. The Koran is no exception
2. The Roman Catholic Vatican popish religion is contrary to what Jesus taught. They are the bloody killer church of medieval times. The only reason they do little of it now is because of the Reformation when they lost their empirical power.
Any Christians who kill and persecute for revenge or to force their religion on any one as Muslims and RCCs have done, historically, are not true Christians as per the Christian New Testament.
There are reasons for Jehovah advocating violence by his people the Jews in the OT. It would be off topic to explain that, but I've also covered that in past threads.
In the US there are more evangelicals than RCCs Prophetically in Revelation 17, 18, the RCC is described as the Mystery Babylon harlot entity. I've done threads on the atrocities of Vatican and the RCC. Click on Buzsaw and some of that's in my archived profile.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by frako, posted 06-26-2011 12:11 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 06-26-2011 11:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 41 by frako, posted 06-27-2011 4:33 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 33 of 175 (621563)
06-26-2011 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Buzsaw
06-26-2011 10:30 PM


Sense Of Duty
I was amazed that the majority of Al Qaeda were educated stable family men. They voluntarily enlisted at age 26. Many were not even religious before they became involved.
Jar always worries about US evangelicals being dangerous. Lets honestly think. IF the US became a second class poorer nation, such as Britain...could you see our young people getting a renaissance interest in becoming Christian "soldiers" to save our nation from being overwhelmed economically and culturally from other beliefs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 06-26-2011 10:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by onifre, posted 06-27-2011 10:04 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 34 of 175 (621573)
06-27-2011 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
06-25-2011 5:57 AM


there continue to be random and cowardly (in my opinion) acts of terrorism against troops and civilians alike.
How do you commit an act of "terrorism" against a uniformed soldier during a state of declared hostility?
If Al-Qaeda in Iraq had killed my middle school best friend (Staff Sgt. David Day) with a bomb dropped from an airplane instead of a bomb buried by a road, would anyone call that "terrorism"? Why does it matter where the bomb was?
I don't mean to lionize these people - they're an international network of religious zealots and criminals, a testament of the "power of faith" if ever there was one. But we're shooting and killing and bombing them and their families. I don't understand why we're supposed to think it's somehow not sporting for them to shoot and bomb back.
Why are these people under such enormous social and cultural pressure to fight us?
Because we're in their goddamn homes and holy cities and there's no reason for us to be, and we won't leave for any reason at all? Jesus, Phat, if a guy was in your house killing members of your family, and asking him to stop and leave hadn't had any effect at all, what the hell would you do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 06-25-2011 5:57 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Nuggin, posted 06-27-2011 1:40 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 175 (621574)
06-27-2011 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Phat
06-25-2011 2:25 PM


Re: Stop and think
It would be the same as if my neighbor had a rowdy house guest who scared my children and egged my car. Would it not be my neighbors responsibility to expel this house guest for the good of the neighborhood??
Exactly.
We're the guest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Phat, posted 06-25-2011 2:25 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Phat, posted 06-27-2011 12:08 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 36 of 175 (621579)
06-27-2011 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
06-27-2011 1:19 AM


How do you commit an act of "terrorism" against a uniformed soldier during a state of declared hostility?
If Al-Qaeda in Iraq had killed my middle school best friend (Staff Sgt. David Day) with a bomb dropped from an airplane instead of a bomb buried by a road, would anyone call that "terrorism"? Why does it matter where the bomb was?
I see your point and partially agree with you.
The Bush admin relied extremely heavily on the word terrorist to paint anyone they didn't like.
It's being over used. We are engaged in asymetric warfare. We're the big ones, they are the little ones. The little ones rarely engage in open battle. That's been true for THOUSANDS of years.
So, some of the people we're fighting against are guerillas.
However, some of them aren't targeting soldiers, or supply depots, or engaging in delaying or distruption of infrastructure. Some of them are blowing up Red Cross buildings. Some of them are attacking people waiting in line to vote.
Civilians die in war. It happens. But, when one side targets the civilian population with the express intent of making them feel unsafe for the purposes of effecting their political opinion, that is terrorism. They are instilling terror.
The problem is, it's virtually impossible to tell which is which, and obviously there is probably a great deal of bleed over between the two camps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2011 1:19 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by DBlevins, posted 06-27-2011 1:53 AM Nuggin has replied
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2011 11:17 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 37 of 175 (621580)
06-27-2011 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Nuggin
06-27-2011 1:40 AM


I'd say too that if you were a low-tech fighter fighting against a perceived threat, are you going to take on the tanks and/or trained well-equiped infantry or try to make your mark on easier targets, knowing that eventually or hopefully the people of that government will grow weary of the deaths and petition their government to withdraw.
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Nuggin, posted 06-27-2011 1:40 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Nuggin, posted 06-27-2011 2:35 AM DBlevins has replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 38 of 175 (621582)
06-27-2011 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by DBlevins
06-27-2011 1:53 AM


Soft Targets vs Terrorism
There is a distinction between a soft military target and civilians though, and that's important.
A fighter who blows up fuel truck at an army depot may kill some civilians in the process, but isn't necessarily a terrorist. He's taking out a supply chain.
A fighter that blows up a fuel truck that's unloading heating oil in a civilian neighborhood is clearly a terrorist.
The problem is they could easily be the same guy on two different days.
To the best of my knowledge, none of the groups we are currently dealing with has given any sort of a statement of what is or is not fair game.
I'd have a lot more respect for a group that said:
"Yes, we will use suicide bombers at check points, but no will not use a suicide bomber in a pizzeria."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by DBlevins, posted 06-27-2011 1:53 AM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by DBlevins, posted 06-27-2011 2:50 AM Nuggin has replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3776 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 39 of 175 (621583)
06-27-2011 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Nuggin
06-27-2011 2:35 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
I think the distinction on what is a terrorist and what is a freedom fighter is more complicated than what you describe.
Ie. Are soft targets at an army depot really soft? If the fuel truck depot for an army is one manned/driven by civilians, is it a terrorist act to blow it up knowing the fuel will be used by the tanks that intend to kill you? Does the pizzaria serve infantry as its primary customer base?
To the best of my knowledge, saying one thing is fair game or not and actually operating under those rules rarely happens.
It is my understanding that anytime two groups with a large disparity in strength/arms/technology apparant between them come into conflict, there will be asymetrical warfare and civilian deaths. (I am ignoring the obvious instances of civilian deaths glossed over by powers who are relatively equal and are excused by the theme: "It couldn't be helped" or, "They were contributing to our enemies warmachine.")
Edited by DBlevins, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Nuggin, posted 06-27-2011 2:35 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Nuggin, posted 06-27-2011 2:58 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 40 of 175 (621584)
06-27-2011 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by DBlevins
06-27-2011 2:50 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
I think it's easy enough to make a distinction.
Blowing up a restaurant, even one which serves soldiers, is still taking out a civilian target.
I mean, by the standards of "is there a soldier there", you can literally bomb anything as at some point some soldier is bound to walk into any given store which sells any given thing.
If the motive is to hurt the civilians so as to change their political outlook, that's terrorism.
If the motive is to hurt the occupying force so that they suffer losses, that's guerilla warfare.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by DBlevins, posted 06-27-2011 2:50 AM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 06-27-2011 9:05 AM Nuggin has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 41 of 175 (621589)
06-27-2011 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Buzsaw
06-26-2011 10:30 PM


And you think the "normal" Muslims dont mount the same defense as you just did against their fanatical brothers ??
They just interpret their book differently then the fanatics just like the old "church" interpreted the bible differently. Or do you think all muslims think its ok to kill infidels ??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 06-26-2011 10:30 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Pressie, posted 06-27-2011 7:23 AM frako has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 42 of 175 (621594)
06-27-2011 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by frako
06-27-2011 4:33 AM


Deliberately blowing up civilians is always an act of terror. No excuses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by frako, posted 06-27-2011 4:33 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by frako, posted 06-27-2011 8:27 AM Pressie has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 43 of 175 (621596)
06-27-2011 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Pressie
06-27-2011 7:23 AM


Of course where did i say anything opposite ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Pressie, posted 06-27-2011 7:23 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Pressie, posted 06-27-2011 9:02 AM frako has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 44 of 175 (621598)
06-27-2011 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by frako
06-27-2011 8:27 AM


fraco
I wasn't replying to what you wrote, but to what other people implied.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by frako, posted 06-27-2011 8:27 AM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by frako, posted 06-27-2011 10:53 AM Pressie has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 175 (621599)
06-27-2011 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Nuggin
06-27-2011 2:58 AM


Re: Soft Targets vs Terrorism
However civilian targets have long been recognized, particularly by the US and its allies as viable targets. Granted, with the availability of highly targetable weapons we may do less of that than we did when I was young but it is still done.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Nuggin, posted 06-27-2011 2:58 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Nuggin, posted 06-27-2011 9:36 AM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024