we say terrorists kill innocent people...

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:

I'd call babies and little kids with their arms and legs blown off innocent.

Yes. So it's kind of obvious that I'm not talking about them. :wink:

I am referring to the people who can vote and who can influence their society, either by ingenuity or sheer numbers. If those people don't give a damn about what happens elswhere in the world, are they innocent?

And we blow as many arms and legs off "innocent" babies and little kids as do the terrorists. (Not that that changes the equation!)

Frank Apisa wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:

I'd call babies and little kids with their arms and legs blown off innocent.

Yes. So it's kind of obvious that I'm not talking about them. :wink:

I am referring to the people who can vote and who can influence their society, either by ingenuity or sheer numbers. If those people don't give a damn about what happens elswhere in the world, are they innocent?

And we blow as many arms and legs off "innocent" babies and little kids as do the terrorists. (Not that that changes the equation!)

The difference is that we do not target them inentionally. Civilians have been getting killed in wars since wars began, but Islamic and Palestinian terrorists target them specifically. Anyone who does such a thing is deserving of execution for crimes against humanity.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:

I'd call babies and little kids with their arms and legs blown off innocent.

Yes. So it's kind of obvious that I'm not talking about them. :wink:

I am referring to the people who can vote and who can influence their society, either by ingenuity or sheer numbers. If those people don't give a damn about what happens elswhere in the world, are they innocent?

And we blow as many arms and legs off "innocent" babies and little kids as do the terrorists. (Not that that changes the equation!)

The difference is that we do not target them inentionally. Civilians have been getting killed in wars since wars began, but Islamic and Palestinian terrorists target them specifically. Anyone who does such a thing is deserving of execution for crimes against humanity.

What the fuk are you talking about???

Do you really think dropping a fukin' atom bomb in the middle of a city filled with men, women, children, and babies....WAS NOT INTENTIONAL???

And we blow as many arms and legs off "innocent" babies and little kids as do the terrorists.

Indeed, the truth is that we do not now, as a matter of policy, intentionally target non-combatants, whereas it's pretty much a trademark for the Palestinians, who do it all the time.

Brandon wrote:

Indeed, the truth is that we do not now, as a matter of policy, intentionally target non-combatants, whereas it's pretty much a trademark for the Palestinians, who do it all the time.

Where does the line go between warrior and non-combatant?

The guy shooting the rifle is a combatant.

What about the guy driving the car he shoots from?
The guy who sent them there in the first place?
The guys who decided it was neccesary?
The people in their network?
The people in interjecting networks?


Where would you draw the line?

A soldier is a combatant. But what about a medic?
I have very strong objections to calling an army medic a non combatant.

It's a pity that you can't control yourself.

It's no virtue in a debate to swear, and argue like a child.

Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only times when we targetted civilians, and it was wrong, but it was also a long, long time ago.

You, however used the present tense, and implied that we currently do it regularly:

Quote:

And we blow as many arms and legs off "innocent" babies and little kids as do the terrorists.

Indeed, the truth is that we do not now, as a matter of policy, intentionally target non-combatants, whereas it's pretty much a trademark for the Palestinians, who do it all the time. Apparently the difference between the unintended civilian casualties that have always happened in every war, and the deliberate targetting of non-combatants by the Palestinians is too subtle for you to perceive.

Brandon9000 wrote:

It's a pity that you can't control yourself.

I can control myself. It is a pity you cannot think.

Quote:

It's no virtue in a debate to swear, and argue like a child.

Bite me!

Quote:

Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only times when we targetted civilians, and it was wrong, but it was also a long, long time ago.

Do the names Dresden and Tokyo mean anything to you??? We fire bombed both cities while they were filled with "innocent" civilians. And we targeted many, many other cities also.

Wake the hell up.

Killing innocents...ON PURPOSE...is a part of war...and we have engaged in it regularly.

Quote:

You, however used the present tense, and implied that we currently do it regularly:

Gimme a fukin' break, will ya. We kill innocents over in Iraq all the goddam time.

Wake up!

Quote:

Quote:

And we blow as many arms and legs off "innocent" babies and little kids as do the terrorists.

Indeed, the truth is that we do not now, as a matter of policy, intentionally target non-combatants, whereas it's pretty much a trademark for the Palestinians, who do it all the time. Apparently the difference between the unintended civilian casualties that have always happened in every war, and the deliberate targetting of non-combatants by the Palestinians is too subtle for you to perceive.

Oh horseshyt.

I am as appalled by what some extremists do in this world as you are...and my indignation is every bit as great. But I don't post bullshyt trying to pretend that this kind of conduct is limited to "Palestinians" as you put it.

Well, if you're okay with your childish behavior then proceed. I'm sure it gives your case a lot more credibility.

No, in fact we do not now deliberately target non-combatants as the intended victims of an attack. If you disagree, just give me one counter-example, and don't give me something from decades ago. The Palestinians and the various Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, do it very frequently.

Even if you manage to find one or two cases in modern times

..., and I'm waiting for you to find even one, they do it all the time. It's their trademark.

I know you hate America...

... but you don't have the facts on your side.

When you show up in a marketplace and detonate a nail bomb, or firebomb a school bus, you're a murdering swine - period. Perhaps you're proud of yourself for trying to argue that such acts are understandable, but I wouldn't be.

Where does the line go between warrior and non-combatant?

The guy shooting the rifle is a combatant.

What about the guy driving the car he shoots from?
The guy who sent them there in the first place?
The guys who decided it was neccesary?
The people in their network?
The people in interjecting networks?


Where would you draw the line?

A soldier is a combatant. But what about a medic?
I have very strong objections to calling an army medic a non combatant.

Quote:

No, in fact we do not now deliberately target non-combatants as the intended victims of an attack. If you disagree, just give me one counter-example, and don't give me something from decades ago. The Palestinians and the various Islamic terrorists, on the other hand, do it very frequently.

Re-read what I've written so far...and do it this time with your head outside your ass.

If we deliberately target an area where there are non-combatants (AND WE HAVE TO TARGET AREAS WHERE THERE ARE NON-COMBATANTS, FOR CRISSAKE)...

...we are deliberately targeting non-combatants.

If you are saying that we do NOT deliberately target areas where there are non-combatants...re-read the sentence dealing with where your head should be (or should not be) while reading and posting.

...

Brandon9000 wrote:

..., and I'm waiting for you to find even one, they do it all the time. It's their trademark.

Stop waiting. I've already done it. You musta been sleeping.
....

brandon wrote:

When you show up in a marketplace and detonate a nail bomb, or firebomb a school bus, you're a murdering swine - period. Perhaps you're proud of yourself for trying to argue that such acts are understandable, but I wouldn't be.

I think you're too emotional about the issue to have an open mind on it.

I'm saying that these acts, in all their horror, are provoked by something. No one blows himself up on a whim.
What makes a suicidebomber so angry that he goes such extremes?

Cyracuz wrote:

Where does the line go between warrior and non-combatant?

The guy shooting the rifle is a combatant.

What about the guy driving the car he shoots from?
The guy who sent them there in the first place?
The guys who decided it was neccesary?
The people in their network?
The people in interjecting networks?


Where would you draw the line?

A soldier is a combatant. But what about a medic?
I have very strong objections to calling an army medic a non combatant.

It's a given in labelling humanity that no term is an absolute. There is not just Black and White, there is a whole gray spectrum in between.
Combatant and non-combatant are terms that 'suffer' from this as well.
There is no clear line dividing combatants from no-combatants for whole groups of people.
For instance the medics. Non-Combatants? Aye. They are there on the battlefield trying to alleviate pain and misery, and do not participate in fights. Combatants? They are enlisted in the army, and largely through their efforts soldiers otherwise disabled can fight again.
But even if we COULD clearly seperate the jobs into combatant and non-combatant, this does NOT necessarily mean it applies to any given situation. Say someone bombs a pub which is a known recreational spot for soldiers of duty. Are those soldiers that die in the attack combatants? Or non-combatants?

Targetting civilians in a war is a most regrettable, but very effective, tactic. Spread enough terror, threaten with more, and panic will simply paralyze regions economically and socially. Since it's effective, it will always be used. It's laudable to try and control this by making international rules, but it's ultimately useless, since it's not in the advantage of the most powerfull to limit their options.

Cyracuz wrote:

brandon wrote:

When you show up in a marketplace and detonate a nail bomb, or firebomb a school bus, you're a murdering swine - period. Perhaps you're proud of yourself for trying to argue that such acts are understandable, but I wouldn't be.

I think you're too emotional about the issue to have an open mind on it.

I'm saying that these acts, in all their horror, are provoked by something. No one blows himself up on a whim.
What makes a suicidebomber so angry that he goes such extremes?

What makes a serial killer so angry that he murders people? My primary concern is to take out the trash, not to analyze it. That is, at most, a lesser concern.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

brandon wrote:

When you show up in a marketplace and detonate a nail bomb, or firebomb a school bus, you're a murdering swine - period. Perhaps you're proud of yourself for trying to argue that such acts are understandable, but I wouldn't be.

I think you're too emotional about the issue to have an open mind on it.

I'm saying that these acts, in all their horror, are provoked by something. No one blows himself up on a whim.
What makes a suicidebomber so angry that he goes such extremes?

What makes a serial killer so angry that he murders people? My primary concern is to take out the trash, not to analyze it. That is, at most, a lesser concern.

Is anger the only reason a suicide bomber might murder people?

How about virgins in paradise and a handsome stash of loot left for the family? You speak as though anger is the only reason they do this.

Do you know what $30,000 is to the average Palestinian family?