UN troops unable to return fire

[MobBoss]

First, the Hezbollah aren't terrorists according to every government on the planet but six.

Rofl. Perhaps those are the 6 they terrorize?

And with any luck that will soon become 5 or even less if the US drops the designation, which is quite possible now that we don't have a madman in the White House.

Second, according to the Israelis, they are all terrorists or they are protecting the terorists with their bodies. Hence, they can all be killed with impunity even if they happen to be UN observers.

Uhm. No.

 

[Gooblah]

Rofl. Perhaps those are the 6 they terrorize?



Uhm. No.

Before I begin, let me just say that you use '' wayyy too often, mate. Try this: or to spice up the posts; the sea of puce-shaded green is just...odd.

Anywho:

There are many nations which have not been terrorized by Al-Qaeda, but still place al-Qaeda on their watchlists (for example, China, India, South Korea, Zimbabwe, Mauritius Japan, Sweden, Turkey and Russia, among others). The idea that an organization is placed on a terrorism watchlist only after one of their attacks harms their nation is simply wrong.

 

[amadeus]

First, the Hezbollah aren't terrorists according to every government on the planet but six.

Islamic Jihad is classified as such also by only 6 states and the European Union.
FARC and the Shining Path by only 3 states and the EU.
The Real Irish Republican Army by only two states.

So tell me how Malawi's comprehensive terrorist organization identification scheme makes Hezbollah less of the Marine-killing savages that they are?

 

[cardgame]

I think this is relevant:

 

[Formaldehyde]

So tell me how Malawi's comprehensive terrorist organization identification scheme makes Hezbollah less of the Marine-killing savages that they are?

Because the US and Israel no longer have an credibility with this particular excuse to commit their own atrocities anymore?

So tell me how Israeli and US terrorism is any different with any form you find so personally reprehensible?

Note the date:

http://www.fff.org/comment/ed1299f.asp

U.S. Acts of Terrorism
by Jacob G. Hornberger, December 1999

"The U.S. government is warning American citizens to beware of "terrorist" attacks all over the world, including the U.S. Our government has attacked and bombed people in Iraq, Serbia, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, and many others. Today, we have embargoes against Cuba and Iraq, which are creating misery and death for innocent children. All this without any declarations of war, as required by the Constitution. Why are these actions considered legitimate "acts of war" while retaliatory counterattacks are considered illegitimate "acts of terrorism"? The other problem is that with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. government affirmed the principle that it is okay to target civilians in retaliation for the warlike actions of their government. So, unfortunately, the so-called terrorists target us -- the American people -- for the wrongful actions of our government. I don't know about you but I'm hanging a sign outside my office building that says, 'I stand against what the U.S. government has done and is doing to people around the world. Don't bomb this building!'"

It's all about blowback.


Link to video.

 

[MobBoss]

Before I begin, let me just say that you use '' wayyy too often, mate. Try this: or to spice up the posts; the sea of puce-shaded green is just...odd.

Do I tell you how to post? Didnt I also use a in that post? /sheesh.

And yes, the roll-eyes smiley is quite deserved for someone who alleges we had a madman in the white house.

There are many nations which have not been terrorized by Al-Qaeda, but still place al-Qaeda on their watchlists (for example, China, India, South Korea, Zimbabwe, Mauritius Japan, Sweden, Turkey and Russia, among others). The idea that an organization is placed on a terrorism watchlist only after one of their attacks harms their nation is simply wrong.

You complain about my using the roll-eyes smiley and then ignore utterly the laugh smiley I put at the end of that comment about that.

I guess there is no pleasing some people.

 

[MobBoss]

Because the US and Israel no longer have an credibility in this particular atrocitiy excuse anymore?

Of course they still do. Absolutely.

You put way too much stock on your opinion on the matter.

So tell me how Israeli and the US terrorism is any different?

Uhm...probably the simple fact that what you (or those lefty links you continually refer to) call terrorism....isnt terrorism.

 

[Verbose]

Fomaldehyde: "Second, according to the Israelis, they are all terrorists or they are protecting the terorists with their bodies. Hence, they can all be killed with impunity even if they happen to be UN observers."

Uhm. No.

You're right, they may not be killed with impunity. But once they end up dead nevertheless, they were apparently all protecting terrorists...

 

[Patroklos]

The terrorist wants you to shoot those innocent civilians. That's what asymmetrical warfare is all about; sure, you kill him, but he doesn't care, because it makes you look bad internationally, and it shows the other civilians around that you don't care about them, only about your objectives, only about killing the enemy. He's fanatical - are you? By justifying your actions with his, you lower yourself to his level. Don't do that.

This is not correct. The terrorists want to not die themselves and bank on our (rather your) unwillingness to potentially endanger civilians to do so. Every time you afford them saftey by doing so, you validate this tactic ensuring it becomes widespread. Unfortunetly for you what you are also doing is affording them a secure base from which to more effectively conduct their actual operations, which in most cases today also involve the deliberate death of civilians.

The really screwed up thing given your warped perceptions is that you will blame the opponents of the terrorists for BOTH sets of civilian endangerment

The collateral damage thing is a recent development, and it is born out of unrealistic expectations gained most probably through TV and movies and unfortunetly through our own boasting. We have made it a point to always talk about how technologically awesome we are without ever qualifying it to the point were poeple think it actually is an option to send in the Rangers/SEALS/Green Berets ever time a terrorists hides out in a school. Its not, it never has been, and it will never be this way.

In reality we should be holding the terrorists accountable for every civilian death required for their capture that was caused by their choice of sanctuary as a war crime (as it very much is). The gallows would become very busy, and the tactic would lose its validation.

That implies that the only way to defeat an enemy engaged in "asymmetrical warfare" is to attack targets indiscriminately, and that indiscriminate attacks on terrorist targets leads to them "losing, and losing badly."

No it doesn't, and there is no rational way to come to this conclusion. You yourself mention the discriminatating method, that being "terrorist targets.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This is not correct. The terrorists want to not die themselves and bank on our (rather your) unwillingness to potentially endanger civilians to do so. Every time you afford them saftey by doing so, you validate this tactic ensuring it becomes widespread. Unfortunetly for you what you are also doing is affording them a secure base from which to more effectively conduct their actual operations, which in most cases today also involve the deliberate death of civilians.

The really screwed up thing given your warped perceptions is that you will blame the opponents of the terrorists for BOTH sets of civilian endangerment

The collateral damage thing is a recent development, and it is born out of unrealistic expectations gained most probably through TV and movies and unfortunetly through our own boasting. We have made it a point to always talk about how technologically awesome we are without ever qualifying it to the point were poeple think it actually is an option to send in the Rangers/SEALS/Green Berets ever time a terrorists hides out in a school. Its not, it never has been, and it will never be this way.

I assume you never understood the concept of passive-aggressive bullying, then? Wonder how you got through school at all.

I understand how these guys work, Pat. But which is more important: killing a few terrorist baddies, or not killing completely innocent people? The answer here should be very obvious if you have the remotest sense of morality. Otherwise, you're just as bad as they are, just as fanatical, but arguably far more dangerous than they. The worst part is that we should know better than to do this sort of thing.

Or are you also willing to drop to their level?

In reality we should be holding the terrorists accountable for every civilian death required for their capture that was caused by their choice of sanctuary as a war crime (as it very much is). The gallows would become very busy, and the tactic would lose its validation.

Typical attitude: blame someone else for your crimes. If you kill an innocent person, it doesn't matter why you did it, its still murder.

 

[Patroklos]

I understand how these guys work, Pat. But which is more important: killing a few terrorist baddies, or not killing completely innocent people?

Both are impossible choices, that only exist in your head. The choices in reality are killing less people short term and more people long term (more people total), or more people short term and less people long term (less people total). Those are your only choices. I would guess you would pick the first out of a selfish desire to pretend you are preserving inoccent lives and an inability to make the hard but correct choice.

The answer here should be very obvious if you have the remotest sense of morality. Otherwise, you're just as bad as they are, just as fanatical, but arguably far more dangerous than they. The worst part is that we should know better than to do this sort of thing.

You keep saying this as if it is self evident when any cursory examination of reality shows that this is obvious bunk. You really need to flesh this out, because right now you are pretty much advocating to destuction of countless civilians so you can have a warm fuzzy.

Or are you also willing to drop to their level?

Again, a platitude you have obviously not thought through. Why don't you go ahead and exlain you reasoning to us.

Typical attitude: blame someone else for your crimes. If you kill an innocent person, it doesn't matter why you did it, its still murder.

You are caught in a causality fallacy. It is a common thing amougnst the selfish such as yourself.

 

[RedRalph]

'Man excusing the death of innocent others calls opponent selfish'... it's like a headline from the Onion

 

[El_Machinae]

Us on the right need to get our stories straight about UN peacekeepers, because I think we tend to criticize the UN for not shooting at militants, etc. in the Congo, but at the same time we don't want them to become an all-powerful international police force that has extrajudicial powers on sovereign soil.

And man do I agree with this statement. You should say it more often.
The problem with fixing the UN is the schizophrenia associated with its criticism. Now, I'm a big fan of giving the UN a greater mandate when it comes to stopping civilian death, but I can understand the concern people have with its ability to violate sovereign soil. I just wish the discussions weren't two-mouthed, as you're pointing out here.

 

[Patroklos]

'Man excusing the death of innocent others calls opponent selfish'... it's like a headline from the Onion

Are your skills at basic arithmetic also as attrocious as Chezzy's? You must be appalled at the Allied invasion of France and the Soviet Vistual offensive then right? I mean, you would have to be to avoid being a hypocrite.

There is actually a very easy way for Chezzy to justify himself ideologically if not logically, he simply doesn't want to resort to it.

 

[RedRalph]

Are your skills at basic arithmetic also as attrocious as Chezzy's? You must be appalled at the Allied invasion of France and the Soviet Vistual offensive then right? I mean, you would have to be to avoid being a hypocrite.

Oh dont get me wrong, I dont neccesarily agree with everything he says, and I dont disagree with everything you say, but you calling him selfish is hilarious... one of your completely nonsensical attacks.

 

[Patroklos]

The problem with the UN is the schizophrenia associated with its criticism. Now, I'm a big fan of giving the UN a greater mandate when it comes to stopping civilian death, but I can understand the concern people have with its ability to violate sovereign soil. I just wish the discussions weren't two-mouthed, as you're pointing out here.

I don't really see the problem here. The sovereignty issue is settled by the decision to go in or not. That is such a laborious and labyrinthine process that there is no threat of a global army destroying nations on a whim. However, if a mission does get through that process intact it should be for real, all the stops.

 

[Patroklos]

Oh dont get me wrong, I dont neccesarily agree with everything he says, and I dont disagree with everything you say, but you calling him selfish is hilarious... one of your completely nonsensical attacks.

It is entirely appropriate. His arguement is that he can't abide being responsible for civilian deaths, and he is willing to let any number of civilains die to avoid that responsibility

Are the problems with that position not readily apparent to you?!?

BTW, I jumped down your throat there for no reason above, it was almost automatic. I apologize publically, I am trying to be more civil with you and Form

 

[RedRalph]

It is entirely appropriate. His arguement is that he can't abide being responsible for civilian deaths, and he is willing to let any number of civilains die to avoid that responsibility

Are the problems with that position not readily apparent to you?!?

Jesus H. Christ... you can disagree with him all you want, but there is nothing selfish about his position whatsoever. He takes a different moral view of the situation than you do, its not to indemnify himself against responsibility. You calling him selfish makes about as much sense as him calling you pacifist.

Honestly, does this type of double-speak ever fly?

Edit: Yeah fair enough, we can all get a bit sharp with eachother. I'll try and keep it more civil myself.

 

[El_Machinae]

This is not correct. The terrorists want to not die themselves and bank on our (rather your) unwillingness to potentially endanger civilians to do so.

I don't know if I agree with this. The cohort that most populates terrorist or militant ranks are people who're liking to be 'willing to die for a cause'. The young male, given propaganda and an enemy, is a pretty self-destructive being. I've seen this in the gang lifestyle, and I only imagine that it's massively escalated in an actual conflict.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Come on guys! There's plenty of blame to go around. When collateral damage occurs because the enemy is hiding in civilian areas, the blame goes to both the party that does the blowing up and the party that does the hiding. Both are responsible for civilian deaths since both had the option to avoid those civilian deaths. Now both will argue that they'll risk those civilian deaths in for a greater cause. It's all pots and kettles I'm afraid.

You have also forgotten the other part of asymmetrical warfare - the bleeding heart who complains about war being so harsh since poor innocents get killed in the process. Without that person, asymmetrical warfare fails. You, yourself are playing an important part in the terrorists plan. Without you whining and crying about collateral damage, they lose, and lose badly.

This is just wrong and a transparent way to make those who disagree with you into the bad guys who make the terrorist win. It's the Fox News of reasoning. The terrorist do not rely on the bleeding hearts on the opposing side, they rely on the moderates on their side to be outraged over collateral damage.