PDA

View Full Version : The difference between a soldier and a terrorist.



Ronin
2nd September 04, 03:32 PM
The difference between a soldier and a terrorist.

I can only speak for myself on this one, but I am sure that the other current/former military men will, hopefully, chime in.

Have I served in active duty ?
Yes.
Peacekeeper in Bosnia in ‘98.
Did I kill anyone?
Yes.
How many?
I try NOT to remember.
Why?

Because I take no joy, or any pride in the knowledge that, I live in a world that requires me to kill so that other(s) may live.
I remember every single face of the men I killed.
Every single one of them.
I remember their eyes.
Do I regret it?
I regret I live in a world where killing is a necessity in some cases.
I have never killed out of hatred, never indiscriminately, EVER.

Even that certain bastard that, along with 3 others, was trying to rape that little girl, that bastard that I put a bullet in to stop them, that situation that cost me to leave the army, I don’t hate him.

I did what I had to, to protect.

And THAT is what made me different than those who strap bombs to themselves, that kill children out of anger and hatred.

Wither or not you agree, I don’t care.
This, I needed to say.

Paul

cyrijl
2nd September 04, 03:38 PM
there is a difference. Unfortunately it sometimes depends where you are standing. I don't buy that the war in a iraq is for occupation. I wish it were. If this was a war for occupation you'd see us killing alot more ppl and taking better care of oil and resources.

Gelid Light
2nd September 04, 03:42 PM
Ronin, I hope you realize that untold millions of civilians have died in wars simply because they were there, and that there are untold millions more of their living relatives still wandering the world who are likely to get very, very angry when someone is cavalier about the issue of civilian deaths.

Ronin
2nd September 04, 03:43 PM
Did you even READ my post ?

LLL
2nd September 04, 03:44 PM
ronin;

I really like you as a person; but your description does not really present any difference.

Most 'terrorists' have the same ideals; they just don't have any other support / weapons than strapping bombs to themselves...

& sorry if I sound like a terrorist supporter... but generally my view is that armies and terrorists are basically two sides of the same shit; the ones who are currently in control are the 'army' and the others are the 'terrorists'.

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 03:44 PM
To Ronin's point, while I have not served in the miltary, I have in recent years become close to a man who served in WW2.

In talking with him, it is clear how much what he experience more that sixty years ago still effects him. I have no idea how many he had to kill. But I can tell you he took no pleasure it in. He had no blood lust. He doesn't regret what he did. But he still has to live with it each and every day, in much the same ways that Ronin describes.

And he still remembers the people that he did help liberate and what they looked like. I'm not sure if there is ever such a thing a just war. I also think those who attack people who have served without attempting to understand what they went through are ignorant and indefensible.

- Matt

Shuma-Gorath
2nd September 04, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by LLL
Most 'terrorists' have the same ideals; they just don't have any other support / weapons than strapping bombs to themselves...

Stop and think about what you are saying for a second.

Soldier: "War is Hell."
Terrorist: "KILL ALL THE INFIDELS!"


Do you see a difference there?

LLL
2nd September 04, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Shumagorath
Stop and think about what you are saying for a second.

Soldier: "War is Hell."
Terrorist: "KILL ALL THE INFIDELS!"


Do you see a difference there?

Do most of people who go to war say 'war is hell'. No... People who have already been in wars say that.

People, like the American teenagers who are going to Iraq, say "I'm going to war and become a great badass hero like my grandfather."

Ronin
2nd September 04, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by LLL
Do most of people who go to war say 'war is hell'. No... People who have already been in wars say that.

People, like the American teenagers who are going to Iraq, say "I'm going to war and become a great badass hero like my grandfather."

Those are far and few between.


I said:
"Because I take no joy, or any pride in the knowledge that, I live in a world that requires me to kill so that other(s) may live.
I remember every single face of the men I killed.
Every single one of them.
I remember their eyes.
Do I regret it?
I regret I live in a world where killing is a necessity in some cases.
I have never killed out of hatred, never indiscriminately, EVER."

That sounds like something a terrorist would say ?

Gelid Light
2nd September 04, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by ronin69
Did you even READ my post ?

Certainly I did. Marvelous. But have you read between the lines of mine? I took your post to be a contextualization of your earlier remarks, and so I made my own offering in that spirit.

Ronin
2nd September 04, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Gelid Light
Certainly I did. Marvelous. But have you read between the lines of mine? I took your post to be a contextualization of your earlier remarks, and so I made my own offering in that spirit.

Your sarcasam, "Marvelous", says it all.

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by LLL
Most 'terrorists' have the same ideals; they just don't have any other support / weapons than strapping bombs to themselves... The issue is that terrorists specifically target civilian areas and only civilian areas.

There are times duringa war, typically for attacking industreal lines that civilians unfortunately are caught in the cross fire. Dresden was an example of that.

However in modern warfare, see the latest Iraq invasion, there were great steps to avoid civilian bombing casualties.

However, also note that opposing forces in the Iraq war and past ones, will hide in civilian areas in order to protect themselves (snipers would often do this) or at times to strategically increase their own civilian casualties to make the opposing side seem worse in world view (this has been common in the current war).

All that being said, no one gets out clean. The dropping of the Second Atomic bomb in my mind was a completely immoral action.

But overall there is a big distinction.

- Matt

Gelid Light
2nd September 04, 03:55 PM
Is there a not-being-sarcastic emote?

Gezere
2nd September 04, 03:56 PM
People, like the American teenagers who are going to Iraq, say "I'm going to war and become a great badass hero like my grandfather."

Trust me the majority of them are not saying that. Many are scared for their lives and many pray just to get through each day without being a target of a suicide bomb. IED attack, or ambush.

Afaghan is no joke either. I was only there for 2 weeks to change out some equipment and and the troops there have no deliusion of being a war hero. Hell if it wasn't for my accident I would be back there now and just me everyone that is there from my unit just want to come home as quick as possible.

LLL
2nd September 04, 03:57 PM
I don't know any terrorists, so who knows. & I never intend to kill anyone, though obviously I like to think that I could do it if it was the only choice, as probably most people do...

& I totally respect you Ronin, but I think one fucking huge problem generally is that everyone sees the other people as monsters who should not be understood... Which is exacty how the 'terrorists' see the world...

cyrijl
2nd September 04, 03:57 PM
People have become so apathetic to decision making that terrorism is now ok. I saw an interesitng talk on terrorism by Dershowitz (not exactly a raving conservative). He talked about ppl struggling for freedom and the use of terror. It was interesting becuz even he realizes there is nothing you can do except kill them. This from soneone who said he'd defend hitler in court in order to ensure a fair trial

It does not bother me much intellectually to hear that iraqi ppl are killing american soldiers in iraq becuz they may be freedom fighters. But when Chechnians blow up two planes nowhere near the caucuses you have got to be an absolute idiot to call them freedom fighters. When nepalese workers are killed for no reason becuz "they are working for jews and christians and worship buddha." You need to be honest enough to say there is a difference.

When did we becomes so lame and afraid to make statements and decisions--to be decisive? And what happens when the US and the world does not intervene? Rhwanda, uganda, hell the whole of africa.

War is inevitable. Ronin does not take joy in that, but he, like the previous millions who have passed form the earth realize that resources are finite and expansion entails war. You are right there are untold millions. But there are also millions who are now free becuz of war. And I thank a god, the god, some god, hell i thanks the indian guy at the convenience store becuz i am one of them.

Shuma-Gorath
2nd September 04, 03:57 PM
That's still different than going to Iraq so they have the chance to kill iraqi civilians.

I wouldn't sign up to go to Iraq myself, but I respect the people who are there. Now, if there was ever another threat to civilization equal to the nazis, I'd sign up to fight that. No, it wouldn't be "fun", but it's better than willfull idleness in times where innocent people are being exterminated on the order of thousands.


Originally posted by LLL
I totally respect you Ronin, but I think one fucking huge problem generally is that everyone sees the other people as monsters who should not be understood... Which is exacty how the 'terrorists' see the world...

You can try to understand a terrorist as much as you want, but he's still going to try to kill you. The difference is that (ignoring the draft) once one side begins to view the enemy has sub-human that's how the other side must react towards them. Note that this applies only to SOLIDERS and not civilians. Another large problem in Iraq and conflicts like it is that you have "civilians" who are perfectly willing to pick up a gun and attack soldiers.

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by LLL
People, like the American teenagers who are going to Iraq, say "I'm going to war and become a great badass hero like my grandfather." There are always assholes. But a better question is how many folks who go in like that come out the same way? At the risk of bringing politics into this, Kerry's an example of someone who went gung ho into Vietnam and came out a different person.

TylerDurden
2nd September 04, 03:58 PM
You are assuming every terrorist takes pleasure in killing, and there is no way to know that. I am sure they view themselves and soldiers, and the people they are killing are the enemy. I agree there is a difference between shooting at armed military units and bombing a shopping mall. But the line is not so clear and concise as you might like to think. It's shades of gray.

JOHN DOE
2nd September 04, 03:58 PM
the diiference is what side your on.middle east people do bombing's becouse they are out matched.Im sure they see us as terrorists also.

LLL
2nd September 04, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Asia
Trust me the majority of them are not saying that. Many are scared for their lives and many pray just to get through each day without being a target of a suicide bomb. IED attack, or ambush.

Afaghan is no joke either. I was only there for 2 weeks to change out some equipment and and the troops there have no deliusion of being a war hero. Hell if it wasn't for my accident I would be back there now and just me everyone that is there from my unit just want to come home as quick as possible.

Yeah, but why did they enter the armed services in the first place then?

cyrijl
2nd September 04, 03:59 PM
there is a difference when you kill civilians and then tape it and dance to their cries of pain you fukking idiot.

TylerDurden
2nd September 04, 04:01 PM
Sort of like when the news replays footage of US bombs falling over and over on tv?

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 04:02 PM
The only solution for terrorism is a long term social one. You need to get at the roots of it, which usually boil down to opportunity (and in one major case two people trying to get the same land). But usually there's a lot more going on that simply the missing opportunity. There are always people who have something to lose when it comes to peace.

But there is no excuse for targeting civilians. Period. No matter which side does it.

LLL
2nd September 04, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by cyrijl
there is a difference when you kill civilians and then tape it and dance to their cries of pain you fukking idiot.

As opposed to Fox reports of bombing Iraqis?

Gezere
2nd September 04, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by LLL
Yeah, but why did they enter the armed services in the first place then?

The number reason pple enlist in the armed service is for the college money. The majority have to plans, wants, or dreams of going to war or actually seeing combat.

TylerDurden
2nd September 04, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by Matt Bernius
The only solution for terrorism is a long term social one. You need to get at the roots of it, which usually boil down to opportunity (and in one major case two people trying to get the same land). But usually there's a lot more going on that simply the missing opportunity. There are always people who have something to lose when it comes to peace.

But there is no excuse for targeting civilians. Period. No matter which side does it.

I could not have said it any better myself. Can I get an amen on that.

Osiris
2nd September 04, 04:03 PM
I know we had a good ass time wathcing some bombings. Im not even gonna lie. We put on BOB in the dorm. While Im against the war, that was certainlty a show.

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by LLL
Yeah, but why did they enter the armed services in the first place then? ARe you trolling or serious? Hmm, let see:

1. it's a steady job
2. for many it provides an education
3. it's a social responsibility for some
4. it's a implied part of growing up for others.

ultimately for many it's an opportunity.

I really hope you're a troll. Either that or you're really willfully ignorant or just unable to step outside yourself and see the world around you.

Shuma-Gorath
2nd September 04, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by LLL
As opposed to Fox reports of bombing Iraqis?

First of all, cite a real news network. Second, the news is reporting a major event. I'd like the top story every day to be a human-interest piece about puppies and kittens, but that's not the world we live in.

LLL
2nd September 04, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Asia
The number reason pple enlist in the armed service is for the college money. The majority have to plans, wants, or dreams of going to war or actually seeing combat.

Welll, thus the American system is extremely fucked up... So what's new...

TylerDurden
2nd September 04, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Asia
The number reason pple enlist in the armed service is for the college money. The majority have to plans, wants, or dreams of going to war or actually seeing combat.

Some might have romantic idea's of being some kind of warrior. Most simply see it as the best opportunity to get their lives started, to get some money for college. We are talking about kids, they never really concieve of the fact they could get killed by signing the piece of paper. Maybe someone else, but not them. 17 year olds are immortal (in their own minds).

Gezere
2nd September 04, 04:07 PM
Matt,

I don't think LLL is not trolling remember he is Finnish and has a different social veiw.

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 04:07 PM
I wish I could agree with you on that Shumagorath. News is a business (I know a number of people on this inside). They were all counting on the war to boost their ratings. Sadly, global media is a dangerous thing and will continue to be so until we as a culture are willing to give up in the myth of the individual and admit that we're inherently herd animals that can be manipulated quite effectively by mass media.

BTW I'm noting that last part as a marketer and social scientist, not a frothing at the mouth luddite.

LLL
2nd September 04, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Matt Bernius
ARe you trolling or serious? Hmm, let see:

1. it's a steady job
2. for many it provides an education
3. it's a social responsibility for some
4. it's a implied part of growing up for others.

ultimately for many it's an opportunity.

I really hope you're a troll. Either that or you're really willfully ignorant or just unable to step outside yourself and see the world around you.

Yes I am serious. So these people entered the Armed Forces & saw no possibility of fighting to the death against others?

Do you think it's right that people who, apparently, have no other choice for advancement in society, are then the 1st ones to be carried off to be killed in some foreign land...?

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 04:08 PM
LLL,

Sorry, didn't realize you were Finnish. But isn't there manditory service for your country? Of has that changed? Or am I just smoking dope.

- Matt

TylerDurden
2nd September 04, 04:08 PM
If it bleeds it leads. On CNN or Al Jazeera.

LLL
2nd September 04, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Asia
Matt,

I don't think LLL is not trolling remember he is Finnish and has a different social veiw.

Heh, nice to acknowledge that... although, on the other hand it seems like an excuse to not care about my posts ;)...

Ronin
2nd September 04, 04:09 PM
The reason I joined?
Career opportunities.
Got to jump out if an airplane.
See the world.
Be a peacekeeper, I thought that was real noble, you know?

TylerDurden
2nd September 04, 04:10 PM
The recruiters don't show you pictures of bullet wounds and amputees when you walk in the door.

Gezere
2nd September 04, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by LLL
Welll, thus the American system is extremely fucked up... So what's new...

Nope. It one of the things you have to have to maintain a VOLUNTEER army. You give pple an insentive to come in. I know in most of Europe, and other parts of the world, it is mandatory to either serve in the military or do another civil job. Ther difference is the quality of pple you will get.

punchingdummy
2nd September 04, 04:10 PM
There is a difference between a couple of men stepping in a ring, or stepping outside the bar, to take care of differences and a grown man who walks around looking for a child, mother or old man to kick in the teeth and KTFO to make a statement.


In the end, all war is evil and rarely anything good comes it. But I can confidently state that I do not share the same values with those on this board who do not understand the differences between warfare and terrorism.

punchingdummy
2nd September 04, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by TylerDurden
The recruiters don't show you pictures of bullet wounds and amputees when you walk in the door.

What makes you think my recruiter didn't show me his war scars?

LLL
2nd September 04, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Matt Bernius
LLL,

Sorry, didn't realize you were Finnish. But isn't there manditory service for your country? Of has that changed? Or am I just smoking dope.

- Matt

Yes, BUT it's fucking lame to whine as if that made any difference to my posts... I would have said the same thing if I was American.

Yes, there is mandatory service, but I only was there for a month (normal min. 6 months, previously 8). So I didn't complete it, because it SUCKED ASS.

I didn't like getting unquestionable orders from retards etc...

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by LLL
I am serious. So these people entered the Armed Forces & saw no possibility of fighting to the death against others?Many didn't. And many still don't. There are a lot of people serving today in the US armed forces who haven't seen combat. Some people spent both wars stationed in other parts of the world.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LLL
Do you think it's right that people who, apparently, have no other choice for advancement in society, are then the 1st ones to be carried off to be killed in some foreign land...? There are alawys choices. And what we're now getting to isn't something new. Since the earliest days of man that's been the case. It doesn't make it right. But it's still what happens. And that isn't restricted to just the US.

- Matt

Gezere
2nd September 04, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by LLL
Heh, nice to acknowledge that... although, on the other hand it seems like an excuse to not care about my posts ;)...

If I didn't care I wouldn't respond.:p

Osiris
2nd September 04, 04:13 PM
The bottom line is the same though.

Leodom
2nd September 04, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by LLL
As opposed to Fox reports of bombing Iraqis?

Tell me your not really that much of an idiot. You think the Iraqis were bombed to give FOX news something to show to titillate viewers? What kind of screwed up mind do you have. Imagine if the bombing wasn't on the FOX news. You would be bitching that they're trying to cover up for something by not showing something that is obviously news.

The US forces have NOT targetted civilians. As a matter of fact US soldiers have died because they were NOT willing to target civilians. Insurgents have found their safest havens among civilian populations because of the American penchant for avoiding civilian casualties as much as possible.

TylerDurden
2nd September 04, 04:13 PM
I was speaking of the recruiters I talked to oh so many years ago. None of them really mentioned things like getting shot at, or getting killed.

punchingdummy
2nd September 04, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by LLL

Do you think it's right that people who, apparently, have no other choice for advancement in society, are then the 1st ones to be carried off to be killed in some foreign land...?

At least in the US, those people who volunteer are generally better prepared to succeed in life than the masses who are not accepted into military service.

punchingdummy
2nd September 04, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by TylerDurden
I was speaking of the recruiters I talked to oh so many years ago. None of them really mentioned things like getting shot at, or getting killed.

Mine showed scars and told gruesome war stories. :)

Ronin
2nd September 04, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by LLL

Do you think it's right that people who, apparently, have no other choice for advancement in society, are then the 1st ones to be carried off to be killed in some foreign land...?

Where did you get that idea ?

WingChun Lawyer
2nd September 04, 04:16 PM
Quite frankly, I am not sure myself about the difference between a terrorist and a soldier. If we consider both may kill civilians (and then again they may not) and both consider what they are doing to be the correct course of action (the soldier may be following orders, but the terrorist is supposed to believe), the difference between a terrorist and a soldier becomes merely formal.

I suppose we could, for instance, have noble freedom fighters and army-sponsored butchers. I can´t really see much of an immediate difference.

LLL
2nd September 04, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Leodom
Tell me your not really that much of an idiot. You think the Iraqis were bombed to give FOX news something to show to titillate viewers? What kind of screwed up mind do you have. Imagine if the bombing wasn't on the FOX news. You would be bitching that they're trying to cover up for something by not showing something that is obviously news.

The US forces have NOT targetted civilians. As a matter of fact US soldiers have died because they were NOT willing to target civilians. Insurgents have found their safest havens among civilian populations because of the American penchant for avoiding civilian casualties as much as possible.

The best penchant for avoiding civilian casualties would have been to not attack them in the first place.

Xeamus
2nd September 04, 04:18 PM
M
U
R
D
E
R
E
R

shame on you

LLL
2nd September 04, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by ronin69
Where did you get that idea ?

errh, from the previous post?

Hey, I'm anti-military etc... and I won't hide it any more than you in the service take pride of it.

But I really don't want to insult anyone here too much... esp. you, seeing how cool you have been so far.

LLL
2nd September 04, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
Quite frankly, I am not sure myself about the difference between a terrorist and a soldier. If we consider both may kill civilians (and then again they may not) and both consider what they are doing to be the correct course of action (the soldier may be following orders, but the terrorist is supposed to believe), the difference between a terrorist and a soldier becomes merely formal.

I suppose we could, for instance, have noble freedom fighters and army-sponsored butchers. I can´t really see much of an immediate difference.

Winners = Freedom fighters.
Losers = Terrorists.

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
Quite frankly, I am not sure myself about the difference between a terrorist and a soldier. If we consider both may kill civilians (and then again they may not) and both consider what they are doing to be the correct course of action (the soldier may be following orders, but the terrorist is supposed to believe), the difference between a terrorist and a soldier becomes merely formal. WCL, the difference if nothing else is intention. A solider may accidently shoot a civilian while performing their duty under pressure.

A terrorist, who boards a bus, plane or enters a crowded center with a bomb strapped to themselves intends to harm civilians.

There is a world of difference in those two actions and quite frankly I'm surprised you can't see that.

- Matt

Ronin
2nd September 04, 04:22 PM
The military can give you an excellent career, ok, maybe not the Canadian one :)
And many University grads join, I did.

Hedgehogey
2nd September 04, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Matt Bernius
The issue is that terrorists specifically target civilian areas and only civilian areas.

There are times duringa war, typically for attacking industreal lines that civilians unfortunately are caught in the cross fire. Dresden was an example of that.
- Matt

Civilian areas specifically attacked by the united states and it's allies? Oh you must mean: Hiroshima, Hanoi, My Lai, Guatemala...i've got a long list somewhere around here...

WingChun Lawyer
2nd September 04, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Matt Bernius
WCL, the difference if nothing else is intention. A solider may accidently shoot a civilian while performing their duty under pressure.

A terrorist, who boards a bus, plane or enters a crowded center with a bomb strapped to themselves intends to harm civilians.

There is a world of difference in those two actions and quite frankly I'm surprised you can't see that.

- Matt

So the guys at Abu Ghraib, who tortured civilians (who WERE RELEASED after that, remember), should be immediately promoted to the status of terrorists? Then they should be at Guantánamo Bay, I am afraid.

By your reasoning, any soldier who turns out to be a psychopath is now a terrorist.

Ronin
2nd September 04, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Xeamus
M
U
R
D
E
R
E
R

shame on you

You MAY be trolling, but don't think for a moment that, I don't realise the truth behind what you wrote.
And I carry that with me.

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 04:26 PM
hedgehogey ,

If you read the rest of my posts I noted that there have been numerous targetings of civilian areas in past wars that can't be justified. Nagasaki being the one that most quickly spring to mind.

However, the US has gotten much better at not needing to do so.

Still there is no excuse for specific targeting of civilian areas that don't house industral complexes.

Hedgehogey
2nd September 04, 04:26 PM
"Terrorist" is trite newspeak, designed to stop critical thinking. It promotes black and white thinking.

Gezere
2nd September 04, 04:26 PM
Yes, BUT it's fucking lame to whine as if that made any difference to my posts... I would have said the same thing if I was American.

How can you say would fee the same if you were American? You would have a different upbringing than you do now. Your place of orgin and upbringing does have a impact on your social views. So you being finnish and not American IS a factor.

Ronin
2nd September 04, 04:28 PM
Perhaps we should look at the average soldier and the average terrorist?
The average soldier fights armed soldiers and kills to protect himself, his troops and to protect innocents.
The average terrorist kills indiscriminatley, anyone, anytime, anyhow, with hatred, because he is either told or because they are fighting for freedom.
On the surface it may seem that they have one or two qualities that are similar, but, I think the part about hatred and killing indiscriminatly, means quite a bit, no?

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
So the guys at Abu Ghraib, who tortured civilians (who WERE RELEASED after that, remember), should be immediately promoted to the status of terrorists? Then they should be at Guantánamo Bay, I am afraid.

By your reasoning, any soldier who turns out to be a psychopath is now a terrorist. Almost. War criminal is more approprieate. As they belong to a fighting unit, engaged in a military action, they are subject to little things like the Geneva convention.

So terrorist, no. War criminal, yes.

WCL, make no mistake, I'm not a hawk. I do however, balance my liberal leanings with a fair dose of pragmatism.

LLL
2nd September 04, 04:28 PM
Yeah yeah, it is, I just couldn't think of a better response at the moment...

Gezere
2nd September 04, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
So the guys at Abu Ghraib, who tortured civilians (who WERE RELEASED after that, remember), should be immediately promoted to the status of terrorists? Then they should be at Guantánamo Bay, I am afraid.

By your reasoning, any soldier who turns out to be a psychopath is now a terrorist.

WCL you are missing the point.

A soldier may turn psycopath but that is not his function. Where as a terrorsit specificly aims to kill non combatants as part of their function.

LLL
2nd September 04, 04:31 PM
One question, of course, is what would happen if an opposing state would have Americans (soldiers, maybe not) imprisoned in Abu Ghraib style conditions...

punchingdummy
2nd September 04, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
There is a difference between a couple of men stepping in a ring, or stepping outside the bar, to take care of differences and a grown man who walks around looking for an unsuspecting child, mother or old man to kick in the teeth and KTFO to make a statement.

To LLL, WCL and the like...are your values so currupt that you do not see a difference in the situations above?

Soldiers and terrorists are not mutually exclusive. Soldiers can and do commit acts of terrorism (an sometime kill innocednts). There are certainly plenty of historicial examples. HOWEVER, terrorists use violence against the defensless as a MO.

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 04:31 PM
The other aspect of a terrorist, especially post Munich Olympics, is that their actions are designed to be mainly symbolic. To intentionally strike targets, primarily civilian (though most doctrine doesn't allow for the idea of civilians) in order to incite the highest levels of fear and/or politcal gain.

And hedgehogey, while the media does boil things down into black and white issues, there is no excuse for anyone to aggressively target civilians or support that type of activity. That includes school of the americas.

LLL
2nd September 04, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
To LLL, WCL and the like...are your values so currupt that you do not see a difference in the situations above?

Soldiers and terrorists are not mutually exclusive. Soldiers can and do commit acts of terrorism (an sometime kill innocednts). There are certainly plenty of historicial examples. HOWEVER, terrorists use violence against the defensless as a MO.

So what would a soldier do if he didn't have the weaponry to carry out a direct attack against a significant military installation?

Sit on his ass?

Or attack a secodary target?

Hedgehogey
2nd September 04, 04:35 PM
So, then, going by Matt Bernius' well thought out logic (not sarcasm) we can conclude that the united states has supported and engaged in acts of terrorism.

Think about that for a moment. It seems like a contradiction, almost.

Why? Because the word "terrorist" implies the "terrorists" are somebody else.

Gezere
2nd September 04, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by LLL
So what would a soldier do if he didn't have the weaponry to carry out a direct attack against a significant military installation?

Sit on his ass?

Or attack a secodary target?

It would be the command's call what to do. I seriously doubt they would decide to hijack a plane and ram it into a building.

Hedgehogey
2nd September 04, 04:38 PM
No. They'd just bomb the building.

Beatdown Richie
2nd September 04, 04:39 PM
> The other aspect of a terrorist, especially post Munich Olympics, is that
> their actions are designed to be mainly symbolic. To intentionally strike
> targets, primarily civilian (though most doctrine doesn't allow for the idea
> of civilians) in order to incite the highest levels of fear and/or politcal gain.
BINGO.

LLL
2nd September 04, 04:40 PM
Hmm yeah, but that was a very non-typical terrorist attack anyway... I don't think USA uses Hiroshima style tactics normally either...

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by hedgehogey
So, then, going by Matt Bernius' well thought out logic (not sarcasm) we can conclude that the united states has supported and engaged in acts of terrorism.

Think about that for a moment. It seems like a contradiction, almost.

Why? Because the word "terrorist" implies the "terrorists" are somebody else. I would suggest that the United States government has at times in it's history supported acts of Terrorism and members of it's military have commited War Crimes. Both are documented and pretty indisputable.

I do not support the notion that we have commited acts of Terrorism. I further think that, as a nation, we are incapible of engaging in acts of terrorism.

Do our past actions make us an evil nation? Hedgehogey, were you not the one who was just chastising a black adn white view of the world?

ICY
2nd September 04, 04:45 PM
And THAT is what made me different than those who strap bombs to themselves, that kill children out of anger and hatred.

Some of those terrorists are killing in the attempt to save others...some are not, but some soldiers are hate-filled psychos too. There are good and bad guys on all sides of any war.


Soldier: "War is Hell."
Terrorist: "KILL ALL THE INFIDELS!"

Do you see a difference there?

I see a difference in your perception.


That sounds like something a terrorist would say ?

Yes, really, it does.


The issue is that terrorists specifically target civilian areas and only civilian areas.

What terrorists ONLY target civilians? Furthermore, what makes civilians any more innocent than those THEY SEND to do their dirty work?


The dropping of the Second Atomic bomb in my mind was a completely immoral action.

The dropping of the FIRST bomb was completely immoral, the Japanese WANTED TO SURRENDER and Truman dropped those bombs anyway, just to make a point, the point being that he was powerful.


It was interesting becuz even he realizes there is nothing you can do except kill them.

Or you could...you know, do that thing, I think it's called, oh right NEGOTIATION...or just flat out give in to their demands. Sometimes that's a bad idea, like for Israel...they could A) leave or B) die to appease the Palestinian terrorists...on the other hand, America could JUST STOP SUPPORTING THE SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY AND ISRAEL. That would make America less powerful, but it IS an option that Americans almost universally ignore...Osama Bin Laden never wanted to kill every American, he wanted America to leave the Arabs alone, completely just leave them alone...now that would mean an oil shortage in the US...but it is an option.


And what happens when the US and the world does not intervene? Rhwanda, uganda, hell the whole of africa.

Actually...that whole thing started BECAUSE the world intervened...I do advocate intervention, but not the way America has ever done it before.


The average terrorist kills indiscriminatley, anyone, anytime, anyhow, with hatred,

That is a really ignorant statement you're making...a psychotic lunatic does what you describe, and given, terrorist organizations probably attract that sort of person, but the majority of terrorists don't kill randomly. Look at the targets of the 9/11 attack, were they going for the highest kill count? Or BUILDINGS that meant something to Americans and the World in general? The buildings did have people in them, but the people were not the target.

LLL
2nd September 04, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Beatdown Richie
> The other aspect of a terrorist, especially post Munich Olympics, is that
> their actions are designed to be mainly symbolic. To intentionally strike
> targets, primarily civilian (though most doctrine doesn't allow for the idea
> of civilians) in order to incite the highest levels of fear and/or politcal gain.
BINGO.

-> Would Palestinians do 'symbolic' attacks, if they had the military power to attack Israel? No.

Would Israel have the power to keep up its oppression of Palestinians without USA's support? No.

Hedgehogey
2nd September 04, 04:47 PM
No, i'm saying the word "terrorist" is a trite cliche that's no longer applicable.

punchingdummy
2nd September 04, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by LLL
So what would a soldier do if he didn't have the weaponry to carry out a direct attack against a significant military installation?

Sit on his ass?

Or attack a secodary target?

He would call in the Marines and they would do it :-)

Secondary targets are great...but they wouldn't be targeting little kids and old ladies.

ICY
2nd September 04, 04:50 PM
Would Israel have the power to keep up its oppression of Palestinians without USA's support?

Actually, yes, education and healthcare and so on would suffer, but they CAN afford to defend themselves from the Palestinians, and they've got nukes, so no Arab country's ever gonna attack'em again.

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by I Choke You
The dropping of the FIRST bomb was completely immoral, the Japanese WANTED TO SURRENDER and Truman dropped those bombs anyway, just to make a point, the point being that he was powerful. I have seen varying historic accounts of this. There are people that after the event stated that Japan was ready to surrender prior to the bomb drop. Others stated that they were not. Other suggest that Japan was only interested in a provisional surrender that was not acceptable to the administration.

I'd be happy to look at any difinative information that you would have on this.

Until I see something along those lines, I hold that in the same regards that I hold "FDR intentionally allowed Pearl Harbor to happen."

There is no question the second bomb was about a global display of power. And there's no question for me that it was an unnecessary and evil act.

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by hedgehogey
No, i'm saying the word "terrorist" is a trite cliche that's no longer applicable. No, symantically it's quite applicable and relevant.

Freedom fighter on the otherhand isn't.

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by LLL
-> Would Palestinians do 'symbolic' attacks, if they had the military power to attack Israel? No. The Palestinian uprising leadership is quite happy with the status quo and has no desire to get a lot more military power.

For that matter the Israeli leadership is quite happy with the status quo and has no real desire to sue for peace.

The fact is the power that be have little desire to seek peace while they are all relatively well protected and rolling in the dough. The evidence for this is pretty much out there for the world to see.

Matt Bernius
2nd September 04, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by I Choke You
That is a really ignorant statement you're making...a psychotic lunatic does what you describe, and given, terrorist organizations probably attract that sort of person, but the majority of terrorists don't kill randomly. Look at the targets of the 9/11 attack, were they going for the highest kill count? Or BUILDINGS that meant something to Americans and the World in general? The buildings did have people in them, but the people were not the target. Psychotic, no. Sociopathic, yes.

And the italicized is an ignorant statement to boot. If the people were not the target, the attack would have happened at night, when the body count would have been the lowest. Rather, the busiest part of the day was chosen to ensure maximum effect.

So hell yes the people were a very important target. Perhaps not as important as the structure itself, but any attempt to distance the importance of body count to an action like this is extremely ignorant, if not delusional.

ICY
2nd September 04, 05:12 PM
If the people were not the target, the attack would have happened at night, when the body count would have been the lowest. Rather, the busiest part of the day was chosen to ensure maximum effect.

The people were not the primary target...and the primary objective was not kill count, it was fear...SOME people had to die to achieve that, but the idea wasn't "Let's just kill as many people as we possibly can".

Shuma-Gorath
2nd September 04, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Matt Bernius
I wish I could agree with you on that Shumagorath. News is a business (I know a number of people on this inside). They were all counting on the war to boost their ratings. Sadly, global media is a dangerous thing and will continue to be so until we as a culture are willing to give up in the myth of the individual and admit that we're inherently herd animals that can be manipulated quite effectively by mass media.

BTW I'm noting that last part as a marketer and social scientist, not a frothing at the mouth luddite.

Yeah, I know the mainstream news stations can be sensationalist. Not as bad as shows like 20/20 or 48 hours, but still bad. Again, my response is to watch a real news station. I watch a combination of CBC, CTV and CP24 up here, giving me international/war coverage, local coverage with Count Llyod, and local reports about puppies (in that order).

Hawkeye
2nd September 04, 06:18 PM
Concerning whether or not service members are terrorists in the current conflicts, I think some people in this thread who haven't BTDT need to shut their fucking cock holsters.

Some of you people are growing fat and feeling fucking comfortable sitting behind your goddamn computer screens and from the safety of your pathetic lives, you feel the need to look down on and bash veterans and call us terrorists. I not going to sit here and listen to some sarcastic hippies, college kids and faggot grad students who haven't BTDT tell me what I've done is terrorism. I've been to Afghanistan, how about you? I've seen the good we are doing there personally. Who the fuck have you served with?, where have you been?, who the fuck do you know? In fact, the only reason you people are allowed to run your fucking sucks are because of the folks who have stepped up to the plate past, present and future to put their asses on the line.

A few of you are either in denial or ignorant in the fact that there are people out there that would gleefully kill you, your mate and your children to please their twisted version of religion. I don't know why, maybe it's because daddy threw mommy down the stairs when she was preggers with you. I really don't care. A few of you need to be placed inside a windowless block building with a group of terrorist thugs about to cut you from ear to ear like that poor bastard Daniel Pearl(you pole smokers like to whine about Abu Gharib but do remember him?).
Instead of whining about diversity and understanding the motives of Haji and his twisted version of the religion of peace, you would filling your pants with shit and piss, praying that Hawkeye and a few of his Batt Boys would be fast roping onto the roof to introduce Haji to a 5.56 through the eye.

Go out there and thank these kids who are putting something before themselves instead of smoking dope in a dorm room or frolicking in Cancun during spring break. Do something, send them a care package. Honor them.

Have I killed? Yes. I am responsible for more than one death.

Am I going to talk about it on a public forum? No. And unless you've served, don't ever ask me about it.

Ronin - thank you for your service and making the Balkans a safer place.

Punchingdummy - thank you for your service in the one of the best, if not THE BEST sniper units in the world.

Asia - thank you for your service.

Sorry if I let anyone else in this thread out if they served.


Oh and you don't like my opinions?

Too bad. Fuck you.

Sua Sponte, Rangers Lead The Way and Semper Fi

Hawkeye
2nd September 04, 06:26 PM
And by the way,

I didn't serve to protect hippies, yuppies and college pukes. I didn't sign up for fucking money to go to some Marxist learning institution. My father, who served proudly in Vietnam, raised me to be a soldier. I signed up to put myself through absolute personal hell and see if I could come out on top, to be forged in the fires of the 75th Ranger Regiment. I signed up to serve with the most elite light infantry unit in the world and to close with and kill the fucking enemy. I let my privates and sp4's know that is their job as an infantryman. "You may have to kill the enemy, you may have to give up your life for a greater good, and though I hope it never happens, civilians may die due to your actions“. I loved those boys like they were my own sons and I would have died to save one of them without hesitation. I am a warrior, I am a Ranger. Not some terrorist fucking Haji.

Osiris
2nd September 04, 06:32 PM
You worry me.

Hawkeye
2nd September 04, 06:49 PM
It's been a rough week. Between learning that my co-worker's 4 year old son is going to die and that my gf is on the rag, this week being blowjob only week, I'm meaner than a badger with a toothache

Osiris
2nd September 04, 06:50 PM
Sorry to here about your coworkers son.

Hawkeye
2nd September 04, 06:54 PM
Thank you Osiris

Ronin
2nd September 04, 07:03 PM
Hawkeye, at times, you are a tad to militant for me.
But sorry to hear about your son's coworker.

We need to find a middel ground when talking to hose who have not served and at times, seem unable to understand what, it seems to us, is common sense.
I understand that now, by readin this thread, I see where some of you are coming from.

And I hope you can see were, those of us that have served, have a slightly different point of view.

No decent soldier kills innocents, we, when we have to and reluctantly, fight other soldiers.
We fight and we kill, when we have to, for our families and our country, and atrocities and crimes commited by other soldiers piss us off and hurt us, more than we can ever express.

ICY
2nd September 04, 07:03 PM
Hawkeye, I'm not sure if your post was directed partially at me, but if it was, I would like to clarify something.

I don't think American soldiers are terrorists.

I DO think America's leaders sometimes bomb the shit out of civilians on purpose to scare the crap out of them, and that is by definition terrorism.

I think the guys who fly planes into buildings are no different.

I think the guys who kidnap and execute people are insane and should be shot, that's so personal...getting to know someone and THEN killing them I just cannot fathom.

I think that guys like you and guys that fight against American forces in Iraq or Aghanistan are not much different from each other, you're both soldiers fighting for what you believe in...that they don't have a government backing them up does not make their fight invalid.

However, all that aside, the whole point of killing the enemy is NOT ultimately to kill every enemy that exists, it is to scare the guys left standing into surrendering...you kill enough enemies and they will surrender, see the Germans in WW1 for an example. Promoting terror among enemy forces and supporters is the essence of war...

One more thing, I don't think any terrorist wants to kill me, the individual, but I can understand why they'd want to kill people like me...terrorists don't scare me, because for one thing, I'm Canadian and they just won't waste their time on us, and for another thing, I avoid going places where people would kill me indiscriminately...but there are many places like that, I can find places like that in my own province, but those people, who would kill me if they had the chance, are no threat to me BECAUSE I DON'T STICK MY HEAD IN HORNET'S NESTS...and I feel no need to hunt down those people as a result...if I don't fuck with them, they'll reciprocate, you'll find that's pretty much a universal truth...mind your own business, stay out of places you KNOW are dangerous, and bad shit probably will not happen to you.

ICY
2nd September 04, 07:11 PM
Oh, and I started writing my post before you posted that explanation...that's awful, what's the cause (if you're uncomfortable discussing it in detail, just ignore this)?

cyrijl
2nd September 04, 07:42 PM
this is a response to some stupis ppl on page 2.

Last time i checked. NO one was dancing in the streets of major cities in the US when iraqi's are kidnapped, killed or maimed. F-ing morons.

Hawkeye
2nd September 04, 08:02 PM
Choke,

Naw, man. I wasn't directing any of that piss and venom towards you, some folks here just need a wake up call and coddling them just doesn't go over too well with me. And my co-worker's son was with his father who was involved in an accident with a drunk driver up in Maine last weekend. I'd rather not get into it.

Ronin,

I know I come off as an asshole most of the time, that I should tone it down and find a medium ground like you suggested. I used to simply shut my mouth, say hooah and drive on when I heard drivel. I stopped doing that when a graduate student at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst wrote an inflaming article about Ranger Pat Tillman. People on this site can say what they want about the Commander In Chief but I won't let anyone dishonor my brothers or their sacrifices again.

LLL
2nd September 04, 08:13 PM
I have my opinions, you have yours... I respect soldiers, but I doubt I'll ever understand them.

& cyril, if what if USA was invaded?

punchingdummy
2nd September 04, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by LLL
& cyril, if what if USA was invaded?

We would unleash Hawkeye on their ass.

punchingdummy
2nd September 04, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by I Choke You
I DO think America's leaders sometimes bomb the shit out of civilians on purpose to scare the crap out of them, and that is by definition terrorism.

Seriously Choke, when was the last time the US did this? As air power has developed over the past century, so has the the ability to apply more discretion. As weapsons become more and more precise, the number of innocents hurt has declined dramatically.



Originally posted by I Choke You
I think that guys like you and guys that fight against American forces in Iraq or Aghanistan are not much different from each other, you're both soldiers fighting for what you believe in...that they don't have a government backing them up does not make their fight invalid.

When we are fighting each other, I actually agree. But those who target non-combatants and then cut off their heads are much different then us. What government is or isn't backing them has nothing to do with it.

Hawkeye
2nd September 04, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by LLL
I have my opinions, you have yours... I respect soldiers, but I doubt I'll ever understand them.

You were enlisted in Finland or somewhere, right? I normally wouldn't bother but for some odd reason I seriously wanna try to understand your perspective a little better, you being a conscript. Could you elaborate on the situation more?


what if the USA was invaded

Tell me more. By who? Aliens, Russkies?

You bet your ass if it was aliens or Martians, I'd blow their bug-eyed heads all over their flyin' saucers.

I don't refresh my knowledge of IED's, keep "special" ammo and those high capacity AR-15 and HK91 mags for nothing, you know.

*disclaimer Hawkeye has no IED knowledge, special ammuntion, firearms or high capacity magazines. The liberals convinced me guns were evil and I sold them, the ammo and high capacity mags long ago. No, I don't have the recipts and I don't remember who I sold them to.

LLL
2nd September 04, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Hawkeye
You were enlisted in Finland or somewhere, right? I normally wouldn't bother but for some odd reason I seriously wanna try to understand your perspective a little better, you being a conscript. Could you elaborate on the situation more?



Tell me more. By who? Aliens, Russkies?

You bet your ass if it was aliens or Martians, I'd blow their bug-eyed heads all over their flyin' saucers.

I don't refresh my knowledge of IED's, keep "special" ammo and those high capacity AR-15 and HK91 mags for nothing, you know.

*disclaimer Hawkeye has no IED knowledge, special ammuntion, firearms or high capacity magazines. The liberals convinced me guns were evil and I sold them, the ammo and high capacity mags long ago. No, I don't have the recipts and I don't remember who I sold them to. [/B]


Yawn... hey... "You bet your ass if it was aliens or Martians, I'd blow their bug-eyed heads all over their flyin' saucers." ... So why wouldn't Iraqis & others do the same.

& yeah I was in the Finnish army, for 1 month.

So what do you want to understand, I can answer...?

Jolly_Roger
2nd September 04, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by cyrijl
this is a response to some stupis ppl on page 2.

Last time i checked. NO one was dancing in the streets of major cities in the US when iraqi's are kidnapped, killed or maimed. F-ing morons.

Dude, there is a difference.
Neither Afghanistan or Iraq was invading your country. Neither had conducted attacks on the U.S.
If you had been attacked and invaded, perhaps there would be people dancin' .
I'm not saying it's all right (it fucking horrible, in fact). But it is understandable.
Remember how the afghan danced...
http://www.nostalgia.com/posters/21919.JPG

Hawkeye
2nd September 04, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by LLL
... So why wouldn't Iraqis & others do the same.

I see what yer trying to do, lead ol' Hawkeye into an ambush. Would I fight if the US was invaded by what or whomever? You bet your ass I would but would I take a journalist or a civilian and cut their head off to please a twisted version of religion like those shitbags? No I wouldn't. Would I hold 400 innocent civilians hostage like the Chechan terrorists? Hell no. Would I fly a plane into a building full of innocent folks? Of course not. I'm a Ranger, a professional soldier not a terrorist shitbag.


So what do you want to understand, I can answer...?

How long were you supposed to be in for? How long was basic combat training? Could you chose what you wanted to do in the service, for example, go into support or combat arms? Any short or long term benefits that you could have gotten out of it? And out of plain curiosity, what kind of elite/secret squirrel units are in the Finnish Army?

Hawkeye
2nd September 04, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by Jolly_Roger
Neither had conducted attacks on the U.S.

Yer wrong on Afghanistan. There is no difference between terrorists and those that harbor them.

Hawkeye
2nd September 04, 11:41 PM
Since some of you guys have been smoking dope, or eating hallucinagenic mushrooms and are having a hard time figuring out the difference between terrorists and soldiers, here's something for y'all to think about.

For exhibit A, we have Haji. This filthy fucking animal carries out day to day insurgent activities against the US forces in Iraq, he also goes around and cuts heads off of people like Paul Johnson and Nick Berg(I bet some of ya don't remember them) to inform the world about his cause and to please his assed up version of religion.

For exhibit B we have Staff Sarn't G*****. He is MOS 18B(Special Forces weapons Sarn't) with the 5th Special Forces group out of Fort Campbell, KY. For you civilian types, this means he is a Green Beret. He wears the green beanie, the SF long tab and the Ranger tab. If you don't know what a green beret does, do some fucking research. Very early into the war, Sarn't G***** jumped into Afghanistan and trained and fought alongside Northern Alliance folks to get rid of the Taliban and help the Afghani people get some sort of feeling of peace back in their lives. He does not go around chopping heads off for Allah and he does not hold children hostage, hide behind them like a coward and say "look at me, look at me" like the Chechan thugs. Staff Sarn't is not Lynndie England or Colonel Fucking Kurtz. He is an elite professional soldier of the highest order, only below "D".

The last time I checked, this site was in English. What don't some of you understand about the difference between a terrorist and a soldier? But that's okay, ya'll can just sit there, and hammer out excuses at me.

The Wastrel
3rd September 04, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by Hawkeye
Yer wrong on Afghanistan. There is no difference between terrorists and those that harbor them.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2001/06/24/story301453.asp


Fundraising ban boosts IRA dissidents' support in US
Sunday, June 24, 2001

By Niall O'Dowd

The attempt by the American government to ban dissident IRA groups such as the Real IRA in the US from fundraising has already paid off -- for the dissidents. They are now attracting more support than ever.

The policy of banning groups associated with the Real IRA and Continuity IRA at the behest of the British and Irish governments has -- as predicted by numerous Irish-American leaders -- had the opposite effect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1490663.stm


But by far the strongest source of support for republicans has long been the Irish-American community, especially hardliners who played a key role in funding the growth of the Provisional IRA in the 1970s.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1490663.stm


In Great Britain and, to a lesser degree, Ireland, public debate on Irish-American involvement has focused until recently on Irish-American support for the armed campaign of the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Wilson's extensive discussion of several gunrunning cases in the 1980s in which American-based supporters of the IRA attempted to ship arms to Ireland, reflects this focus. For years British newspapers have been printing editorials, several of them cited by Wilson, which furiously condemn Irish-American involvement in Northern Ireland. Irish-American involvement has been characterised in many such editorials as fundamentally illegitimate.

http://www.clipfile.org/clips/000379.php


Some raised money for human rights organizations and wrote articles about the crisis. Others went further, and shipped arms and money to groups such as the Irish Republican Army. A 1973 FBI report stated that the Irish conflict had been largely paid for with American dollars; that trend has continued throughout the bloody times since.

The violent aspect of the Irish-American connection was in the news in August, when four men were arrested in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and charged with attempting to export more than 40 handguns and several hundred rounds of rifle ammunition to the IRA. The IRA has denied it was involved in the gun-running operation; the four men are awaiting trial.

John Finucane, national president of the American Ireland Educational Foundation, estimated that 100,000 Americans have been involved in the Irish conflict over the years, from writing letters to members of Congress to shipping guns to the IRA. That's a tiny percentage of the total number of Irish-Americans, but still a substantial number.

I have no other comment.

Hawkeye
3rd September 04, 12:41 AM
Fucking awesome, Wastrel. You put a big shit-eatin grin on my face. Now we have an excuse to bomb Boston off the face of the earth and all the money will go to small western mass communities.

Weren't you a hooah? Dirty, nasty leg or Airborne? Come on, you gotta have something to say about the difference between a soldier and a terrorist.

*Edit to add: And Wastrel, thank you for your service.

nihilist
3rd September 04, 12:51 AM
The terms "soldier" and "terrorist" are very broad.

Your gripe is really about the means in which warfare is carried out, is it not?

ICY
3rd September 04, 03:30 AM
Seriously Choke, when was the last time the US did this?

Shock and Awe...


But those who target non-combatants and then cut off their heads are much different then us.

I agree, although I think sometimes attacking targets where you know civilians will die, even a lot of civilians, is justified...no matter what side is doing it.


For exhibit A, we have Haji. This filthy fucking animal carries out day to day insurgent activities against the US forces in Iraq, he also goes around and cuts heads off of people like Paul Johnson and Nick Berg

To be fair I don't think all the guys who fight American forces also engage in hostage taking.

kaliblokeuk
3rd September 04, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by I Choke You
I agree, although I think sometimes attacking targets where you know civilians will die, even a lot of civilians, is justified...no matter what side is doing it.


No. Just no. And for the record, they were trying for a body count. Otherwise why use planes full of passengers?

Hawkeye, Ronin, Wastrel and all others who have served to protect my right to sit in front of a computer with cushy job knowing my loved ones are reasonably safe. Thank you. No sarcasm. My hat goes off to you.

Ronin, in my earlier posts on the other (battlefield royale) thread I feel you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say, my point was that in terms of history, the winners get branded freedom fighters and the losers evil terrorists. I wasn’t trying to be specific. Seriously, if the world turns on its head and we all end up living under some nutcase fundamentalist then who do you think the media will be portraying as the bad guys? As to why they attack civilians, its because if they attack the military they will lose. They know that and that their cause will be lost. They BELIEVE they are doing the right thing.

But that is, as Hawkeye points out (I think), an intellectual argument on a blood and guts issue. I.e. we can hypothesis all we like about the difference between a soldier and a terrorist (or lack of, depending on your viewpoint) but the cold hard facts are that the western world is under attack. Sympathising with the motives of a broken civilisation (palatines) does not stop them from killing you, your family and the dog.

punchingdummy
3rd September 04, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by I Choke You
Shock and Awe...

Bullshit. Never has there been a more focused air campiagn which minimized civiliam casualities. There was a matter of a restaurant in a civilan area which was targeted because humint put Saddam there at that time. Otherwise, the bombs and fear were clearly directed at legit military targets.

Ronin
3rd September 04, 07:17 AM
I know that in many cases, freedom fighter and terrorist are used interchanabley(sp?).
This is wrong.
Terrorisim is just that, inflicting terror on civilians.
Some freedom fighters MAY do that, but ALL terrorists DO, do that.
While it may be true that victory is what defines wither ones is a terrorist or a freedom fighter, I think that is a overly simplistic view.
If I was a freedom fighter figthing to free Canada from the French (:) ), I would NEVER resort to bombing civilans as DIRECT TARGETS, or holding children hostage or killing prisoners.
But, if my goal was to inflict terror, I guess that...well, I still wouldn't do that, but some would, if Terror was their goal.
There have been freedom fighters that have never resulted to terrorisim.

I think to say that freesomn fighters are terrorisits, insults every true freedom fighter out there, and lends credibility to terrorists.

WingChun Lawyer
3rd September 04, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Matt Bernius
I would suggest that the United States government has at times in it's history supported acts of Terrorism and members of it's military have commited War Crimes. Both are documented and pretty indisputable.

I do not support the notion that we have commited acts of Terrorism. I further think that, as a nation, we are incapible of engaging in acts of terrorism.

Both atomic bombs were thrown at civilian areas. Cities. They could have dropped them at military targets, or at least industrial targets.

Now, back to the topic at hand - I believe this discussion won´t really go anywhere. We all know what a soldier is, but, quite frankly, we can argue all day and we won´t decide what the hell is a terrorist.

Punchingdummy offered a tempting definition when he said a terrorist is one whose modus operandi includes attacking civilian targets. But on the other hand, most "terrorists" will not refrain from attacking military targets when the opportunity presents itself (the palestinians blow up israeli tanks on occasion), and their cause may, at least to them, be legitimate.

And, as in the a-bomb example, armies have been known to use terror tactics. So, quite frankly, I have not reached a conclusion.

Oh, and Hawkeye, personally I have tried very hard not to attack honest army folk. We are arguing about definitions here, we are not attacking the army or its role.

Sharlintier
3rd September 04, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by ronin69

If I was a freedom fighter figthing to free Canada from the French (:) )

See now there is a fight we can all get behind, Canadians and non-Canadains alike!

punchingdummy
3rd September 04, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
Punchingdummy offered a tempting definition when he said a terrorist is one whose modus operandi includes attacking civilian targets. But on the other hand, most "terrorists" will not refrain from attacking military targets when the opportunity presents itself (the palestinians blow up israeli tanks on occasion), and their cause may, at least to them, be legitimate.

A group which commits acts of terror against civilans and innocents can certainly attack legitmate military targets as well. In those cases, I generally do not see them as acts of terror. As stated before, the concepts are not mutually exclusive.

Stick
3rd September 04, 07:42 AM
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, a great deal of terrorists go to great lengths to avoid any contact of any kind with a legitimate military force. The defining element of terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians.

WingChun Lawyer
3rd September 04, 07:51 AM
Dai, not if you ask the US army. As I remember, they also like to call "terrorists" those who bomb their soldiers abroad (or at least they did for some time, now it is mostly insurgent).

kaliblokeuk
3rd September 04, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by ronin69
I think to say that freesomn fighters are terrorisits, insults every true freedom fighter out there, and lends credibility to terrorists.

Which is something I don’t want to do.

What pisses me off, and lead to me posting in the BRII thread, is the way that the word Terrorist is used by some to mean anyone who is fighting against the current govt. In some cases these people are TRUE freedom fighters, in others they are the people you are thinking of. Its all a matter of media representation. I refer you again to the case of IRA support in the USA, this particular organisation has only been a profit making organisation (read – gangsters) for many, many years. They operated under the guise of “freedom fighters” to gain support. And it worked.

I reposted here because I was / am genuinely worried that my lack of writing ability lead to you and others thinking I cannot see the difference between right and wrong.

Stick
3rd September 04, 08:06 AM
Ah, crap, how the fuck could I forget >_< marines, the Cole, gah >_<

Anywho, they also like civies.... yeah, that's it.

Ronin
3rd September 04, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by kaliblokeuk
Which is something I don’t want to do.

What pisses me off, and lead to me posting in the BRII thread, is the way that the word Terrorist is used by some to mean anyone who is fighting against the current govt. In some cases these people are TRUE freedom fighters, in others they are the people you are thinking of. Its all a matter of media representation. I refer you again to the case of IRA support in the USA, this particular organisation has only been a profit making organisation (read – gangsters) for many, many years. They operated under the guise of “freedom fighters” to gain support. And it worked.

I reposted here because I was / am genuinely worried that my lack of writing ability lead to you and others thinking I cannot see the difference between right and wrong.

I don't think anyone considers the past actions of the IRA as anything other than terrorisim, though at one point they were targeting strictly militray and political targets.

I don't think anyone thought that you had no notion of right and wrong.

Ronin
3rd September 04, 08:17 AM
We need to take into account the intent and reson behind acts, as we look to define, for ourselves, what a freedom fighter, terrorist, soldier, is.
Technically, thay may be the same thing, but intent. sets them apart.
If you kill someone who istrying to kill you are someone you love, that is one thing, correct?
If you kill someone you never met, because you hate their country/goverment that is one thing, correct?
If you kill someone standing at a bus stop because they happen to be of a ceratin faith/nationality, that is one thing, correct?

The results are the same, a dead person, but the reason, the intent, to motive, is what will define that act, no?

ICY
3rd September 04, 08:44 AM
I agree Ronin however, I think sometimes you have to dig a little deeper...for instance, I think that for instance, the 9-11 attacks were calculated to damage America as a nation as much as possible, their government, their institutions and even their feeling of security...and while the people who died (outside mabye the Pentagon, can't remember if anyone died there?) were probably not directly responsible for the deaths of Muslims, their government WAS and in a democracy, IMO, the citizens who elect the government must take responsibility for the actions of that government, so I think children are innocent, and off-limits, but almost anyone else in a democracy is fair game, because it's only with their consent that their government commits murder internationally.

Ronin
3rd September 04, 08:52 AM
There is a reason countries have armies and soldiers, and that is to fight wars.
Civilian casulaties are an ugly and regretful fact of war.
But when civilians are targeted intentionally, that is wrong, no matter WHO does it.
Realise that, IF they had target only the pentagon and the white house, and the planes had been "civilian free", it would have been a "justifiable military attack".

ICY
3rd September 04, 08:55 AM
So a civilian bears no responsibility for anything his government does, and if he's working in a field that aids the government/military, that's ok too?

kaliblokeuk
3rd September 04, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by I Choke You
because it's only with their consent that their government commits murder internationally.

Not true, didn’t Spain go into the Iraq war even with an overwhelming vote against the action?

I seem to remember the same being true in Britain as well, but its all covered in so much spin and hype that I cannot tell anymore.

Ronin
3rd September 04, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by I Choke You
So a civilian bears no responsibility for anything his government does, and if he's working in a field that aids the government/military, that's ok too?

What do you want me to say?
That its ok to vote for a-holes cause you won't suffer any consequences ?
That its ok to kill soemone that works for Honeywell, just becaise Honeywell designs controls that go on the bomber planes ?

Stick
3rd September 04, 09:03 AM
ICY, I am not responsible for the actions of the guy I did not support- in fact, as I recall I actively opposed him.

Anywho, the subtleties of democracy, so very debateable.

Zeddy
3rd September 04, 11:08 AM
My impression was like Dai's - that "terrorism" is meant to be an activity directed as mostly civilians. As I understand one of the major goals of terrorism is to generate publicity for a cause. Attacking civilians does this extremely efficiently.

I think someone posted a few pages back that they'd serve again if they had to eg. in the case of something along the lines of WW2. Just out of curiousity, who here would be willing to serve under their country's flag? Both ex-military and non-military?

kaliblokeuk
3rd September 04, 11:10 AM
You will need to give a "for instance".

Zeddy
3rd September 04, 11:16 AM
There is a "for instance" in there...

Ronin
3rd September 04, 11:38 AM
I would serve to protect my country, I am sure everyone would.
Its just the definition of "protect my country" that people have issues with.

punchingdummy
3rd September 04, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by WingChun Lawyer
Dai, not if you ask the US army. As I remember, they also like to call "terrorists" those who bomb their soldiers abroad (or at least they did for some time, now it is mostly insurgent).

The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" are greatly overused in US media and political circles.

Zeddy
3rd September 04, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by ronin69
I would serve to protect my country, I am sure everyone would.
Its just the definition of "protect my country" that people have issues with.

This was actually triggered by a conversation with an acquaintance. It seems this person wouldn't even stop the hypothetical sitatution in which someone was beating his girlfriend/wife. Somehow I doubt he would serve his country.

I've spoken to cousins in Singapore as well that say despite the compulsory national service, they believe many would desert if it came to the crunch.

Interesting, but in some ways both expected and depressing.

Ronin
3rd September 04, 12:14 PM
Wasn't it Mark Twain that said that "humans are a race of cowards" and that he was the "falg bearer", or something like that?

Zeddy
3rd September 04, 12:19 PM
Not sure, I'm not that well read. :(

I was kind of curious to see the response of people on this board since the majority of us are martial artists. There's the expectation that some will say "Bring it on" in a macho way, and there will be others who listened to war stories in class are terrified at the prospect.

Me, I don't know whether I'd collapse in a heap under the stresses of war or shit myself. But I do know it's times like these I feel the temptation to enlist. I hate the feeling of being unable to do anything when situations like this go down, and the knowledge it's the sacrifices of others my freedom is bought with.

Zendetta
3rd September 04, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by ronin69
I would serve to protect my country, I am sure everyone would.
Its just the definition of "protect my country" that people have issues with.

That is some seriously lucid, insightful shit, there Ronin.

Damn.

Ronin
3rd September 04, 12:22 PM
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Thomas Jefferson

Luckly, history teaches us that we do rise to the occasion. sometimes.

Zeddy
3rd September 04, 12:30 PM
I just feel bad somehow... even passing the war memorial in town makes me pause usually.

That guy I spoke of has told me how he hot tailed it out of a nightclub when he saw one of his friends get hit over the head with a pipe. Needless to say, I don't think I can entrust my back to him.

Probably this is a good time to thank all service men and women. It's a pity we've had more and more reason to thank them as of late. :(

punchingdummy
3rd September 04, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by ronin69
I would serve to protect my country, I am sure everyone would.
Its just the definition of "protect my country" that people have issues with.

I'm not sure eveyone would Ronin. In fact I'm sure some would purposefully choose to not.

For those of us who are willing, joining the military or other service dedicated to the protection of your country is the easy part. The hard part is hoping that your willingness, knowledge, skills, abilities, etc. will be applied (at the direction of your leaders) in a noble and worthy manner.

punchingdummy
3rd September 04, 12:33 PM
Those who have served have realized for sometime what a nasty, unforgiving, unfair, diverse and brutal world this can be. The events of the past few years have just put that reality in the forefront.

Ronin
3rd September 04, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by punchingdummy
I'm not sure eveyone would Ronin. In fact I'm sure some would purposefully choose to not.

For those of us who are willing, joining the military or other service dedicated to the protection of your country is the easy part. The hard part is hoping that your willingness, knowledge, skills, abilities, etc. will be applied (at the direction of your leaders) in a noble and worthy manner.

Well said, very well said.