Is Bin Laden a tool for the US election?

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 19:27
VIEWED: 12002
PAGE 5 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

CONNORFLYNN

Wednesday, September 8, 2004 7:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So... individuals or groups that target innocent civilians for death are terrorists?

And since we charge Osama bin Laden with terrorism because he inspires and funds terrorists (although he hasn't actually blown himself up yet) then individuals or groups that inspire and fund OTHERS to target civilians are also terrorists?

I just want to mkae sure that I have this PERFECTLY clear.

Wow? LOL. I'm not sure what your after, but I'm sure it's some sort of twisted view LOL. I would have to say that yes what you state is a pretty precise definition of what a terrorist is except that terrorists target civilians and Civilian infrastructures for the sole purpose of instilling terror.

Pro-America, Pro-Democracy, Pro-Israeli, Pro-Freedom, Pro-Capitalism. Anti-Terrorist, Anti-Socialist, Anti-Dumbass

"Let Freedom Reign, death to Islamafascism"

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, September 9, 2004 1:47 AM

Yeah, its just the French

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&e=5&u=/afp/us_vot
e_poll_bush_kerry

See all the other countries opposed to your insanity

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

CONNORFLYNN

Thursday, September 9, 2004 1:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Yeah, its just the French

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&e=5&u=/afp/us_vot
e_poll_bush_kerry

See all the other countries opposed to your insanity

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

I guess it's a good thing only Americans get to vote for their leaders LOL.

They called Churchill insane too when he warned of the Nazi menace. We shall see what transpires over the next 10 years or so.

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, September 9, 2004 1:57 AM

Churchill also wanted to institute concetration camps in India during the thirtys to quell the independance movement there

He was more than a little nuts, worked during the war but notice his lack of re-election after the war

Vote for your own leader sure, but stay at home next time, it appears your welcome is wearing out quite rapidly

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

GEEZER

Thursday, September 9, 2004 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Daikath:
We haven't had Americans in the ICC so there would be no reason for it to be working.

It didnt exactly say declaring war, just occupying the space where the ICC is and take the prisoner out. No matter how you turn it it's still a breach of soverenty of a NATO allie. Even Tony Blair was said to have been dead set against it.

Personally I don't quite care about it (other then that they have plans to invade my country wich my poeple went to war for over 80 years for(long story wich is irrelevant)) but what strikes me the most is that the US media and most media totally ignores it. I don't think that is right and the poeple who determine who will lead them ought to know what they do, this is actually the first time I met a person online who knew what I was talking about and didn't just dismis it because I coudlt come up with an internet link (thanks for that btw).

I don't know how it is in Holland, but here in the U.S. most legislation is proposed with the knowledge that it will never become law. It's done either to make a point about something, or so the author can send a newsletter to his constituents saying that he is "fighting to protect our servicemen from trumped-up charges in foreign courts", for example. The media doesn't pay too much attention because the practice is so common.

Quote:
Originally posted by Daikath:

But about the terrorist/hero thing. Hitler for example spoke of a train sabotage done by the Dutch resistance an act of terrorism. Nelson Mandela was also called a terrorist by the apartheid regime. But reckonizing them as actual terrorists would be falling for the ploy Hitler and the apartheid government set up.

They are not terrorists, poeple like Bin Laden en Hamas have no intention of trying to kill as few as possible poeple to get their goal, they want to kill as many heithens as possible. The ANC tried to reach their goal peacefully for 48 years before they even remotely used violence. Hitler had europe in a almost totaletarian lock where you would be caught and arrested if you did the slightest thing against the nazi occupation (my grandfather was sent to a concentrationcamp for looking at some motorcycles.. he escaped though).

I would agree with this.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Thursday, September 9, 2004 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So... individuals or groups that target innocent civilians for death are terrorists?

Ah. Here's where we slip into shades of gray. What is an "innocent civilian"? For what purpose are they "targeted for death"?

Is the man in the enemy country who builds the rifles my enemy shoots at me an innocent civilian? Is dropping a bomb on his house to prevent him making more rifles terrorism, or a legitimate act or war? If the bomb kills his wife and child...terrorism or collateral damage?

If the village chief won't willingly provide food, shelter, and men for my insurgency and I torture and kill him in front of the entire village, after doing the same to his family...Terrorism, or a sad but necessary part of the struggle for liberation?

If the village is providing food, shelter, and men for the insurgency that is killing my troops, blowing up buildings, and kidnapping and executing or ransoming foreign aid workers, is razing the village terrorism, or a legitimate act or war?

If I have been taught from youth that only those of my belief are real people, and that everyone else is a fair target, is blowing up a bus full of non-believer school-children terrorism, or the proper way to show my belief?

I could go on to propose scores or scenarios, and every one of us would probably differ on some of them. If we someday had to face those rifles, or those insurgents, our opinions might change.

There aren't just two points on the line:

Non-Terrorist.|.Terrorist

With the deciding factor being "killed a civilian". There's all those points in between where people make hard decisions between humanity and survival.

Making everything black and white simplifies it tremendously, but flies in the face of reality. If you go into battle determined to never harm a civilian, and your enemy does not follow this prohibition, you'll lose. Most countries have rules of engagement that recognize this, but that try to minimize what they consider the necessary evil of civilian casualties. Unfortunately, in some places with long-running, low intensity (relatively speaking, e.g. no big battles) wars, both sides slip over the edge and just want to kill the other side.

I don't have a solution to this. Everyone decides for themselves where the tipping point is, based on what they were taught and what their immediate circumstances are. I would guess, despite current appearances, that in the last couple of centuries it has actually gotten better.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

HERO

Thursday, September 9, 2004 3:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Yeah, its just the French

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1506&e=5&u=/afp/us_vot
e_poll_bush_kerry

See all the other countries opposed to your insanity

A lot of people were dead wrong about Reagan as well. They opposed the hard line American policies and military buildup in the '80s. They were wrong then and wrong now. If the polls even reflect real opinion, polls are easy to manipulate.

I think that when the war is far away then its easy to catch a couple sound bites from a biased media outlet like the BBC (which makes up stories) or Al Jazeera (which is a terrorist mouthpiece, although I think they make an honost effort at fairness in thier dishonost world) and form a rash judgment.

But I guarantee that when they are called upon to bury their children by the hundreds the day after a terrorist attack on their local school, they not only pray that Bush wins the election but they secretly wish he could lead their country as well.

H

DAIKATH

Friday, September 10, 2004 7:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I don't know how it is in Holland, but here in the U.S. most legislation is proposed with the knowledge that it will never become law. It's done either to make a point about something, or so the author can send a newsletter to his constituents saying that he is "fighting to protect our servicemen from trumped-up charges in foreign courts", for example. The media doesn't pay too much attention because the practice is so common.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I assume Bush made the piece of legislation (from what I understand only the US president is allowed to issue potential law).

Then I believe it is without precedent that a president tried to issue a law wherein he would have been able to invade a NATO allie (sp?) for following international law. I think that says enough personally.

GEEZER

Friday, September 10, 2004 12:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Daikath:

I assume Bush made the piece of legislation (from what I understand only the US president is allowed to issue potential law).

Then I believe it is without precedent that a president tried to issue a law wherein he would have been able to invade a NATO allie (sp?) for following international law. I think that says enough personally.

Actually, any one of 100 Senators and 435 Representatives can propose legislation. The President can suggest legislation, but it's up to Congress to actually submit, debate, and vote on it.

All Bills (pieces of proposed legislation) are first submitted to the Senate or House(of Representatives) committee in charge of that type of bill, say Appropriations or Armed Services. The committee must approve the bill, by majority vote, before it even makes it to the floor (the full Senate or House.) It is then debated and voted on again. If it passes in the Senate, it still has to recieve the approval of the House, and vice versa. The it must be signed by the President to become law. He can also veto it, but the veto can be overturned by a 2/3 vote of congress.

The beauty of the system is actually in how slowly and inefficiently it works.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CONNORFLYNN

Friday, September 10, 2004 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So... individuals or groups that target innocent civilians for death are terrorists?

Ah. Here's where we slip into shades of gray. What is an "innocent civilian"? For what purpose are they "targeted for death"?

Is the man in the enemy country who builds the rifles my enemy shoots at me an innocent civilian? Is dropping a bomb on his house to prevent him making more rifles terrorism, or a legitimate act or war? If the bomb kills his wife and child...terrorism or collateral damage?

If the village chief won't willingly provide food, shelter, and men for my insurgency and I torture and kill him in front of the entire village, after doing the same to his family...Terrorism, or a sad but necessary part of the struggle for liberation?

If the village is providing food, shelter, and men for the insurgency that is killing my troops, blowing up buildings, and kidnapping and executing or ransoming foreign aid workers, is razing the village terrorism, or a legitimate act or war?

If I have been taught from youth that only those of my belief are real people, and that everyone else is a fair target, is blowing up a bus full of non-believer school-children terrorism, or the proper way to show my belief?

I could go on to propose scores or scenarios, and every one of us would probably differ on some of them. If we someday had to face those rifles, or those insurgents, our opinions might change.

There aren't just two points on the line:

Non-Terrorist.|.Terrorist

With the deciding factor being "killed a civilian". There's all those points in between where people make hard decisions between humanity and survival.

Making everything black and white simplifies it tremendously, but flies in the face of reality. If you go into battle determined to never harm a civilian, and your enemy does not follow this prohibition, you'll lose. Most countries have rules of engagement that recognize this, but that try to minimize what they consider the necessary evil of civilian casualties. Unfortunately, in some places with long-running, low intensity (relatively speaking, e.g. no big battles) wars, both sides slip over the edge and just want to kill the other side.

I don't have a solution to this. Everyone decides for themselves where the tipping point is, based on what they were taught and what their immediate circumstances are. I would guess, despite current appearances, that in the last couple of centuries it has actually gotten better.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Well put and much more eloquent then I. Thanks

"Paulie, get the ball cutters" - Tony Soprano

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE