Bush's anouncement

[jonmartensen]

i'm fairly certain most men in power are generally stubborn. as for suicide bombers. what's to dislike so much. the only difference between them and normal soldiers who chuck grenades is the amount of dedication to get their objective complete. i actually think that it's men like that the US needs. i mean i know there isn't an american soldier who would volunteer for that but hey we could always just go fishing into our prisons and start using convicts for suicide bombers. two birds with one stone is what i say.

There is a big difference between someone sacrificing their life as they take out some of their enemy in a last ditch throw down and people walking into cafe's and blowing away 15 civilians. Suicide bombers do not fight wars, they are a package that focuses on and kills civilians. They have no message, for if they did, they wouldn't need to kill anyone else when they commit suicide. They are people that are taught they have nothing to live for, and that indescriminatly killing people (just because they live in an area a few miles away) is a good thing. If the suicide bombers were actually fighting for a cause, they would not blow themselves up, they would fight, with guns/knives/hands/words and then commit the ultimate sacrifice.

The people that send children out with bombs attached to them, the people that think the best way to kill the most of their enemy is on buses and in restaurants and library's, the people that do this are the worst kind. They do not get respect from me for believing in their cause. For many of them, I give my pitty, because they do not even "know" (in the greatest sense) what they are trully doing.

There is a line, one that seperates heroism from fanatacism. Suicide bombers are fanatics, the hero is the man who stays behind as his troops retreat, so that he may blow himself up and stall/injur the enemy. There is a big difference between suicide bombers and soldiers in a war.

[Lyrs]

arafat is powerless.

/end

as we all truly are.

True, but in arafat's case, he really is powerless. Blaming him for terrorist crimes is like saying that a infant strangled a gorilla to death.

He simply doesn't have any control of terorist groups.

/end

[Dark Dragon]

Are you joking? He has control over those ----- freaks!

He controls them, he acts like he doesn't because if he did you'd think his ass would see another day? No, it'd get bombed to hell.

And besides, rule #1 in bad guy code is-

When caught, Deny, deny deny, and deny somemore.

Rule #2-

Act like a chicken and powerless to stop the people you send out, hey? who'd blame your weak ass for something that evil when you can hardly say your name without stuttering?

And rule #3

Always stab them in the back when they aren't looking.

Bad guy's don't play by the rule book, they have their own sets of codes.

[El Banana]

No he doesn't. I do not support him, but do you really think religious fanatics would stop the bombings because Arafat said so? It's as if Catholics in the US stopped going to church and stealing because Bush suddenly says so.
And even if some people are more... twisted than others, there is no such thing as a good OR bad guy. True absolute villians do not exist.

[Wufei]

There is a big difference between someone sacrificing their life as they take out some of their enemy in a last ditch throw down and people walking into cafe's and blowing away 15 civilians. Suicide bombers do not fight wars, they are a package that focuses on and kills civilians. They have no message, for if they did, they wouldn't need to kill anyone else when they commit suicide. They are people that are taught they have nothing to live for, and that indescriminatly killing people (just because they live in an area a few miles away) is a good thing. If the suicide bombers were actually fighting for a cause, they would not blow themselves up, they would fight, with guns/knives/hands/words and then commit the ultimate sacrifice.

The people that send children out with bombs attached to them, the people that think the best way to kill the most of their enemy is on buses and in restaurants and library's, the people that do this are the worst kind. They do not get respect from me for believing in their cause. For many of them, I give my pitty, because they do not even "know" (in the greatest sense) what they are trully doing.

There is a line, one that seperates heroism from fanatacism. Suicide bombers are fanatics, the hero is the man who stays behind as his troops retreat, so that he may blow himself up and stall/injur the enemy. There is a big difference between suicide bombers and soldiers in a war.

hey i have that picture. anyways, you may see a difference but i do not. that is simply a way of war. all's fair in love and war remember. civilian or not war kills people in general. why should they care as long as it gets the point that these guys are willing to do just about anything to win or at least take down as many of the enemy as they can across. that was arrogant. how do you know what the hell they're being taught, when's the last time you walked into one of their 'military facilities' and listened in on any of their talks to their troops? for all you know they may have as much of a regard for life as everybody else. so you're saying if they're fighting for a cause, they should fight 'fair' before blowing themselves up? but then if you look at it like that maybe we should just go over there with however many men they have with the exact same guns and exact same technology and have a nice big 'fair' fight. but we wouldn't. why? because war isn't meant to be fair, war is meant to be fought for victory or whatever they may conceive as a small victory.

although i don't approve of children being used and since most of them are so stupid they don't realize they are being used, the ends justifies the means. i don't even know why i care if they're children or not, yeah scratch that part out then. so what if they're children, everybody has to die some time and if they are too stupid to realize they're being used as weapons screw them they deserve to die.

my guess would be somebody who's buddy got blown up in vietnam or something by a suicidebomber said that. so of course he'd be a little biased. it's easy to think of another's nation's tactics as being cowardly in comparison to ours when we are fighting them.

[jonmartensen]

Just look at it this way, Wufei. Replace suicide bomber with armed soldier.

Instead of a suicide bomber going into a cafe and giving their life to a so called "noble" cause (though it loses all nobility as soon as they kill the civilians, in my eyes) we say:

An armed soldier walks into a McDonalds, and shoots everyone in sight. Cashiers, children, parents, teenagers, babies, all of them. After everyone is dead, he kills himself.

That doesn't seem very noble, to me.

By your logic, the pilots that indescriminatly napalmed entire villiages in Vietnam did nothing wrong.
Nazi's killing millions of Jews was all fair, because part of the Nazi's war was against Jews.
The Nanking Massacre was "justifiable"
Stalin was merelly fighting a war.

[Mroni]

Just look at it this way, Wufei. Replace suicide bomber with armed soldier.

Instead of a suicide bomber going into a cafe and giving their life to a so called "noble" cause (though it loses all nobility as soon as they kill the civilians, in my eyes) we say:

An armed soldier walks into a McDonalds, and shoots everyone in sight. Cashiers, children, parents, teenagers, babies, all of them. After everyone is dead, he kills himself.

That doesn't seem very noble, to me.

By your logic, the pilots that indescriminatly napalmed entire villiages in Vietnam did nothing wrong.
Nazi's killing millions of Jews was all fair, because part of the Nazi's war was against Jews.
The Nanking Massacre was "justifiable"
Stalin was merelly fighting a war.

Cut the napalm bombing crap out. If the villages had vc in them then let them burn. And besides do you hold east german border guards personally responsible for shooting people that tried to cross when they were told not to. I don't that's just obeying orders.


Mr Oni

[Simpi]

Mr Oni. And i'm sure lies that US put out after Gulf of Tonkin incident (so they could napalm those villages) where not that bad. In addition of 'domino theory', america did have important interests in south-east asia which they tried to protect with war.

Same way, america has interests to protect in middle-east and Bush tries to sell the war with his own domino theory that war will bring peace and happiness to middle-east:

Jay C. Farrar of CSIS <i>'I don't really believe that real thinkers in the admiministration believe that this is all about democracy either. I think that it's a good face to put it, a good cover to put on the issue.'</i>

Jessica Matthews of Carnegie-institute: <i> I would call it fantasy or personal delusion on part of those who promote this...'</i>

Issue is also about Dick Cheneys buddies: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/Worl ... 30322.html

I'm not sure if border guards have been sentenced but at least ex-DDR leaders such as Egon Krentz are currently in jail, for ordering those guards to shoot everybody who tries across.

Back to war. Now that US has said war will be longer than planned and 100000 soldiers more are needed and they just bomb Baghdad for a month. Cost of war will soar (money for american, lives for Iraqi) and most likely wreck your economy and president's popularity, not to mention arab resentment will grown with more news like this: http://argument.independent.co.uk/comme ... ory=391165

It's fortunate for anglo-american (hello also to...uh.. Denmark) forces that Saddam also emulates Stalin in his military purges and has removed most of the capable military commanders and replaced them with 'trusty' individuals from his howetown. Currently Iraqis use outdated soviet tactics which worked on some level at Iran or Kuwait but not anymore.

I do believe they will eventually learn and conquering Baghdad will become even more difficult for anglo-american forces.

[Wykith]

How much is Bush raising the deficit now? 1.3 billion a day?

[Wufei]

Just look at it this way, Wufei. Replace suicide bomber with armed soldier.

Instead of a suicide bomber going into a cafe and giving their life to a so called "noble" cause (though it loses all nobility as soon as they kill the civilians, in my eyes) we say:

An armed soldier walks into a McDonalds, and shoots everyone in sight. Cashiers, children, parents, teenagers, babies, all of them. After everyone is dead, he kills himself.

That doesn't seem very noble, to me.

By your logic, the pilots that indescriminatly napalmed entire villiages in Vietnam did nothing wrong.
Nazi's killing millions of Jews was all fair, because part of the Nazi's war was against Jews.
The Nanking Massacre was "justifiable"
Stalin was merelly fighting a war.

listen jon i don't need to replace suicide bomer with anything. i already understand the point it is you're trying to make. and actually i never even said that i totally think that the killing of so called innocents is justifiable even in wartime. i'm simply saying from a strategic point of view, for a force that is outnumbered and outdone in many ways, you come to the realization that maybe the only way to win is to discourage the enemy from fighting by taking extreme measures. now part of me arguing is simply because i believe in every point being argued whether i believe in it or not, if for no other reason than to get other people to think about it. but the other part was because i guess somewhere in there i came under the impression that you only thought it was wrong for them to be using suicide bombers and killing civilians because they are our enemy. see if i heard that you didn't agree with some of the american things done as well i may have thought about it differently. you've argued your point well and i already understand. good job.