Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 98
  1.    #1  
    6 Charged in Plot to Attack Army Post

    Not to be a smart *** here, but technically, I don't think that's "terrorism". I mean if it's a planned attack it should be stopped and prosecuted but I think that's a legitimate target (not that I think they should be attacked).

    Thoughts?
  2. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #2  
    In this inside-out Orwellian/Bushie world, I'm a terrorist.
  3. #3  
    Do you think plans to attack during a football game would classify these individuals in the realm of terrorists?
  4.    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Do you think plans to attack during a football game would classify these individuals in the realm of terrorists?
    If the soldiers at the base were focused on a football game?

    WTF are you referring to?
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    6 Charged in Plot to Attack Army Post

    Not to be a smart *** here, but technically, I don't think that's "terrorism". I mean if it's a planned attack it should be stopped and prosecuted but I think that's a legitimate target (not that I think they should be attacked).

    Thoughts?
    WTF are you doing, trying to legitimize what they were about to do? "a legitimate target" how dare you. Who cares whether it's terrorism or not (it is) they were infiltrated and caught according to your reference so what exactly is your legit target statement supposed to mean?
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by ttrundle View Post
    WTF are you doing, trying to legitimize what they were about to do? "a legitimate target" how dare you. Who cares whether it's terrorism or not (it is) they were infiltrated and caught according to your reference so what exactly is your legit target statement supposed to mean?
    I'm just saying it's not "terrorism". Don't get your panties in a wad I'm not trying to support or justify what they are accused of, but attacking a military target can't be classified as "terrorism" can it?
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I'm just saying it's not "terrorism". Don't get your panties in a wad I'm not trying to support or justify what they are accused of, but attacking a military target can't be classified as "terrorism" can it?

    First of all, my panties are none of your concern...or are they Secondly what's your point on how it's classified....terrorism, crime, whatever why try to downgrade their plan?
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by ttrundle View Post
    First of all, my panties are none of your concern...or are they Secondly what's your point on how it's classified....terrorism, crime, whatever why try to downgrade their plan?
    I'm by no means trying to "downgrade" anything. Just promoting the proper use of our language and at the same time point out how much we throw this term about without thinking about it.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    6 Charged in Plot to Attack Army Post

    Not to be a smart *** here, but technically, I don't think that's "terrorism". I mean if it's a planned attack it should be stopped and prosecuted but I think that's a legitimate target (not that I think they should be attacked).

    Thoughts?
    Potential side diversions aside...not terrorism.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I'm by no means trying to "downgrade" anything. Just promoting the proper use of our language and at the same time point out how much we throw this term about without thinking about it.

    So what would you call it then if not terrorism??
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by taylorh View Post
    ttrundle's poorly thought out rant notwithstanding. To answer the question daThomas, I don't think it's terrorism.

    To attack a military target during time of war or a military conflict would be considered hitting a military target in my opinion.
    If this exact same attack was to happen during a time of "peace," then I would consider it terrorism.

    Palestinian attack Israeli military targets all of the time and it's considered terrorism. To Palestine they consider it a successful hit on a military target against an enemy that occupies thier country. To Isreal they are at "peace" and call it terrorism.

    But in the case of Iraq. I don't think you could consider any strike on a US military target terrorism considering both sides consider it a war.

    The Bush administration will use any opportunity to feeds American's fear to further the war agenda and keep Republicans in office.
    What are you 14 or 15 years old? Resort to personal attacks during a discussion. Grow up.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by ttrundle View Post
    What are you 14 or 15 years old? Resort to personal attacks during a discussion. Grow up.
    How was that a personal attack? Just saying your post was not a well thought out angry rant.
    Last edited by taylorh; 05/08/2007 at 07:32 PM.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I'm by no means trying to "downgrade" anything. Just promoting the proper use of our language and at the same time point out how much we throw this term about without thinking about it.
    I agree.
    And it's a fine line.
    To attack civilian targets in order to terrorize is terrorism.
    To attack a military target discriminant during peace is terrorism.
    To attack a military target in time of war would be a military strike. Also civilian targets hit as "collateral damage" could fall in this category.

    If anything this is almost more of guerilla warfare.

    Understand I am by no means condoning it. But but I think they should be are military combatants not as terrorists.

    I admit I may not be taking in to account all aspects so I could be totally wrong here. That why I look forward to these debates.
  14. #14  
    "Terrorism" (like "hate crime") is an emotionally charged term used to characterize acts that are already legally addressable in a manner which creates an obstacle to reasonable dissent in discourse.
  15. #15  
    It's war. Plain and simple. And that's true whether the attack is on a military target, or a civilian one, in America or in Iraq. Calling it terrorism is just playing to our emotions.

    When the U.S. carpet bombed Hanoi during the Vietnam, we killed 10s of thousands of civilians. Same thing in Germany during WW II, and when we dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did attacking civilian targets make the pilots of those planes terrorists? The Germans, Japanese and Vietnamese might well say yes. Americans would likely disagree.

    The goal of war is to inflict more pain on your enemy than he is willing to withstand. In the "barbaric" old days, wars were pretty much confined to armies. One army faced another on the battlefield, and any civilian casualties were accidental, and few and far between (although the looting and pillaging that followed certainly impacted civilians, its effects were probably much less far reaching that the impact we've had in Iraq). In our more "civilized" era, we use weapons that make it difficult, in many cases, to limit damage to only military targets, and our enemies hide behind civilians, making it even harder to limit civilian casualties.

    A smart military (and I use the word broadly) attacks it's enemy's weak spots. There's no way our opponents in the mid-east can beat us in a frontal assault, so they use the tactics that maximize their strengths and our weaknesses. No way we can protect every block, so the "terrorists" will always have plenty of targets where we're not. Sure they're breaking the "rules" of modern warfare, but why is that a surprise? The goal is to win, not follow the rules.

    We "broke the rules" during the American Revolution and the war of 1812. Instead of facing the British on the field of battle, we hid behind rocks and trees and attacked them in a most ungentlemanly fashion. Had the word terrorist existed, I'm sure the British would have applied it to us. And both we and the Germans "broke the rules" during WW II. The Germans rained terror on London, and we razed multiple German and Japanese cities from the air. I've been to Hiroshima, and visited the museum there. Nothing today's terrorists have done can hold a candle to the damage, and the number of civilian causalties, that one bomb did. Was it justified? Good people can argue the point, but most Americans will say yes. Just as many Musims believe the World Trade Center attack was justified.

    And no, I'm not supportive of suicide bombings, attacks on civilians, mosques, buses and subways. But I'm also not the least bit surprised by it. It's the best strategy our enemies have at the moment. It inflicts maximum pain on their enemies, at the lowest cost to themselves. What is our threshold of pain? How important is it to America to keep Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other? How many "terrorists" do we need to kill to exceed their threshold of pain?

    It's been said by many that armies are always prepared to fight the prior war, rather than the next one, and that certainly seems true in Iraq. Our leadership (military and civilian) thought that dropping thousands of bombs on Baghdad, and rushing into the city with tanks, would force an immediate surrender by the Iraqi government. It basically did but, as with almost every other aspect of this war, our leadership missed the point. It wasn't the Iraqi military that was a threat to us, it was the much less centralized terrorist and insurgent organizations, and all we managed to do with our attack was to destroy the institutions that maintained stability. By destroying the Iraqi military, we opened the country to the insurgent forces we've been battling ever since.

    And the U.S. had better get used to the idea that, for the forseeable future, wars are going to be fought on the ground, block by block, soldier by soldier. We've spent trillions of dollars on stealth bombers, supersonic fighters, and hidden submarines to fight a war against another superpower. But our Army is so ill equipped to fight the war we're in that we have to hire "contractors" from foreign countries to provide "security" for our military bases.

    Whatever you think about this war, it is a war. And in war there is no safe haven.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
  16. #16  
    Wait....a little while ago I heard several on the left say it is NOT a WAR on Terror....now it is? Just defining the definition of the actual state we are in.
  17. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb View Post
    Whatever you think about this war, it is a war. And in war there is no safe haven.
    We're shadow-boxing an invisible enemy. That's not war, even in the most liberal use of the term. The US has no clue, nor the mental curiosity to have a clue, as to why it has this enemy which is unidentifiable. The US brands those who look cross-eyed at it in any regard as the terrorist enemy.

    Because of our lack of spine to examine the log in our own eye, there will never be a win, in any sense of the term, which for the US equates to losing. Believing this gives me absolutely no comfort.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    We're shadow-boxing an invisible enemy. That's not war, even in the most liberal use of the term. The US has no clue, nor the mental curiosity to have a clue, as to why it has this enemy which is unidentifiable. The US brands those who look cross-eyed at it in any regard as the terrorist enemy.

    Because of our lack of spine to examine the log in our own eye, there will never be a win, in any sense of the term, which for the US equates to losing. Believing this gives me absolutely no comfort.
    Undoubtedly the US has its log(s). That is, however, not a factor in why we have this particular enemy. This particular enemy's ideology is not reactive to our policies or practices, but is proactive to establishing itself.

    Christians in the US are accused of wanting to establish a "theocracy" when really only attempting to promote the moral code that even those in this forum believe as valuable (once removed from the mythical and magical context). Theocracy--actual theocracy--is the goal of this particular enemy.

    If the US dropped Israel as an ally today , the threat from this particular enemy would remain.

    If the US tended only to its own citizens and borders from this day forward, the threat from this particular enemy would remain. In fact, its progress might be hastened.

    We have not done all things well. We are not eligible to "cast the first stone." However, this particular enemy is not such as a result of those failings, but in addition.
  19. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Undoubtedly the US has its log(s). That is, however, not a factor in why we have this particular enemy.
    'Not a factor'? That is an insultingly subjective and blind opinion which completely lacks foundation.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    'Not a factor'? That is an insultingly subjective and blind opinion which completely lacks foundation.
    When a party sets out to destroy infidels, the only way you avoid destruction is to defeat that party, or remove yourself from infidel status.

    Which of the US "logs" justifies that "infidel" characterization, and the requesite destruction such categorization "merits"?
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions