Tunisia 8 hostages murdered.

[SV THIRD DAY]

There are no such things as Terrorists, it's just a fake politically correct name so people don't have to deal with the Ideology behind the violence.

The soldiers in the American Revolution were not attacking the British for the sake of spilling blood but for a cause.

The Nazis were not killing Jews for no reason, but for a cause.

People in the Middle East are not strapping bombs onto their 13yr old kids for the fun of it, but for a cause.

We like to use the word "Terrorist", but what is Terror? Wars are not fought over "terror" they are fought over ideas, beliefs and desired outcomes.

Naming the conflict after 9/11 a "War on Terror" was one of Bush's many many mistakes and the world wants to continue it. Why? because it's easier to call them Terrorists than fighters for a stated and declared cause, beliefs, and desired outcomes.

Oh, now THEY themselves will tell us on video and in street march chants what they are fighting for...it's just too difficult for the soft fat and happy, West to admit it. Too difficult to think about and the ramifications too great to call it what it really is.

Heck, you guys all know that if I really said what the problem is (and it ain't poverty or a lack of jobs and opportunity as our idiot State Department actually said) that this thread would be shut down for "spreading hate", for being insensitive, or for hurting someone's feelings. You know it's true and that is the world we live in today. A world where for page after page we can talk about the "terrorists" but not have the courage to name them, their ideology, or what they themselves tell us they are fighting for. And my Friday night chat room friends, that is why the West will lose this war, a war we fail to even admit we are in, preferring instead to hold fast to the famous words of "Peace in our Time".

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

There are no such things as Terrorists, it's just a fake politically correct name so people don't have to deal with the Ideology behind the violence.

The soldiers in the American Revolution were not attacking the British for the sake of spilling blood but for a cause.

The Nazis were not killing Jews for no reason, but for a cause.

People in the Middle East are not strapping bombs onto their 13yr old kids for the fun of it, but for a cause.

We like to use the word "Terrorist", but what is Terror? Wars are not fought over "terror" they are fought over ideas, beliefs and desired outcomes.

Naming the conflict after 9/11 a "War on Terror" was one of Bush's many many mistakes and the world wants to continue it. Why? because it's easier to call them Terrorists than fighters for a stated and declared cause, beliefs, and desired outcomes.

Oh, now THEY themselves will tell us on video and in street march chants what they are fighting for...it's just too difficult for the soft fat and happy, West to admit it. Too difficult to think about and the ramifications too great to call it what it really is.

Heck, you guys all know that if I really said what the problem is (and it ain't poverty or a lack of jobs and opportunity as our idiot State Department actually said) that this thread would be shut down for "spreading hate", for being insensitive, or for hurting someone's feelings. You know it's true and that is the world we live in today. A world where for page after page we can talk about the "terrorists" but not have the courage to name them, their ideology, or what they themselves tell us they are fighting for. And my Friday night chat room friends, that is why the West will lose this war, a war we fail to even admit we are in, preferring instead to hold fast to the famous words of "Peace in our Time".

Neville Chamberlain is so 20th century and I am certain that we will lose nothing..

[Arthur Garfield]

@Rich Boren,
What are you hurtful about Rich?What's up with that.
From reading your posts-Yup-best leave it to highly educated/experienced people that have deep understanding of history and a place within it.


All the Best

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

You, the member named Wrong and I all see this topic the same. I'm sure there are others who have chosen not to get involved.

I can understand where Boatman61 is coming from; throughout history the winner has always been the one to write the history books and paint themselves as saints regardless of the truth. There are few left afterwards to dispute their actions and version of events. Just because the British gov't didn't like the US colonies breaking away and called them terrorists did not make them so. Walking shoulder to shoulder through a field is acting like a sitting duck. Shooting from behind trees was a lot smarter - they didn't target the families, only the red coats, AFAIK. Perhaps even as recently as WWII and Vietnam there were atrocities on both sides that could be called terrorism or genocide.

I'm no war historian, but it seems to me since the advent of the Geneva Convention, there are rules of engagement concerning capturing enemy soldiers and treatment of non-combatants, etc. and these rules are supposed to be followed by all recognized "soldiers."

Have innocent civilians been killed by governments? Plenty of times, heck, the only 2 times nuclear weapons have ever been dropped on anyone, it was on civilian towns - but that was to demonstrate that the US was very serious and willing to take extreme measures to end the war now. Does that make it right? Well, not really, but even as a Japanese American, I'll readily admit that it did save a lot of lives.

Now, with camera phones and Instagram and the internet, history is being written as it happens and nobody is going to get away with putting a spin on it or rewriting history, it's all getting uploaded in real time.

Back to the definitions of soldiers vs terrorists, it seems pretty simple to me: if you follow the rules of engagement of the Geneva convention and fight only against other soldiers, you can call yourself a soldier, regardless of which side you're on.

If you go around beheading people, killing innocent people, committing atrocities, etc, then you're just a criminal making excuses for your homicidal behavior and similar tactics can and should be used to eradicate the vermin from the face of the earth. It doesn't matter what you call yourself or which side you're on (to me, at least) it's your methods and tactics that determine how I view you.

There are enough "reporters" wandering around that if you think you have a valid gripe, there are 10 or 20 of them ready to stick a mic in your face and broadcast whatever nonsense grievance you'd like to air. Recent riots in MO and L.A. come to mind.

These aren't just my opinions, this is the basis of how you'll be treated by US troops the world over. Conduct yourself like a soldier, and the protections of the Geneva Convention will be afforded to you. Act like Boko Haram, for example, and they're not going to bother capturing you like a POW or dragging you in for a trial, you'll just get neutralized, as they say.

Thank you for your post.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Arthur Garfield

@Rich Boren,
What are you hurtful about Rich?What's up with that.
From reading your posts-Yup-best leave it to highly educated/experienced people that have deep understanding of history and a place within it.


All the Best

The pioneers take the arrows, speaking truth to power is never easy...nor without critisims. But it is noted that there was no material fault or critique of my comments, just that I dared say something at all....which is where it always begins.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

...
Back to the definitions of soldiers vs terrorists, it seems pretty simple to me: if you follow the rules of engagement of the Geneva convention and fight only against other soldiers, you can call yourself a soldier, regardless of which side you're on.

If you go around .. killing innocent people, committing atrocities, etc, then you're just a criminal making excuses for your homicidal behavior .. It doesn't matter what you call yourself or which side you're on (to me, at least) it's your methods and tactics that determine how I view you.
..
These aren't just my opinions, .. Conduct yourself like a soldier, and the protections of the Geneva Convention will be afforded to you. .

Do you call this terrorism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_x-RTI1kyA

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

The pioneers take the arrows, speaking truth to power is never easy...nor without critisims. But it is noted that there was no material fault or critique of my comments, just that I dared say something at all....which is where it always begins.

You'll always get crap for not following the Media's Agenda.. which is set by the owner.. which is set for whichever political party/agenda he supports..
One of the reasons I view the media the way I do.. all the 'Players' in the world have English news channels (gotta love the Web) which I give each the 1/2hr cycle on most days I'm not sailing or otherwise engaged..
Same news.. different perspectives.. still don't get the 'whole' picture as I feel I would shame the victims if I viewed anything put out by ISIL.. let alone their suffering.. to hear it is bad enough.. and deeds speak a greater truth than any word..
Just people have short and selective memories.. they choose to forget the lessons of History.. and human nature.. even fairy tales have the 'Dark, Evil Side..
Find a nest of scorpions in your backyard.. destroy them quick.. else they'll spread and it'll take forever..
Its all very well spouting the Geneva Convention and the UN.. did the Serbs give a **** about it.. no.. did they respect the UN troops.. naahh.. shot at em a few times tho'..
The Infidels Rule's.... I think they've demonstrated their contempt for those quite clearly.. they wish to install Sharia Law.. then that is how they should be tried and sentenced by their surviving victims, evidence from every man, woman and child abused during their tyranny.. Murderers.. hung, Rapists.. stoned to death by the raped, thieves lose 1 hand.. etc etc..
Its all Blah, Blah, Blah... Whats needed is an International Task Force with the top in each country/speciality making up Brigades to SAS standard specifically to deal with these types of situations.. Boko Haram.. ISIL.. Al de way down the line..
The countries concerned appeal to the UN, its given due consideration and validation of claims and in goes a Brigade of Gurkha Infantry, LRDG style cavalry and air support.. the neighbouring countries close their border controls right up tight..
No place to run.. no place to hide..
Learnt very early on in the Navy.. Knock a man down.. don't be a gentleman and help him back up.. he'll kick your head in in return..
Just think of the savings in Arms Budgets as well..
Oh... hang on.. I've just suggested 'Mass Unemployment'...
OOPPSSSSSsssssss....

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Polux

Non sense calling that ethnic cleansing or genocide. All liberation movements were responsible for many innocent killings and senseless acts.

I was just looking to what are called terrorist movements and I have no sympathy for any kind of fundamentalism, that for me is an evil in itself since fundamentalism is the opposed of tolerance that can only be born for the understanding of different realities and different ways to look at reality.

Yes I agree the beheading of captive soldiers or the murder of tourists is also a senseless act but without making no excuses regarding the wrongness of that attitude it seems that when violence is upon westerners dead seems to have another value. Put that in contrast with the dead of hundred of thousands of innocent civilians that wrong western policies on the North Africa and Middle east have indirectly caused on that region and the dimension of the drama will be wildly broadened.

It's important to pick your words carefully. "Movements" are typically characterized by non-violent, politically oriented activities motivated by a collective desire to bring about change.

When a movement, comprised of like minded people with similar goals encounters disproportionate push back - whether by opponents, police or military action - how participants in the movement respond will determine whether or not the movement may become something else.

The 'something else' will be determined by the number of people participating in the movement, financial resources and political connections/power base that can be drawn from in order to increase pressure upon or with which to confront opponents. Armed confrontation is a possibility, at which point you will have an insurgency. Conventional warfare accompanied by acts of terrorism may follow, the objective being to achieve the 'movement's' original goals. But now, the goals belong to a group insurgency - not a movement.

Matters are complicated in an environment like the Middle East where Islam has so many different interpretations, ethnic and tribal groups. Terrorist acts are strategic in nature, the objective of course being to terrorize opponents. Less expenditure of human and physical resources is required if you can make an army or entire population turn tail or evacuate a town, city or region out of fear...

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Wrong

It's important to pick your words carefully. "Movements" are typically characterized by non-violent, politically oriented activities motivated by a collective desire to bring about change.

When a movement, comprised of like minded people with similar goals encounters disproportionate push back - whether by opponents, police or military action - how participants in the movement respond will determine whether or not the movement may become something else.

The 'something else' will be determined by the number of people participating in the movement, financial resources and political connections/power base that can be drawn from in order to increase pressure upon or with which to confront opponents. Armed confrontation is a possibility, at which point you will have an insurgency. Conventional warfare accompanied by acts of terrorism may follow, the objective being to achieve the 'movement's' original goals. But now, the goals belong to a group insurgency - not a movement.

Matters are complicated in an environment like the Middle East where Islam has so many different interpretations, ethnic and tribal groups. Terrorist acts are strategic in nature, the objective of course being to terrorize opponents. Less expenditure of human and physical resources is required if you can make an army or entire population turn tail or evacuate a town, city or region out of fear...

Or as it was refered to in a recent scuffle in the area...
"Shock and Awe" tactic's... don't matter which side does it.. sucks just as much..

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Or as it was refered to in a recent scuffle in the area...
"Shock and Awe" tactic's... don't matter which side does it.. sucks just as much..

With all due respect, and I get your point.

The amount of hardware and expense involved in the initial attack by U.S. forces on Bagdad far exceeds anything used in most terrorist attacks.

And there's a fundamental difference worth acknowleging. U.S. policy, whether or not it's always achieved, is to minimize 'collateral damage'.

The terrorist doesn't give a damn. His objective is to maximize deaths. The physical destruction of property and other assets is of secondary importance...

[Polux]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

There are no such things as Terrorists, it's just a fake politically correct name so people don't have to deal with the Ideology behind the violence.

The soldiers in the American Revolution were not attacking the British for the sake of spilling blood but for a cause.

The Nazis were not killing Jews for no reason, but for a cause.

People in the Middle East are not strapping bombs onto their 13yr old kids for the fun of it, but for a cause.

We like to use the word "Terrorist", but what is Terror? Wars are not fought over "terror" they are fought over ideas, beliefs and desired outcomes.

Naming the conflict after 9/11 a "War on Terror" was one of Bush's many many mistakes and the world wants to continue it. Why? because it's easier to call them Terrorists than fighters for a stated and declared cause, beliefs, and desired outcomes.

Oh, now THEY themselves will tell us on video and in street march chants what they are fighting for...it's just too difficult for the soft fat and happy, West to admit it. Too difficult to think about and the ramifications too great to call it what it really is.

Heck, you guys all know that if I really said what the problem is (and it ain't poverty or a lack of jobs and opportunity as our idiot State Department actually said) that this thread would be shut down for "spreading hate", for being insensitive, or for hurting someone's feelings. You know it's true and that is the world we live in today. A world where for page after page we can talk about the "terrorists" but not have the courage to name them, their ideology, or what they themselves tell us they are fighting for. And my Friday night chat room friends, that is why the West will lose this war, a war we fail to even admit we are in, preferring instead to hold fast to the famous words of "Peace in our Time".

Yes I agree. The real problem here is fundamentalism or the inability to see the other's point of view, even if we don't agree with it. The best example of that inability is when westerners see only madness regarding those "terrorists" that believe so much in their cause that are willing to die for it.

The problem really becomes huge when intervention western policies, even when well meant, are decided by the ones that have that inability to understand and accept other cultures, assuming that their way of living and thinking is the right and only way. Somewhere democracy was lost on the process.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Wrong

.. Less expenditure of human and physical resources is required if you can make an army or entire population turn tail or evacuate a town, city or region out of fear...

Yes, that remembers me the tactics regarding bombing on WWII. At first the allies bombed only military targets and factories but they found out that the factories could be rebuilt easily and fast so in the name of "less expenditure and physical resources required" it was decided to bomb civilian populations with the objective of killing the biggest number of civilians: Factories could be rebuild but the humans to work in them took a lot longer to be substituted.

[roverhi]

Originally Posted by Arthur Garfield

@Rich Boren,
What are you hurtful about Rich?What's up with that.
From reading your posts-Yup-best leave it to highly educated/experienced people that have deep understanding of history and a place within it.


All the Best

There were 14 people at the meeting that determined the 'Final Solution' to the Jewish Problem. 7 of them had PhD's. Sure, lets turn over our lives to those people with a deep understanding. After all, they have the initials/titles after their names so we know they are oh so much smarter than the rest of us.

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Polux

Yes I agree. The real problem here is fundamentalism or the inability to see the other's point of view, even if we don't agree with it.

Really? Daesh simply has a different point of view than 'we' do? And the difference in 'views' is the source of conflict in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria?

The best example of that inability is when westerners see only madness regarding those "terrorists" that believe so much in their cause that are willing to die for it.

Well. Don't you see at least some element of 'madness' in Daesh's strategy which appears to hinge mainly on acts of terrorism? And which are they looking forward to the most, death and a glorious afterlife or their 'cause' - whatever that may be. Oh yeah. Establishing a Caliphet to which all Muslims are required to submit or they're toast. No marginal Muslims that see things in a different light or non-Muslim groups allowed.

The problem really becomes huge when intervention western policies, even when well meant, are decided by the ones that have that inability to understand and accept other cultures, assuming that their way of living and thinking is the right and only way. Somewhere democracy was lost on the process.

If I understand you correctly, the primary reason there's conflict in the Middle East is because 'western' policymakers just don't have the ability to understand and accept other cultures. They are blinded by American exceptionalism and "their way of living and thinking is the right and only way"?

Well, if true why does the U.S. coalition commit resources to protect and defend groups under attack by ISIL mainly in Syria and Iraq? And, why should the U.S. coalition do so when the cultures of these groups are so alien to at least U.S policymakers?

I see a huge contradiction here. Don't you?

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Polux

Yes, that remembers me the tactics regarding bombing on WWII. At first the allies bombed only military targets and factories but they found out that the factories could be rebuilt easily and fast so in the name of "less expenditure and physical resources required" it was decided to bomb civilian populations with the objective of killing the biggest number of civilians: Factories could be rebuild but the humans to work in them took a lot longer to be substituted.

Where do you get your 'facts'?