Would you kill a child? What would be the youngest age you would kill?

thats an odd question. if it was a little chucky wannabe and he killed my sister or something then yea. dont care how old. i would kick the little shits brains out.

I would euthanise infants and up.

I would if he had an assualt rifle and was pointing it in my direction.

Only if I had to kill them and there was no other way.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:
I would if he had an assualt rifle and was pointing it in my direction.

---

There is no such entity as a "child" with an assault rifle especially in a combat zone or other high threat area. Has anyone paid attention to those kids parties in Palestine where the kids wear the explosive vests? It may sound cruel, but Mr. Kid, Nox will help you grow up fast.

Nox

ok here is a question for you Nox. if someone strapped explosives to a little toddler and sent him running at your friends jeep, would you shoot? the toddler does not know what he is doing

He's going to die anyway, why not save my friend?

I'd kill a child if I felt it was neccessary. I don't mean to be clear on that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zheka:
ok here is a question for you Nox. if someone strapped explosives to a little toddler and sent him running at your friends jeep, would you shoot? the toddler does not know what he is doing

---

The toddler is a walking bomb, and My friends' life takes precedence over a toddler's.

I would also shoot the asshole responsible for that.

Joe,

You beat me to the punch (Like the pun?).

Nox

This was a situation encountered by my brother in law shortly after he landed "in-country", in the vicinity of Da Nang, Viet Nam.

Walking down a road they came to a village, he was on point. As he looked over the place, he saw a little kid, about 5 or 6, come out of a hut and start walking over to him. The kid was carrying a loaf of bread and a coke, and was saying something about "GI hungry? GI thirsty?" Just then, a Corporal walked up and told my brother in law to shoot the kid if he came any closer, he looked at the Corporal to say "what the hell?" just then the kid took off running straight at them. The Corp. shoots the kid dead, they check out the loaf of bread and there is a pound of C-4 inside of it with a push-button detonator. After that my brother in law said he never hesitated to shoot anyone the rest of the time he was there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
I would euthanise infants and up.

---

Where was that topic - in which you described people leaving their deformed infants on the doorstep for the wolves?

I wanted to quote it, but couldn't find it.

There was a situation like that in desert shield. A special op group was sent out early and dug a small trench by a bridge into a city. They covered it up so they couldn't be seen waiting fo forces to come by. On the 2nd day a small boy with a goat came walking their way and saw them. The commanding officer noticed that the boy saw them and told another ranking soldier to shoot him. But he wouldn't and so they argued for a few minutes and nothing happened. The boy with the goat told their position to Iraqi forces and on they came. There were no casulties on the American side, because they had successfully taken out the two convoys.

But think about it, what would you have done in that situation?

Would you shoot the boy?

[This message has been edited by -_-OsiriS-_- (edited 10-06-2002).]

I think it's a general weakness of most people, not wanting to kill women or children. It could only be a Western thing, I'm not sure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by malaria:
I think it's a general weakness of most people, not wanting to kill women or children. It could only be a Western thing, I'm not sure.

---

It is a Western thing. Look at the Taliban, AQ, and Palestinian's who 'hide' in crowds of women and children. They are smart enough to know our culture. And no, I didn't forget the Somali's and their 'human sheilds' either. Trouble is, the PC crowd never finds the time to address those situations.

Nox

Please spare me the bullshit. Western nations have bombed women and children like anyone else. Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Berlin? Numerous total slaughters of Palestinian camps that didn't even have fighters in them such as Qana, Sabra, and Shatila? Muslim militant slaughters towards civilians are a drop in the bucket compared to Western and Israeli warfare.

Yes, but that's bombing. You don't see who you're killing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Please spare me the bullshit. Western nations have bombed women and children like anyone else. Dresden? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Berlin? Numerous total slaughters of Palestinian camps that didn't even have fighters in them such as Qana, Sabra, and Shatila? Muslim militant slaughters towards civilians are a drop in the bucket compared to Western and Israeli warfare.

---

I'll keep my mouth shut, Since you've never been in a situation like this. I'll just let you post you usual drivel.

[This message has been edited by Joe Boo (edited 10-07-2002).]

Do you deny that it's innacurate to say that it's a Western thing to hesitate to kill women and children, when Western warfare has killed countless women and children? There are enough things to be proud of about Western Civ. without needing to cling to obvious falsehoods. Everyone kills women and children.

Imagine if Bin Laden managed to bomb someone like President Bush or Ariel Sharon while they were in a huge crowd of people. Of course, the bomb kills everyone around him. Now, imagine Bin Laden says that it's ok to kill all those people because Bush or Sharon was using the crowd as a "human shield". Or, say he bombs some military guys while they're asleep in their homes and all the neighborhood residents die. That's ok, because the military guys were using the neighborhood as a big human shield! That's about as retarded to me as when Israel lobs a huge bomb into a crowded neighborhood to hit one guy, then says that the other 50 deaths aren't their fault because "that guy was using them as a human shield.. it's all his fault even though we dropped the bomb. THEY are the inhumane ones".

They are using people as human shields. We do that too. Thats why when things like the WTC blow up, I dont consider it much different than a normal military attack. It killed an economic center. Medieval people were intelligent enough to protect their economic centers with castles, walls, and guards.

Theres nothing wrong with protecting yourself with civilians though, so what?

You guys are getting out of control, I was just saying that if a little kid came up to a Westerner, they really wouldn't think the kid could be dangerous. Same with a woman, for the most part.

I wasn't saying we don't do it.

It's not the "human shields" or lack thereof that's annoying. It's the hypocritical rhetoric of people who think that we don't do the same stuff they do, and more (since we have the most firepower). When we bomb something, there's a bunch of long-winded justifications and rhetorical bullshit so everyone can feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves, then when enemies bomb back, there's even more long-winded and self-righteous rhetoric about how it was "pure evil, no matter what, and there are no justifications for the killings of blah blah blah". Everything is just gay now.

Edit: malaria, I was arguing with Nox. Unless I was mistaken, he was insinuating that people we go to war with hang out in civilian populations because they think Westerners and Israel are so "humane" that they wouldn't bomb the fuck out of them. If any of them actually think that, then they don't even know recent history very well.

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 10-07-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Global Dominator:
The kid was carrying a loaf of bread and a coke, and was saying something about "GI hungry? GI thirsty?"

---

The older kids around 10 or 12 would mix glass shards with chipped ice in drinks.

>>>Do you deny that it's innacurate to say that it's a Western thing to hesitate to kill women and children<<<


That's bullshit. A terrorist tactic used by those people is employing female terrorists, because Counter terror teams will hesitate to kill the female, and in that split second she will kill. It's a natural psycological reaction to hesitate to shoot women and children. What you deny is those women and children hold weapons and attack western troops as well, and when they get killed, They take their weapons, and their people point their bodies out to press people and say, "Look what they have done" Which are then broadcast over the world to gullible people like you.


I can name several examples where several people I know were put into that position to kill a female or a child because they were shooting at them.

I don't know about you Mouse, but no one is stupid enough to let themselves get killed out of conscience.


>>>It's not the "human shields" or lack thereof that's annoying. It's the hypocritical rhetoric of people who think that we don't do the same stuff they do<<<

Yes, we strap bombs to young kids and have them walk into a university, Passover dinner, or bus full of civilians and make them blow themselves up.

>>>then when enemies bomb back, there's even more long-winded and self-righteous rhetoric about how it was "pure evil, no matter what, and there are no justifications for the killings of blah blah blah"<<<

You still don't know the difference between "deliberate" and "accidental" I suggest you look them up in the dictionary. It's getting pretty annoying when you don't know the difference between the two and think you are a genius. There is a difference between Capt. Schmoe hitting a house next to a Command post, due to a technical glitch in his smart bomb, and Habib blowing himself up on a bus full of civilians because Allah said it was the path to paradise.

>>>he was insinuating that people we go to war with hang out in civilian populations because they think Westerners and Israel are so "humane" that they wouldn't bomb the fuck out of them.<<<

Why did the Taliban park military vehicles next to mosques, schools, and hospitals?

Why did the Viet Cong hide out in churches during the battle for Hue City?

>>>If any of them actually think that, then they don't even know recent history very well.<<<


This was such a common occurence in Somalia, And I had two good friends die because of a situation like that. And there are much much more like that as well. But like I said, since you have never been in that situation, nor have ever seen instances like that, I'm not going to hold it against you.

[This message has been edited by Joe Boo (edited 10-07-2002).]

Messerschmidt would deny that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Do you think it would have been noble for European troops to get involved and slaughter Union troops and civilians in Union territory during the American Civil War? Who would have been more noble? The Union troops fighting the European meddlers, or the European meddlers themselves?

---

Moot point since it did not occur. If it had, we would not be the people we are, thus cannot accurately decide how we would feel if we were not us. *sigh*

Besides, how the hell does this relate to your immediately prior point, other than both having some nebulous tie to the history of warfare on planet Terra?

As for killing a child...

Absolutely, I would kill a child, even if it was holding a cute puppy and begging for it's little life. IF THAT CHILD WAS A THREAT. "how can such a child be a threat"....see the above thread for some examples.

Warfare was at it's highest point before gunpowder, although Longbows could be considered a negative advance.

Bows are awesome, especially the high-tech modern ones. So are mechanical broadheads.

Melee weapons are better. And longbows are awful, because they can penetrate even plate-mail.

>>>US modern warfare is completely and totally gay. Going out on a battlefield with armor and weapons and fighting your enemy face to face is 100% less gay than just tossing mines all over the place, spraying nerve gas at people, or sitting/flying around pushing a button.<<<

Until you've been in that position. Have you?

>>>I'd love it if there was some honour in fighting.<<<

Answering this one tactfully was tough. I've heard this from alot of people, who have never seen combat. In combat, you don't fight for honor and all that bullshit, you fight to win, and that's all there is to it. Ask anyone who has been shot at if honor was at the top of their heads.

>>>Also, I am sure people would rape and pillage if they could, but that's sort of hard when you destroy the whole damn towne<<<

*Note to self* pillage first, then burn.

>>>And lobbing satellite guided tank shells from 2 miles away<<<

The Abrams tank carries two rounds in combat, neither of which are guided.

>>>Were the VC more noble than American soldiers; when they came at the Americans swinging agricultural implements?<<<

Don't forget the feces smeared concertina wire and punji pits. Some of you should look up what a "Venus Fly Trap" is. And I'm not talking about the plant. The Booby trap.

>>>That peasant swinging a hoe is fighting for his land and home<<<

No, he is fighting for a political system that doesn't give a rusty you-know-what about him, and Communist Party leaders who have no intention of "sharing the wealth"

>>>What courage and honor does it take to sit in some bunker or plane and press a button, compared to going out on the battlefield and fighting face to face?<<<

What do you know about combat, having never been in it before?

>>>It's going to get increasingly gay. Warfare will probably consist of spraying each other with different gasses and diseases in the future, and smuggling bombs around. Wow, how noble<<<

Gas was around WWI. Biological warfare goes back to the early days of siege warfare, long before the Middle Ages, when plague victims and dead horses were lobbed by catapault into the castle. Much honor in that.

>>>There is honor in battle when it takes courage, skill, and you're seriously risking your life to fight for something you believe in. There is no honor in sitting around pressing buttons with little or no risk to yourself. Those same people who sit around pressing buttons would probably run and hide in actual combat<<<

"War is Hell" General William Tecumseh Sherman

It doesn't matter if you are tearing someone naval to neck with a Ka-bar, or blowing them away with technology. They are still dead, it's still killing, and that is the job of the soldier, sailor, Marine or Airman.

>>>Those same people who sit around pressing buttons would probably run and hide in actual combat.<<<

Some might, most won't. Would you? Do you have the moxy to stand and fight? And I fail to see how getting my head blown off is more painful then getting gored by a bayonet, or getting my skull cracked with a blunt object. Would you give up technology if you were put into that position, knowing it was YOUR ass on the line?


War is not honorable, in no way, shape or form. Once that first shot goes by your head, politics and all that goes right out the window, and honor is the least of your concern. I can see the people saying that's not true., yet I wonder how many of them have actually been in a combat situation, or have ever thought of it from that angle?

Joe,

Those of us who have combat experience know the accuracy of your words. The others get their images of combat from Hollywood.

There are no words to accurately describe the feelings/emotions/terror of combat. When Joe talked about all the things that "go out the window" when that first bullet goes whizzing by, IT'S TRUE. Combat is not something I wish for anyone. But the Rambo glorification of war is totally false. In a real situation, Rambo gets killed the first hour of the first day of the war. Staying alive and winning in a combat environment is the result of teamwork. Building that teamwork is the result of intensive training...that is what the military is about. Killing people is what war is about.

Nox

Great. That doesnt mean missiles dont make war totally gay.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Great. That doesnt mean missiles dont make war totally gay.

---

Absolutely not. The purpose of war is to kill...never forget that. This Rambo crap that all you couch potatoes refer to is idiotic.

Today's History/Political Science Lesson

Objective: To help the student understand the difference between war and peace.

Materials Required: One functioning student brain. Any vehicle (sight or sound) which conveys the information to student brain.

Lesson Text:

War=Kill. Nothing more, nothing less.

Peace=Not kill. Peace happens when both sides tire of killing. Nothing more, nothing less.

Nox (aka today's substitute teacher)

I hate Rambo. Rambo is totally gay.

I'll remember how war is nothing but killing the next time one of you (Joe/Nox) goes on about how evil "terrorists" are. It is you guys who insinuate that the US is more noble because they don't strap bombs to their chests. Could it be that you guys consider that to be a cheap tactic? Yet, war is nothing but killing. By your own logic, their tactics are as noble as the tactics of the guy who sits in a plane or bunker and presses buttons. Same result, after all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Same result, after all.

---

True. However, Joe does, and I did, wear a uniform. Joe and I are/were bound by the Geneva Conventions and the rules of war. Joe and I are/were readily identifiable as members of a military force. Joe and I are/were members of that force 24/7.

This is in sharp contrast to the terrorists who hide among innocents only to come out and do a dastardly deed, then slink back into attempted annonimity.

Don't hand me this garbage about a noble cause or a noble ideal. This is pure and simple cowardice with drivel excuses to cover up same.

Multiple posters have refered to honorable fighting, push buttons, bows, et al, but the really "gay" addicts fail to understand what the actual military is. The military is a formal organization with a stated purpose/goal/objective. It is not a ragtag amalgamation of thugs, criminals, and wannabee's who have gathered for some innocuous political (maybe) goal (and/or ideal).

To glorify the idea of the "good old days when men were men" macho bravado idea is pure lunacy. Likewise, the 'cheap tactic' that mouse refered to has nothing to do with an organized military. Thuggery is thuggery; Military is military. The tactics of thuggery do not equate to the tactics of the military. And let us not even venture down the road of the Code of Bushido. Look what that did to Japan.

Yes mouse, the end result is the same, but the roads getting there aren't even in the same quadrants of the universe.

Nox

I'm gay.

>>>I hate Rambo. Rambo is totally gay.<<<

Yes, he is.

>>>I'll remember how war is nothing but killing the next time one of you (Joe/Nox) goes on about how evil "terrorists" are.<<<

I have never hid among a crowd of innocent people and shot at troops, nor bombed them.

>>>It is you guys who insinuate that the US is more noble because they don't strap bombs to their chests<<<

And deliberatly target civilians. Is targeting civilians a noble cause? You may think so right up until the day, god forbid, some soldier cranks a round into you.

>>>Could it be that you guys consider that to be a cheap tactic? Yet, war is nothing but killing.<<<

Killing the enemy, civilians are not the enemy, You should learn the difference between enemy and civilian. Big difference.

>>>By your own logic, their tactics are as noble as the tactics of the guy who sits in a plane or bunker and presses buttons. Same result, after all<<<


Same as above, The distinction between the two is that we do not deliberatly target civilians. Once that Civilian picks up a weapon, and engages troops, he/she is no longer a civilian.

I can't beleive Joe Boo and Nox are having to explain this shit to you people...this is common sense survival for ANYONE who has ever been in a life or death situation or experienced real life on the streets or in a war zone outside of tv and movies. Why the hell do you think people came back from Viet Nam and COULDN'T re-integrate with society?...War, and especially guerilla tactic combat, is an experience you can't grasp unless you've been there, on some scale. Don't pretend to preach about something you don't even understand. Theoreticals and ideals are for those who don't have to make the choice between getting shot repeatedly by a sniper or very likely losing both legs by stepping off the mine.

If you think you understand war and what's better, or "gay", then get your ass enlisted in the armed services and go fight a few wars...if you live that long...then reassess your stand on "honor" and war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:
Biological warfare goes back to the early days of siege warfare, long before the Middle Ages, when plague victims and dead horses were lobbed by catapault into the castle. Much honor in that.

---

I wish I had thought of this, it's the best rebuttal yet.

And, I'm disappointed nobody said, "I was born in the wrong century" lol.

For you Mouse. or should I say, Joan of Arc? lol.

The "honor" is in victory - by whatever means necessary.

Mouse,

You claim a pilot is nothing but a coward. Here are some people who will prove you wrong.
http://www.mishalov.com/Estocin.html
http://www.mishalov.com/Pless.html

I encourage you to look more into these two, as their MOH citations don't tell all the details, and there are plenty more since WWI who are not "cowards"

Actually Biological Warfare started in the middle ages. It lead to the Black Plague.

It wasn't a common practice, either.

Regarding pilots, those you showed were performing actions quite different than dropping bombs from stealth bombers.

>>>Actually Biological Warfare started in the middle ages. It lead to the Black Plague.<<<

>>>It wasn't a common practice, either<<<

Neither was Biological Warfare in modern times.


>>>Regarding pilots, those you showed were performing actions quite different than dropping bombs from stealth bombers<<<


Mouse Stated that dropping bombs was more cowardly then fighting face-to-face. Since only one Stealth Bomber was actually lost to enemy action (that I know of) and most of their missions are shrouded in secrecy. And like I said, I encourage everyone to look up more, since those two I recall off the top of my head (pilot-wise)

Most people wouldn't consider it a reasonable option, in any case.

In Mouse's defense, dropping bombs IS a less-personal moral conflict, when compared to shooting a child at 40 yards. That's why firing squads include a rifle with a blank round - much different than a single executioner, that KNOWS he is responsible for carrying out the sentence of death.

I just couldn't stop laughing at everyone's charachterization of it being "gay", and the implication that ancient battle is "less gay", lol.

I also got a good laugh at those who thought Rambo was gay. Rambo (in First Blood anyway, I didn't see any of the sequels) is just a charachter in a story, and, I thought - one that could be respected as a man. But Rambo isn't pertinent to the topic at hand anyway.

I think Rambo was right, except when he started banging the gook.
Has anyone else noticed the new PC game called "Sniper- The Path of Vengence"? Is it too late to buy stock in the company that is putting it out?

You guys are still going on about this? I've been playing Baldur's Gate.

quote:

---

In Mouse's defense, dropping bombs IS a less-personal moral conflict, when compared to shooting a child at 40 yards. That's why firing squads include a rifle with a blank round - much different than a single executioner, that KNOWS he is responsible for carrying out the sentence of death.

---

That was my exact point which everyone else seems to be missing. When you're actual on the battlefield up close you have to face your personal morality (and mortality). When you lob bombs and missiles from afar while perfectly safe somewhere else, you can be responsible for mass death without even seeing the people you're killing, and thus can psychologically distance yourself from it all and become more callous in your decisions.

quote:

---

True. However, Joe does, and I did, wear a uniform. Joe and I are/were bound by the Geneva Conventions and the rules of war. Joe and I are/were readily identifiable as members of a military force. Joe and I are/were members of that force 24/7.

---

Lol.. now it is you who are pasting your own values onto war. You think you guys are more honorable because you wear a uniform and are identifiable as a military force? Isn't that a bit easy to say as someone in the superpower of the world who's allowed to even have a military? So what do you say to the guys in Palestine who are fighting against an occupation and aren't allowed to build up a military to gain independence? They are fighting for independence on their own turf. You guys don't have to do that. You guys are usually part of an invading or occupying force, not one fighting for US land and freedom. Sure, Israelis wear uniforms and HAMAS doesn't. Well, no shit. Israel doesn't allow Palestinians to have a viable military force while the IDF can hand pick any equipment they want from the US and get it. Thus, they'll get people resorting to other tactics.

quote:

---

This is in sharp contrast to the terrorists who hide among innocents only to come out and do a dastardly deed, then slink back into attempted annonimity.

---

Read above. When people who are at war are unable to get a viable military that can fight against a superpower, they resort to other means. Of course the US military doesn't have to hide when it does something. Might makes Right in this world, and US holds the might. Who would police them?

quote:

---

Don't hand me this garbage about a noble cause or a noble ideal. This is pure and simple cowardice with drivel excuses to cover up same.

---

What's more cowardly? To actually plan out an attack for years and die carrying it out against the superpower of the world because you believe in something so much, or lobbing a missile into a crowded neighborhood or village, then "slinking" back to your base and country, which can do things with impunity?

quote:

---

Multiple posters have refered to honorable fighting, push buttons, bows, et al, but the really "gay" addicts fail to understand what the actual military is. The military is a formal organization with a stated purpose/goal/objective. It is not a ragtag amalgamation of thugs, criminals, and wannabee's who have gathered for some innocuous political (maybe) goal (and/or ideal).

---

I think you fail to understand what a guerrilla army is. They are anything but "ragtag" if they can succeed in such a huge hit against the US. They often have more definate goals than the US.

Compare - Al Qaeda goals are to end occupation of Muslim territory by Jews, Hindus and Westerners in places like Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, Saudi Arabia, and try and get Muslim rule and unity in those areas.

US military goals are... what? To defend US territory? No.. you guys send troops off to countries that have nothing to do with US territory when you can't even defend your own Southern border against millions of illegal border jumpers. To protect the freedom of Americans? Obviously not. You guys have the goal of doing whatever the politicians want at the time, which is often shrouded in so much propoganda for the public that the actual goals aren't even known until years later when shit gets declassified.

quote:

---

To glorify the idea of the "good old days when men were men" macho bravado idea is pure lunacy. Likewise, the 'cheap tactic' that mouse refered to has nothing to do with an organized military. Thuggery is thuggery; Military is military. The tactics of thuggery do not equate to the tactics of the military. And let us not even venture down the road of the Code of Bushido. Look what that did to Japan.

---

Here, the person who happens to be in the country with the most powerful military in the world and has never in recent history been occupied by a foreign nation and has only been directly attacked twice, one on a military target on an island in the middle of the Pacific, and has repeatedly invaded, occupied and bombed other countries, gets on a moral high horse about what is "thuggery" or not. Here is the pattern which applies to all superpowers and imperialists.

- Stronger country has the military which allows it to enforce it's will upon others.

- People in weaker countries get tired of it, and lacking the military might of stronger country, resort to guerrilla tactics against stronger country.

- Stronger country gets mad because they got bit a little, and claims that only their tactics and ways (which are conveniently only available to them) are valid tactics and anyone else is "invalid and criminal thuggery", even if the guerrillas have never enforced their will upon others in a "brutish thug" fashion as much as the Stronger country.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Compare - Al Qaeda goals are to end occupation of Muslim territory by Jews, Hindus and Westerners in places like Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, Saudi Arabia, and try and get Muslim rule and unity in those areas.

---

And if you believe this, I have a bridge to sell you.

Nox

Mouse, why are you talking about guerilla tactics like they are immoral and dishonorable? I havent kept up to speed with this topic, because it has legs and its a pain in the ass reading 70 posts on it a day. Have others suggested guerilla war is somehow ignoble or something?

quote:

---

Mouse, why are you talking about guerilla tactics like they are immoral and dishonorable? I havent kept up to speed with this topic, because it has legs and its a pain in the ass reading 70 posts on it a day. Have others suggested guerilla war is somehow ignoble or something?

---

I'm not - they are. They think it's "cowardly" to fight a war like Al Qaeda, yet it's not cowardly to sit around pressing buttons to fly laser guided missiles around.

When it's about their military killing civilians, anything goes because the point of war is to kill - nothing else.

When it's about the enemy, they are "cowardly" because they don't fight marked with uniforms when they kill.

In my personal opinion, it's more cowardly to sit around pressing buttons with laser guided missiles than to fight guerrilla warfare against a much stronger army.

To Mouse:

1.
What do you have against Hindus? I thought you were pro-Aryan.
2.
There is a purpose to consantly engaging yourself in foriegn wars. It distracts your rivals and stops them from launching invading forces into your country.

quote:

---

1.
What do you have against Hindus? I thought you were pro-Aryan.

---

????

quote:

---

2.
There is a purpose to consantly engaging yourself in foriegn wars. It distracts your rivals and stops them from launching invading forces into your country.

---

It does none of the above. If China wanted to invade America, America putting all her troops into Africa, Kuwait and Afghanistan would neither distract, nor stop China. America can't even defend her own border from Mexican illegals hopping across, yet American troops are all over the world for vague imperial reasons.

War is an excellent distraction, however.. but not for foreign "rivals". It's a great distraction aimed at political rivals and domestic populations. Wag the dog, anyone?

>>>I'm not - they are. They think it's "cowardly" to fight a war like Al Qaeda, yet it's not cowardly to sit around pressing buttons to fly laser guided missiles around<<<

Nobody said anything was cowardly. You still haven't grasped the meaning of "The Deliberate attack on civilians" I don't know why you haven't, other then your own reluctance to understand such things.

>>>They think it's "cowardly" to fight a war like Al Qaeda<<<

Hiding among civilians, Churches, and Schools isn't cowardly? how about after it gets destroyed, then claiming the evil Americans did it to show how bad we are? That's not cowardly?

>>>Stronger country gets mad because they got bit a little<<<

Their troops got killed. What the hell do you think their reaction should be? Casualties always piss people off. They aren't going to sit and let their troops get killed (Unless they are liberals)

>>>resort to guerrilla tactics against stronger country<<<

You left out using Children as fighters, hiding among unarmed women and children, blowing up that countries civilians, and hiding equipment and men inside mosques, schools, hospitals and homes. Those are not guerilla tactics, and those are why Nox can sit on his moral high horse. You still don't know what deliberate and accidental means.

>>>US military goals are... what? To defend US territory? No.. you guys send troops off to countries that have nothing to do with US territory<<<

Several reasons why:

We get asked by that government

To evacuate our citizens and guard our embassy

To boot out an agressor nation

To remove a man responsible for the deaths of 3000+ Americans, Attacking a Naval vessel, and two embassies

To feed and prevent further killings and mass starvation by a clan warlord.

>>>when you can't even defend your own Southern border against millions of illegal border jumpers<<<

When you have people like Nasty who believe Mexicans have a right to hop the border, this will continue to happen.

>>>I think you fail to understand what a guerrilla army is<<<

I think you fail to understand what guerilla tactics consist of. And you also know what a guerilla army is?

>>>now it is you who are pasting your own values onto war<<<

They weren't just OUR values, these are pretty much written by people in the early part of this century, and are for the most part complied by every nation.

[This message has been edited by Joe Boo (edited 10-13-2002).]

quote:

---

Nobody said anything was cowardly. You still haven't grasped the meaning of "The Deliberate attack on civilians" I don't know why you haven't, other then your own reluctance to understand such things.

---

You and Nox have repeatedly done so. You even do so in this post.

quote:

---

Hiding among civilians, Churches, and Schools isn't cowardly? how about after it gets destroyed, then claiming the evil Americans did it to show how bad we are? That's not cowardly?

---

Not as much as just sitting in some bunker pressing buttons.

quote:

---

Their troops got killed. What the hell do you think their reaction should be? Casualties always piss people off. They aren't going to sit and let their troops get killed (Unless they are liberals)

---

You're missing the point.

quote:

---

You left out using Children as fighters...

---

Throughout Western history, teenagers have been constantly involved in our wars.

quote:

---

hiding among unarmed women and children...

---

So they hang out in a city (not all the time, however... they also "hide" in the hills). Are US soldiers prohibited from getting near civilians?

Where do you think guerrilla fighters on their own land should go? How about if they all hang out in one base with a giant flashing neon sign saying "Bomb here America"? Where should HAMAS fighters in Palestine hang out to defend their own cities?

quote:

---

blowing up that countries civilians...

---

All armies blow up and harm civilians.

quote:

---

and hiding equipment and men inside mosques, schools, hospitals and homes.

---

Where are they supposed to "hide" their equipment when they aren't allowed to have any of it in the first place? You forgot that they too have a purpose - which is to win. You seem to think that the weaker force should handicap themselves even more by making themselves into an easily bombed target in the countryside.

quote:

---

Those are not guerilla tactics

---

Yes, they are, according to my dictionary.

guer�ril�la or gue�ril�la n. A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids

quote:

---

You still don't know what deliberate and accidental means.

---

Accidental? Like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden?

I know that some of the US civilian bombings in recent history (post Vietnam) have been accidental. Israel, no. If they claim it's an accident, it's for PR reasons (in other words, for US consumption to keep the lobby gravy train going). Just like the USS Liberty. Total PR and outright lies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
In my personal opinion, it's more cowardly to sit around pressing buttons with laser guided missiles than to fight guerrilla warfare against a much stronger army.

---

In other words, all wars should be guerrilla wars and there should be no organized military.

This is hogwash.

These wars (guerrilla) are exactly how non-combatants get slaughtered wholesale.

It appears that you are taking the position you have taken to keep from admitting that you might be wrong. Your support of these murdering thugs who purport to be some kind of military supporting a political ideal is perposterous.

Nox

quote:

---

In other words, all wars should be guerrilla wars and there should be no organized military.

---

Not at all. I think that all countries should mind their own borders instead of going on foreign adventures and occupations. When there is an extreme imbalance of power with one force occupying or forcing it's will on another, guerilla warfare will occur. In that situation, my sympathies are with the domestic group fighting the invaders and occupiers. To put it blunty, sometimes you shouldn't fucking be there in the first place.

quote:

---

These wars (guerrilla) are exactly how non-combatants get slaughtered wholesale.

---

Some of the largest bloodbaths in history had nothing to do with guerilla warfare. Some of these bloodbaths could have been avoided if the occupying power just left the people alone in the first place.

For example, Israel bitches when an illegal settler or soldier is killed in the West Bank, then shells an entire Palestinian neighborhood in response. They claim that the neighborhood had to be shelled because fighters were "hiding" in them. My response is, what the fuck was the illegal settler and the soldier doing in the West Bank in the first place? Get the fuck off their land already. They obviously aren't appreciating it.

>>>Get the fuck off their land already. They obviously aren't appreciating it<<<

You left out the Palestinian blowing up a bus full of civilians I see, and forget that the Israelis target militants and collateral damage results alot, because, as Nox and I tell you repeatedly, yet continue to ignore, is that they hide among women and children.

>>>Not as much as just sitting in some bunker pressing buttons<<<

What's that soldier and Marine doing in that bunker pushing buttons? Can you even think of a weapon system that this consists of? And how the fuck is fighting face to face honorable? I guess in your military career you have this experience.

>>>You're missing the point<<<

No, I'm not, you've missed almost every point in this topic.

>>>Throughout Western history, teenagers have been constantly involved in our wars<<<

Different from the child fighters in the third world. At least pretend to know about this like you do with other subjects.

>>>Are US soldiers prohibited from getting near civilians<<<

What does that have to do with anything?

>>>Where do you think guerrilla fighters on their own land should go?<<<

Away from their familes and fellow civilians, into the forests, Jungles, mountains and deserts of their country. Quite Simple really. Cites are more often then not the first places occupied.


>>>Where should HAMAS fighters in Palestine hang out to defend their own cities?<<<

They don't hang out in their own cities, they stay away from the IDF for the most part, and kill Israeli civilians.

>>>You and Nox have repeatedly done so. You even do so in this post<<<

Wrong, that was you.

pushing buttons in a bunker is cowardly

Doesn't that sound familier? Did I say that?

>>>All armies blow up and harm civilians<<<

Accidental vs deliberate. You still haven't figured those two out. Just say you're too stupid to understand the difference between the two, we'll understand.

>>>You seem to think that the weaker force should handicap themselves even more by making themselves into an easily bombed target in the countryside.<<<

That is not what the two of us have said. I'm not going to repeat myself again. Go back and look what the two of us have told you, instead of making up facts. You seem to advocate that the wanton killing of unarmed civilians is justified.

>>>When you lob bombs and missiles from afar while perfectly safe somewhere else, you can be responsible for mass death without even seeing the people you're killing, and thus can psychologically distance yourself from it all and become more callous in your decisions<<<

I take it you know this from personal experience. The Palestinians who were around Beruit when I was growing up didn't seem to mind shooting Lebanese familes and setting off car bombs randomly around the city. And it didn't bother my brother-in-law when he was giving Iranian troops Close Air Support against Iraqis, though it did when he found out one of his bombs hit a Beduin camp by accident. Those are just examples. I'm guessing you don't know what most people mean, so I'm pointing that out, since you are kinda slow on the uptake.

[This message has been edited by Joe Boo (edited 10-14-2002).]

What about colonial America? We pretty much celebrate the fact that guerilla warfare won over standard line-up-and-shoot every fourth of July.

How can you condemn other nations for doing exactly what we did to get our own nation?

quote:

---

You left out the Palestinian blowing up a bus full of civilians I see, and forget that the Israelis target militants and collateral damage results alot, because, as Nox and I tell you repeatedly, yet continue to ignore, is that they hide among women and children.

---

Using the most popular examples, there were no militants in Qana, Sabra, or Shatila. There are many other cases like this, where there were no militants where Israel attacked. They are not sorry for it, and they would do it again to all the Palestinians if they could get away with it. They don't do this because PR is necessary to keep the gravy train from the US flowing. A total blatant ethnic massacre would not be good for PR, so they prefer to bleed them slowly out of the area.

quote:

---

Accidental vs deliberate. You still haven't figured those two out. Just say you're too stupid to understand the difference between the two, we'll understand.

---

Like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden? Official armies have and do deliberately target civilians when it's to their advantage. They have done it repeatedly in the past, and would do it even more today if they could get away with it without mass domestic protests and world condemnation. In Israel, they only worry about PR to Americans. Their own citizens are bloodthirsty so, besides the minority of leftists, they don't care about the deaths of goyim civilians. If they don't support Sharon, it's because he's not killing more Palestinians (been browsing some Israeli forums... sharks I tell ya).

quote:

---

What about colonial America? We pretty much celebrate the fact that guerilla warfare won over standard line-up-and-shoot every fourth of July.
How can you condemn other nations for doing exactly what we did to get our own nation?

---

Another little known fact...the beloved "anti-terrorist" Israel got their independent state by using terrorism against the British and Arabs. One of the most famous exploits was the blowing up of the King David Hotel... killing like a hundred people. Their terrorist leaders went on to become Prime Minsters.. Begin for example. Now that they have their military and state, they feel comfortable taking the moral high ground against terrorism and telling the Palestinians that any resistance is criminal.


[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 10-14-2002).]

>>>What about colonial America? We pretty much celebrate the fact that guerilla warfare won over standard line-up-and-shoot every fourth of July.

How can you condemn other nations for doing exactly what we did to get our own nation<<<

Haven't I said in every post that there is a difference between killing enemy troops, and killing civilians? We hid the the treeline, woods, bushs, rocks, not in crowds of unarmed civilians. You sound like Mr White Chocolate not understanding the difference between illegal and legal immigrants. Are you and Mouse getting pointers in idiocy from him?

>>>They don't do this because PR is necessary to keep the gravy train from the US flowing<<<

And restraining from doing this is wrong because?

>>>Like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden? Official armies have and do deliberately target civilians when it's to their advantage<<<

Look and see what military targets were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when they were bombed. Also, When have I said I agree with the attack on Dresden? Now, what about Guernica? You never mentioned that.

>>>They have done it repeatedly in the past, and would do it even more today if they could get away with it without mass domestic protests and world condemnation<<<


Who? the men who ordered the bombing of those three cities are either long dead, or so old they wear diapers

>>>Their own citizens are bloodthirsty so, besides the minority of leftists, they don't care about the deaths of goyim civilians<<<

And the reason for this is, could it be...GASP!!!!!! the wanton indscriminate killing of innocent Israeli civilians! Gee golly, I thought you knew.

>>>In Israel, they only worry about PR to Americans<<<

And the rest of the world, also, this is the reason why most countries restrain from killing civilians. Also, another why they don't do this is beacause most politicians actually have some grasp of right and wrong, and are disgusted with meaningless civilian deaths. Does war kill civilians? Yes, always, the difference, once again, is Accidental, and Deliberate. Please Mouse, do yourself a favor, and educate yourself just a little by looking the two words up in a dictionary. I know actual research is rough for you, but I'm sure that out there, somewhere, there is a cartoon showing you what the two words mean.

>>>If they don't support Sharon, it's because he's not killing more Palestinians<<<

Or he's possibly too harsh, or taking the wrong stance, or any number of reasons. (Variables, I tell ya)

>>>Israel got their independent state by using terrorism against the British and Arabs<<<

And the Arabs treated the Jews so nicely. Another little known fact was that after the Turks pulled out of what was then Palestine, the Arabs there would routinly raid Jewish settlements and would Kill the Jewish settlers.

>>>(been browsing some Israeli forums... sharks I tell ya)<<<

Well rat spit, you are finally doing research. Good on you. Want a cookie? (Speaking of sharks, someone should drop you into a tank full of them, then you'd probably know what being in fear for your life consists of)

I have talked with Chiefs of Staff and they've agreed to drop Joe Boob right into Baghdad as the starting point for the war.

This thread is gay.

quote:

---

And restraining from doing this is wrong because?

---

The US is funding the slow bleeding of Palestine. When the time is convenient, Israel will raise the level of bloodshed. The time might come during the "war on Iraq", as many have speculated. Netanyahu said they should have done it sooner.

�Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories" -- Benjamin Netanyahu to students at Bar Ilan University (from the Israeli journal Hotam, November 24, 1989).

quote:

---

Look and see what military targets were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when they were bombed. Also, When have I said I agree with the attack on Dresden? Now, what about Guernica? You never mentioned that.

---

So now Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets? What a way to hit military targets, if they were!

quote:

---

Who? the men who ordered the bombing of those three cities are either long dead, or so old they wear diapers

---

The point flies over your head.

quote:

---

And the reason for this is, could it be...GASP!!!!!! the wanton indscriminate killing of innocent Israeli civilians! Gee golly, I thought you knew.

---

The killing of Israelis began after a few decades of oppression, killing of the Palestinians, and theft of their land. Zionists expected them to just leave or bow down like goyish cattle I guess. Even after the present Intifada started, the killings of Israelis never came remotely close to the Palestinian death toll by the IDF and settlers.

quote:

---

And the rest of the world, also...

---

Bullshit. Israelis generally hate Europe. They never stop bitching about the "anti-semites" that they like to extort. They only care about US opinion, because the US is their little piggy bank and military bargain center.

quote:

---

Also, another why they don't do this is beacause most politicians actually have some grasp of right and wrong, and are disgusted with meaningless civilian deaths.

---

Are you telling jokes here? Most politicians actually do not have a grasp on right or wrong. Israeli politicians operate from a different morality system than others on top of that. Their system is this -

"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."
Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994

quote:

---

Yes, always, the difference, once again, is Accidental, and Deliberate.

---

I know the difference, quite well. It is you who tries to say that the deliberate never happens on your side, when I've repeatedly given you some examples. Yes, you said you don't "agree" with the bombing of Dresden, but was that, or was it not a deliberate targetting of civilians by a organized and official army? How about the Israeli bombing of the Qana UN refugee camp? They call attacking refugee camps "mopping up". You call it "accidental". I don't think "mopping up" is accidental.

quote:

---

Or he's possibly too harsh, or taking the wrong stance, or any number of reasons. (Variables, I tell ya)

---

No, I told you that I've been browsing various Israeli/Zionist forums. Either they don't like him because he isn't "hard enough" on the "filthy Islamists", or they love him. The few leftist Jews who say that he's a "bit harsh" are cursed out by the pack of sharks.

quote:

---

And the Arabs treated the Jews so nicely. Another little known fact was that after the Turks pulled out of what was then Palestine, the Arabs there would routinly raid Jewish settlements and would Kill the Jewish settlers.

---

You mean those Zionist immigrants who went over to Palestine and openly proclaimed their intentions to build a Jewish nation? Not many people in the world take too kindly to immigrants who openly want to take over the land they live on. I don't blame them. The Zionist immigrants treated the Arabs like total shit also.

Think of them rather like a group of Mexicans who come to California and start treating all the white people like shit and openly brag about creating "Aztlan", but they might actually succeed because they are heavily armed by another country that wants them to create a Mexican nation there for strategic purposes against you.

quote:

---

Well rat spit, you are finally doing research. Good on you. Want a cookie? (Speaking of sharks, someone should drop you into a tank full of them, then you'd probably know what being in fear for your life consists of)

---

Finally doing research? I've been reading about Israel/Palestine/Zionism/Jewish lobbies for so long I'm going to get burnt out on it soon. I think when I'm done reading Paul Findley's book, I'll have to take a break before I become too "anti-semitic" for "polite society"

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
For example, Israel bitches when an illegal settler or soldier is killed in the West Bank, then shells an entire Palestinian neighborhood in response. They claim that the neighborhood had to be shelled because fighters were "hiding" in them. My response is, what the fuck was the illegal settler and the soldier doing in the West Bank in the first place? Get the fuck off their land already. They obviously aren't appreciating it.

---

On this point I agree. The problem comes when we try to go from this specific to make a general point. I see a huge moral dilemma in shelling the crowd to get the perp. However, I am at a loss as to how to get the perp when the perp uses the crowd as a shield. But even more distressing is why the crowd doesn't force the perp out to begin with. This scenario allows more than enough blame to fall everywhere.

What is the answer?

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden?

---

Small historical fact...Hiroshima was the headquarters for the Imperial Japanese Southern Command.

Nox

quote:

---

But even more distressing is why the crowd doesn't force the perp out to begin with. This scenario allows more than enough blame to fall everywhere.

---

They consider the "perp", as you call him, to be on their side. Little known fact: HAMAS is not only a militant group. They also raise funds for social services. So, not only is it a group that fights for them and shares their anger and frustrations, but they help them in non-militant ways as well.


HAMAS and social services

HAMAS and charity again

quote:

---

Small historical fact...Hiroshima was the headquarters for the Imperial Japanese Southern Command.

---

The moment they decided to use a nuke on that city, they intentionally targetted civilians.



[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 10-14-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:
You left out using Children as fighters, hiding among unarmed women and children, blowing up that countries civilians, and hiding equipment and men inside mosques, schools, hospitals and homes. Those are not guerilla tactics...

---

Yes they are. If not technically, then at least historically.

Mouse may i ask you your nationality?

Raised in America, moved to Canada, ethnic ancestry = Russian + a little mix of other Europeans.

>>>Yes they are. If not technically, then at least historically<<

In either case, if a civilian gets killed in the fire, they have a propaganda victory, and the "White devils" are hounded in the press by ignorant dumbshits like White Chocolate and Mouse. Much like the Viet Cong hiding in churches during the battle for Hue, and the Taliban parking tanks next to mosques and putting the crews inside.

>>>The moment they decided to use a nuke on that city, they intentionally targetted civilians<<<

No, the civilians were collateral damage, And we saved the lives of the Japanese populace, but that's in several other posts.

>>>They consider the "perp", as you call him, to be on their side. Little known fact: HAMAS is not only a militant group. They also raise funds for social services. So, not only is it a group that fights for them and shares their anger and frustrations, but they help them in non-militant ways as well<<<

Yes, raising money for charity makes it all better.

>>>I've been reading about Israel/Palestine/Zionism/Jewish lobbies for so long I'm going to get burnt out on it soon<<<

And? Why don't you read about how Israel has been fighting off Arab invasion since it became a country. Why don't you read about the Palestinians raiding and killing the jews after WWI? Why not about the Roman occupation? That's hardly research.


>>>You mean those Zionist immigrants who went over to Palestine and openly proclaimed their intentions to build a Jewish nation<<<

Nope, I was talking about the Jews who the Romans and Turks didn't kick out. Appearently it's criminal for them to have stayed. Of course, they are Jews.

>>>Not many people in the world take too kindly to immigrants who openly want to take over the land they live on<<<

How are they immigrants if they have lived on that land long before the Roman Empire? That's like calling Native Americans immigrants.

>>>I know the difference, quite well<<<

No, you don't.

>>>It is you who tries to say that the deliberate never happens on your side<<<

Would it bolster your Self-Esteem if I did? Would you like me to give you a cookie to make you feel better because the big mean bully Joe Boo knows that our side has commited atrocites? If I say my side did it, would you say yours did as well? Have you any maturity? Like crying that I started it in one topic. Take your mommy's tit out of your mouth and grow up little girl.


>>>"One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail."<<<

And?

>>>Bullshit. Israelis generally hate Europe. They never stop bitching about the "anti-semites" that they like to extort. They only care about US opinion, because the US is their little piggy bank and military bargain center<<<

I'll give you a hint of who helped Isreal begin it's nuclear program, and armed it's Air Force during it's first three major wars. It starts with the letter "F"

>>>The point flies over your head<<<

As you usually say when I offer a smartass answer to your dumbass retoric.

>>>So now Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets?<<<

Yes.........You didn't know?

By the way, when are you going to answer my question about the weapon system that you hid in a bunker and press a button?

>>>I have talked with Chiefs of Staff and they've agreed to drop Joe Boob right into Baghdad as the starting point for the war<<<

lol I thought you could not be a skinhead if you are a retard? I guess they made an exception for you.

The Jews that made Israel a modern nation are not related to the Hebrew natives of the region. The aboriginal Jews are second-class citizens in Israel because the pushy piece of shit eastern european ones are the lowest slime the earth has ever been burdened with.

>>>Why not about the Roman occupation?<<<<

How is that relelvant to anything, other than just trying to legimitize the Jewish pity industry?

quote:

---

In either case, if a civilian gets killed in the fire, they have a propaganda victory, and the "White devils" are hounded in the press by ignorant dumbshits like White Chocolate and Mouse. Much like the Viet Cong hiding in churches during the battle for Hue, and the Taliban parking tanks next to mosques and putting the crews inside.

---

Yank asses shouldn't have been in Vietnam in the first place. I don't hound "white devils". I hound stupid "interventionist" military adventures started by power mad politicians. The soldiers are pawns.

As for the heebs in Palestine, fuck them. They deserve every bit of bad press they get. If they ended the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza long ago, maybe I'd have a wee bit of sympathy for them.

quote:

---

No, the civilians were collateral damage, And we saved the lives of the Japanese populace, but that's in several other posts.

---

This is a cute bit of mental gymnastics to claim that civilians werne't targetted. Very typical. "Collateral damage". When you intentionally use a nuclear weapon on a populated city, knowing full well that everyone will be incinerated, you are targetting civilians.

Let's say I wanted to kill Joe Boo. Would I be less of a mass murderer if I decided to bomb your entire city, then claimed that I'm not responsible for targetting civilians because I was actually targetting a smutty little soldier, and that hundreds of thousands of others just "happened" to die because I knowingly used a weapon that would kill everyone in the area?

quote:

---

Yes, raising money for charity makes it all better.

---

Charity for the starving and poor tends to win over the sympathies of the starving and poor. Funny, how things work that way.

quote:

---

Why don't you read about how Israel has been fighting off Arab invasion since it became a country.

---

I did. I read about the causes of those attacks, and I also read about the ethnic cleansing of over a hundred Arab villages when Israel became a state.

quote:

---

Why don't you read about the Palestinians raiding and killing the jews after WWI?

---

I did. None of this happened before the Zionist campaigns.

quote:

---

Why not about the Roman occupation?

---

The Roman occupation has nil to do with the modern day situation.

quote:

---

Nope, I was talking about the Jews who the Romans and Turks didn't kick out. Appearently it's criminal for them to have stayed. Of course, they are Jews.

---

I've read about those Jews. Most of them were not interested in Zionism and lived in peace with their neighbors before the European Zionist Jews came and started shit. The small amount of Jews that lived in Palestine for centuries were Shepardic. The Zionists were Ashkenazi immigrants.

quote:

---

How are they immigrants if they have lived on that land long before the Roman Empire? That's like calling Native Americans immigrants.

---

See above.

quote:

---

Would it bolster your Self-Esteem if I did?

---

Nope. It raise my opinion of you.

quote:

---

Would you like me to give you a cookie to make you feel better because the big mean bully Joe Boo knows that our side has commited atrocites?

---

No thanks. I just had thanksgiving dinner and I'm stuffed.

quote:

---

If I say my side did it, would you say yours did as well?

---

What is "my side"? Palestinians are not my people. Arabs and Muslims are not my people. Yet, neither are Jews and the hijacked US government and military. I think all sides have done things. That's not exactly a profound revelation.

quote:

---

Have you any maturity? Like crying that I started it in one topic. Take your mommy's tit out of your mouth and grow up little girl.

---

Puerile, obscene ranting.

quote:

---

I'll give you a hint of who helped Isreal begin it's nuclear program, and armed it's Air Force during it's first three major wars. It starts with the letter "F"

---

So? You think Israel gives a shit about French public opinion now? They think France is a "nest of anti-semitism". They concentrate their PR efforts in the US. This is not exactly startling new info.

quote:

---

As you usually say when I offer a smartass answer to your dumbass retoric.

---

Your "smartass" answer failed to address the point.

quote:

---

???[

---

Hinduism is one of the only continuous remaining original Aryan religions. I thought you were pro-Aryan. You appear to be championing the cause of Mohammedans against them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheCappybara:
It does none of the above. If China wanted to invade America, America putting all her troops into Africa, Kuwait and Afghanistan would neither distract, nor stop China. America can't even defend her own border from Mexican illegals hopping across, yet American troops are all over the world for vague imperial reasons.

War is an excellent distraction, however.. but not for foreign "rivals". It's a great distraction aimed at political rivals and domestic populations. Wag the dog, anyone?

---

It sure stops those countries from developing, or joining enemy nations.

quote:

---

Hinduism is one of the only continuous remaining original Aryan religions. I thought you were pro-Aryan. You appear to be championing the cause of Mohammedans against them.

---

The Kashmir conflict isn't something I've extensively read into very much. From my understanding of it, the Muslims in Kashmir want independence from India. I should read about that issue in the future, because as of now, I have no clue why they can't just have it.

Hinduism also has little to do with my culture. I know when I go to the store here, sometimes I have to avoid entire sections for periods of time when I shop because the Hindus don't believe in wearing deodorant. They have a caste system and many other beliefs and customs that I don't share. I also don't share the beliefs of Muslims, but I see no reason to knee-jerk support the Hindus in India just because back in history the Brahmins were what is called "Aryan".

quote:

---

It sure stops those countries from developing, or joining enemy nations.

---

Chasing after easy target bogey men like Saddam didn't stop China from developing.

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 10-15-2002).]

Thanksgiving was today in Canada? Fuckin weirdos... lol


>>>Hinduism is one of the only continuous remaining original Aryan religions.<<<<<

Its kinda sucky. Just because the names of their gods and their myths echo a very ancient Aryan sentiment does not mean it is an Aryan religion.

>>>> I thought you were pro-Aryan.<<<<

... you guys are gay around here all of a sudden, seriously.

>>>> You appear to be championing the cause of Mohammedans against them. <<<<

Are you saying Indians are Indo-European? They are mud-people proper dude, shut up.

Yeah, thanksgiving was today. I didn't know this til recently. Last week my husband's all "Next monday I get the day off and we're eating dinner at my dad's for thanksgiving". I was like "Wrong month". I was wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
I was wrong.

---

*Nox has heart attack*

Nox

Charity for the starving and poor tends to win over the sympathies of the starving and poor. Funny, how things work that way.

No different then a Catholic priest who fucks kids and runs a charity orgainization.

>>>Have you any maturity? Like crying that I started it in one topic. Take your mommy's tit out of your mouth and grow up little girl.

Puerile, obscene ranting<<<


I take it you like it when people sugar coat truth and don't tell you how it is. A pity. Oh well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
...superpower of the world who's allowed to even have a military?

---

That's just stupid... Welcome back!

quote:

---

I think you fail to understand what a guerrilla army is. They are anything but "ragtag"

---

No, they are anything but well provisioned. I wish I had seen this before I defended you, because you obviously don't understand either.

Good posts are short and sweet, don't you think?
___

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:
...Much like the Viet Cong hiding in churches during the battle for Hue, and the Taliban parking tanks next to mosques...

---

These aren't guerilla tactics. The VC were in an urban battle. If you're talking about the poor bastards that they left behind: to harrass the US with sniper fire, until their suicide mission was over, then that's not guerilla warfare either.

Tanks... I won't even bother. How can a marine not know basic warfare definitions? And, why does someone with your blood, defend Israel?
___

quote:

---

we're eating dinner at my dad's for thanksgiving

---

That's pretty arrogant; assuming that we're gonna let you back in.

quote:

---

You guys are still going on about this?

---

Heh.

>>>These aren't guerilla tactics. The VC were in an urban battle. If you're talking about the poor bastards that they left behind: to harrass the US with sniper fire, until their suicide mission was over, then that's not guerilla warfare either.<<<

No, they aren't. When did I say they were? And from what I read, It's also against the Law of Land Warfare, circa 1955. And the poor bastards they left behind are what we call "Forces Left in Contact" Which is a term used for Anti-Armor Rocket teams are left behind to engage enemy armor, or another example would be the Air-Naval Gunfire Liasion team left behind during the Battle for Khafji.

>>>Tanks... I won't even bother. How can a marine not know basic warfare definitions?<<<

What about Tanks?

>>>And, why does someone with your blood, defend Israel?<<<

Lebanese Christian. After my family and those who left Lebanon with us were released from a Syrian refugee camp (Read Prison) they were the only people who let them come within arms distance of them without firing on us, and treated us totally the opposite way the Palestinians did when I was lving in Beruit.

>>>because you obviously don't understand either<<<

Well, she obviously doesn't know what weapon requires you to sit in a bunker and press a button. The only two times I've done that were on the Demolition Range and using a MULE, and that was to keep us from getting tagged with fragments.

quote:

---

Lebanese Christian. After my family and those who left Lebanon with us were released from a Syrian refugee camp (Read Prison) they were the only people who let them come within arms distance of them without firing on us, and treated us totally the opposite way the Palestinians did when I was lving in Beruit.

---

If the Palestinians treated you like the Lebanese Christian Phalange did to them, you'd be hacked into little bits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
If the Palestinians treated you like the Lebanese Christian Phalange did to them, you'd be hacked into little bits.

---

That was after they broke into homes and gun down families, leave car bombs at ramdom places all over Beruit, and would routinely shoot at kids on their way to school. Funny how the way things roll isn't it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by malaria:
Would you kill a child? What would be the youngest age you would kill?

---

As in murder? Never. Children are, as a rule, defenseless. Anyone who harms them, whether they're collateral damage (that means you Curious George, you smug asshole) or the actual targets is nothing more than a murderer, plain and simple. The same applies to innocents of all ages, but especially to children. I would regard an attack on a child as an attack on my own person.

If they were in terrible pain and could not possibly survive, I might, with their parent's permission if possible, perform euthanasia.

As for the youngest ages, I expect ten and up, if they posed a threat to someone else. I doubt I would be able to kill them if only my life depended on it.

quote:

---

That was after they broke into homes and gun down families, leave car bombs at ramdom places all over Beruit, and would routinely shoot at kids on their way to school. Funny how the way things roll isn't it?

---

Kinda how the Palestinians only started suicide bombing decades after being abused by the IDF and illegal settlers?

As horrid as the suicide bombins are, the actions of the Christian Phalange were just as gruesome. They hacked unarmed women and children to death... pure slaughter that went on for a while. What are your feelings about the massacre by the Lebanese Christian Phalange, under the watchful eye of Ariel Sharon and the IDF?

Some Palestinians think they have a right to suicide bomb because they are abused by Israel. Do you think the Lebanese Christian Phalange had a right to butcher unarmed refugees in a camp because of actions by Palestinian militants?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Kinda how the Palestinians only started suicide bombing decades after being abused by the IDF and illegal settlers?

As horrid as the suicide bombins are, the actions of the Christian Phalange were just as gruesome. They hacked unarmed women and children to death... pure slaughter that went on for a while. What are your feelings about the massacre by the Lebanese Christian Phalange, under the watchful eye of Ariel Sharon and the IDF?

Some Palestinians think they have a right to suicide bomb because they are abused by Israel. Do you think the Lebanese Christian Phalange had a right to butcher unarmed refugees in a camp because of actions by Palestinian militants?

---

I don't agree with it, and I was horrified when I heard about it. They may be my people, but I don't condone that. Do you think the Palestinians had a right to gun down families in homes, leave car bombs all over Beruit?

Thanks for the explanation Joe. What's your wife's position on the issue?

quote:

---

Joe:
When did I say they were?

---

Middle of page 4. Or you were changing the context.. i don't know, doesn't matter.

quote:

---

Do you think the Palestinians had a right to gun down families in homes, leave car bombs all over Beruit?

---

Definately not. The Palestinians have a legitimate beef with Israel, not Lebanon. They should be respectful in other countries.

The upper-caste Hindus are Aryan.

And I don't see why you don't believe in the caste system. It had a good purpose.

No they arent. Maybe 200 years before Christ.

>>>Definately not. The Palestinians have a legitimate beef with Israel, not Lebanon. They should be respectful in other countries<<<

Too late for my older brother. At least we found some of him.


>>>Thanks for the explanation Joe. What's your wife's position on the issue?<<<

My wife is Iranian. She doesn't really care about that subject, except with how she feels with Iraq and Saddam.