Home | The thing I would say about the sniper is that people in America should be calling for tighter gun controls (i.e. not allowing private citzens to own high-velocity rifles). But then again, not being American, if people think that higher instances of cases like this is a fair trade-off with the right to own guns, then that is their decision.
You may be drawing hasty conclusions.Originally posted by jcsd
I think we can safely say that the finnish bombing (the Finnish police recently said that the bomber had no extremist beliefs) and the Washington sniper (A tarot card with 'Dear Mr Policeman, I am God' is blasphemous under Islam) are not connected to Islamic extremists whereas the Indonesian bombing is probably the work of local Islamic extremists who do have some links to Al-Quaida (though no evidence so far to suggest direct Al-Quaida involvement).
The Finnish student was not known to be a member of an Islamist group. To say that someone who blows up himself and several other people "had no extremist beliefs" seems a bit out of wack, however. I don't claim any special knowledge of this case, but it seems reasonable to say that whatever his motivation (mental illness?) he decided to do what many Islamist homicide bombers have done over the past year. It seems very likely that he was, for whatever reason, inspired by them. Perhaps he wanted to die a "martyr"...
As for the DC area sniper, you can't conclude anything from a tarot card. For all we know, it was written by someone else, or the sniper is an Islamist and he left a tarot card to enable Muslims to claim the sniper couldn't possibly be one of them.
Or do you think the sniper is evil enough to murder, but too upright to deceive? Supposedly, Islamist terrorists are not truly Muslims anyway...
US citizens have had the right to bear arms since the US was founded. Most criminal acts involving firearms are committed with stolen weapons.Originally posted by jcsd
The thing I would say about the sniper is that people in America should be calling for tighter gun controls (i.e. not allowing private citzens to own high-velocity rifles). But then again, not being American, if people think that higher instances of cases like this is a fair trade-off with the right to own guns, then that is their decision.
Under Hitler, the Nazis instituted gun control for Jews. It was very effective.
It is naive to think that owning firearms, particularly by people who buy and register them according to law, leads to crime. There is no gun control law that can stop criminals from obtaining guns... after all, they do not obey laws.
Gun control would also prevent a decent citizen from shooting the sniper...
I wouldn?t be blasphemy if a Muslim used the Torah or the bible as Kleenex.
They don't consider the two books to be sacred any more than they would consider a Tarot card being associated with the devil.
This Petri character may very well be a neo Nazi one reason being is that he took a few Iraqis with him. I don't know much about Finnish hairstyles but in a picture taken last year his hairstyle could be indicate a skinhead connection.
Picture:
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyhete...214938,00.html
I've been trying find a Jewish connection to Citycon(owner of the shopping center)to see if that could have been the motive.
If I have the time latter I'll visit a few neo Nazi sites in Scandinavia and see if he's posted there using his nick "RC"
from post #1:Originally posted by ibrodsky
Please show where I said that we should abandon moral and humane considerations?
...Again, please show where I have called for intentional "violence against civilians."
"The West is going to have to form an army of millions to crush every nation that harbors or otherwise supports terrorism."
to me, "to crush" means to conquer, kill, destroy, pillage, etc. Please explain if you meant something else.
"Defeating fascist and genocidal Islamists is not going to be easy. It cannot be done with one hand tied behind our backs. It is going to require fierce determination, a willingness to answer their jihad with a "jihad" of our own, and most importantly the understanding that they are not going to be stopped by attempts to reason, implore, or shame them. "
to me, "jihad of our own" means to persecute all Islamic people because of their faith (Jihad - holy war, war based upon religious causes). Please explain if you meant something else.
...and my favorite...
"Only brute force can put these brutes out of business."
brute force? ...... hmmmm.... I'm confused here.... did you mean perform a body search? perfrom surveillance? give them a slap on the wrist?
Believe it or not, I agree with you on this one. It of course depends on the specifics of the violations of human rights, but I agree that war time necessitates some regulations and actions that otherwise were unacceptable.Originally posted by ibrodsky
Some civil liberties may need to be temporarily suspended during war. It's regrettable, but our peace time civil liberties will be cancelled if our enemies prevail.
In Israel, for some time now, the citizens are subjected to body searches in every public building. Israeli Arabs may expect surveillance and other measures. This is acceptable, imo, as long as the threat exists and as long as the security forces are controlled and governed by the political level (i.e. government).
I disagree with you on that one. First of all, if a military action is likely to cause civilian casualties, and you go ahead and do it, it’s the same as going for the civilians in the first place. Civilians should be protected at all costs.Originally posted by ibrodsky
2. We should not intentionally kill civilians. But we should not let the likelihood of civilian casualties prevent us from winning. The first obligation of democracies is to prevent their own civilians from being being mass murdered and to ensure the survival of democracy. Totalitarian societies, not democracies, are the cause of terrorism and aggression.
As an Israeli I can tell you that dropping a 1 ton bomb on a building to kill a single person, and killing 7 others, including children – it is extremely difficult to explain to your people and to justify to the world.
There are several examples where democracies supported or practiced terrorism: US government supported terror regimes in South-America. France practiced terror methods in Algeria (assassinations of Algerian political leaders). UK practiced terror methods in Ireland (planting bombs in underground hideouts)
I believe that during WWII, the US did perform acts suitable to be labeled as war crimes. That includes the bombing of Dresden, the bombing of Tokyo that caused the fire storm and of course, the two Atom bombs. It doesn’t matter what the Germans and Japanese did. What you call “force necessary to completely defeat...†is, imo, massacre of civilians with no apparent military justification. fighting an evil force using the same measurements is unacceptable.Originally posted by ibrodsky
You need to ask yourself a question: by using the force necessary to completely defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, did the United States renounce human liberty or defend it?
Last edited by sharonbn; 10-14-2002 at 02:27 PM.
Gun control in America is an issue for Americans and not English people like myself, it is their democratic right to have guns if that is what they want. But in a country like England not having the right to bear arms does not affect our liberty (I'm not sure I trust the American government though as much as I trust the British government).
I could write loads on how terrorists don't usually try to decieve people about who actually commited their acts, but I won't as I could yet be proved wrong. All I'll say is there are too few facts for too much speculation.
Originally posted by sharonbn
I believe that during WWII, the US did perform acts suitable to be labeled as war crimes. That includes the bombing of Dresden, the bombing of Tokyo that caused the fire storm and of course, the two Atom bombs. It doesn’t matter what the Germans and Japanese did. What you call “force necessary to completely defeat...†is, imo, massacre of civilians with no apparent military justification. fighting an evil force using the same measurements is unacceptable.
So what you’re really saying that war shouldn’t be waged at any cost. In my opinion war is about winning and if the enemy resorts to bombing civilian target you should not hesitate to do the same.
Germany was lopping VI and V2 rockets on to London continuously and the only target they had in mind were civilians.
The Japanese murdered civilians in the Philippines and elsewhere.
At what point is retaliation justified?
The atom bombs that were dropped on Japan ended the war. New information was recently released that the Japanese were days away from developing a nuclear bomb.
Should the Japanese have been allowed to drop an atom bomb on an American city without retaliation?
Where do you draw the line?
Isn’t war about winning?
Sniper claims another victim.
http://msnbc.com/news/816566.asp
I meant take out the government (i.e., the authority that harbors and supports terrorism) as we did in Afghanistan.Originally posted by sharonbn
from post #1:
"The West is going to have to form an army of millions to crush every nation that harbors or otherwise supports terrorism."
to me, "to crush" means to conquer, kill, destroy, pillage, etc. Please explain if you meant something else.
I have never suggested that we should "pillage" which can only be interpreted as an act of vengeance against the civilian population.
You are really stretching it. Many Moslems insist that "jihad" refers to personal struggle... as in quitting smoking. My point is that we are not taking this war seriously enough. As Michael Oren asked in an editorial in the Jerusalem Post a few weeks ago, where is America's outrage over the first major attack on American soil?"Defeating fascist and genocidal Islamists is not going to be easy. It cannot be done with one hand tied behind our backs. It is going to require fierce determination, a willingness to answer their jihad with a "jihad" of our own, and most importantly the understanding that they are not going to be stopped by attempts to reason, implore, or shame them. "
The country responded to Pearl Harbor with solid determination to defeat the enemy in a life or death struggle. Our response to the WTC massacre has been, in contrast, to call that attack a "tragic event," to avoid recognizing the enemy is militant Islam, and to expect some government agencies to just go take care of things and let us know when it's over.
Well that's obviously not what I said or meant. Surely you noticed the quotation marks in a "jihad" of our own meant to convey the irony. My point was that we should be more fired up about defeating these mass murderers. Our government seems willing to simply absorb a number of civilian casualties in the hope this will eventually blow over on its own...to me, "jihad of our own" means to persecute all Islamic people because of their faith (Jihad - holy war, war based upon religious causes). Please explain if you meant something else.
And how do you propose to fight mass murderers... by releasing a flock of doves?...and my favorite...
"Only brute force can put these brutes out of business."
brute force? ...... hmmmm.... I'm confused here.... did you mean perform a body search? perfrom surveillance? give them a slap on the wrist?
As I said before, the purpose of military force is to kill people and break things. Perhaps your conscience does not permit you to support such actions. I believe the lives of my wife and children and many others, as well as liberty, are worth fighting for.
I am not willing to let mass murderers have their way, as apparently you and A-Palestinian would, just because defeating them will require use of lethal force.
I'm not surprised. I find there is an authoritarian current running through modern liberalism.Believe it or not, I agree with you on this one. It of course depends on the specifics of the violations of human rights, but I agree that war time necessitates some regulations and actions that otherwise were unacceptable.
I suspect that in peacetime you only support suspending the civil rights of Likudniks and Republicans.
At all costs? Then you might as well surrender. Because the Islamist mass murderers have caught on to the fact that we don't like to harm civilians and according to their calculations -- since they enjoy killing civilians -- they will triumph in the end.I disagree with you on that one. First of all, if a military action is likely to cause civilian casualties, and you go ahead and do it, it’s the same as going for the civilians in the first place. Civilians should be protected at all costs.
Personally, I don't accept the notion that all civilians are automatically innocent. For example, Palestinian terrorists receive plenty of support from throughout Palestinian society. When Palestinian terrorists pull off a successful mass murder attack, there are sometimes street celebrations. Notice you didn't see Americans dancing in the street when we heard that our troops might have mistakenly attacked a wedding party.
I disagree. It may be hard to explain to people who think the terrorists have a just grievance. But it's not hard to explain to the families of those killed by the terrorists. The fact that these mass murderers hide among civilians, and many of the civilians are happy to be their human shields, puts a great deal of the blame on the terrorists and their supporters.As an Israeli I can tell you that dropping a 1 ton bomb on a building to kill a single person, and killing 7 others, including children – it is extremely difficult to explain to your people and to justify to the world.
Really, what you are saying is that if terrorists are willing to hide among civilians and civilians are happy to hide them, then it is wrong to fight them. I have no doubt this is precisely what they are counting on.
I am less familiar with France and the UK. But you are clearly distorting US government actions. The US government has at times formed tactical alliances with other countries.There are several examples where democracies supported or practiced terrorism: US government supported terror regimes in South-America. France practiced terror methods in Algeria (assassinations of Algerian political leaders). UK practiced terror methods in Ireland (planting bombs in underground hideouts)
For example, we fought Nazi Germany in alliance with Stalin's Soviet Union. Perhaps you would claim that we supported Stalin's brutal repression of all political opposition. But that would be a completely unjustified assertion.
In case you haven't noticed, democracy has swept through most of Latin America. And not without considerable support from the U.S.
Try to understand that not everything is black or white. We supported Iraq against Iran. This was probably a wise move and clearly it was not meant as a signal to Saddam Hussein that we would look the other way if he decided to rape neighboring countries.
On the other hand, I think we made a mistake supporting Islamic fundamentalists against the USSR. The USSR of the 1970s was nothing like the USSR under Stalin. It was still an oppressive regime, but nothing like the kind of fascism advocated by Islamic fundamentalists (as later clearly demonstrated by the Taliban).
This was a tactical error, and not some evil CIA conspiracy to spread misery as you might prefer people believe.
Would you sheepishly go to the gas chambers rather than kill guards who were just doing their jobs and had families of their own if you had the chance?I believe that during WWII, the US did perform acts suitable to be labeled as war crimes. That includes the bombing of Dresden, the bombing of Tokyo that caused the fire storm and of course, the two Atom bombs. It doesn’t matter what the Germans and Japanese did. What you call “force necessary to completely defeat...†is, imo, massacre of civilians with no apparent military justification. fighting an evil force using the same measurements is unacceptable.
This is where you and I really disagree. WW II was almost lost. Tens of millions of people died fighting wars that were forced upon them by evil aggressors. The responsibility for the deaths of German civlians rest squarely on the shoulders of those who supported the Nazis or gave up opposing them. In case you didn't notice, the Nazis purposely killed millions of civilians and enslaved millions more. The great democracies nearly lost the war.
The US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan so that tens of thousands of American soldiers would not have to die fighting the infantry equivalent of kamikaze pilots. Japan could have sued for peace earlier -- it was their choice.
I am glad that the people in charge on the allied side had more good sense than you do. Anyone who looks at Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, both bent on conquering and enslaving the rest of the world, and thinks for one second that the US acted immorally in putting an end to their crimes has it all backwards.
What next? Are you going to claim that Germany being occupied by American troops was just as bad (or worse?) than Poland being occupied by the Nazis?
I know revising history and making sure no one imagines for a minute that the US and Israel are basically forces for good is a favorite pastime of leftists. The US and Israel may be imperfect, but they are not evil. Its dictatorships, not democracies, that throw away their peoples' lives.
Last edited by ibrodsky; 10-14-2002 at 07:36 PM.
No, that's not what I said. altough I believe that war is destructive evil that should be avoided, I acknowlege that sometimes war is unaviodable. What I say is that even war has its rules. The rules where put in place so soldiers and people can survive the war period and resume normal life without being emotionally scarred for life.Originally posted by L@mplighterM
So what you’re really saying that war shouldn’t be waged at any cost. In my opinion war is about winning and if the enemy resorts to bombing civilian target you should not hesitate to do the same.
IMO, war is not just about winning. Its about winning on your terms. If your enemy bombs civillians and you retaliate with the same manner, then you a) let your enemy dictate how the war is fought and b) lose moral justification which allows you to condeomn your enemy's actions and trial its leaders for war crimes.
to say "they started it" is, imo, a lame excuse, at best.Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Germany was lopping VI and V2 rockets on to London continuously and the only target they had in mind were civilians.
The Japanese murdered civilians in the Philippines and elsewhere.
At what point is retaliation justified?
and you can never retaliate with the same actions as you described above, for the reasons I gave in the previous paragraph.
I didn't hear of such new information. I didn't even hear about the japanese atomic research. I doubt that (given the mentality of the Japanese) they would surrender if they were "days away" from being able to retaliate. Further more, I read about the last days of WWII and found out that Japan was seeking a way to end the war with some conditions (mainly that the emperor will be allowed to retain his title.)Originally posted by L@mplighterM
The atom bombs that were dropped on Japan ended the war. New information was recently released that the Japanese were days away from developing a nuclear bomb.
OK, I agreeOriginally posted by ibrodsky
[B]I meant take out the government (i.e., the authority that harbors and supports terrorism) as we did in Afghanistan.
OK, I agree (depends on what you mean by "more fired up")Originally posted by ibrodsky
My point is that we are not taking this war seriously enough.
...My point was that we should be more fired up about defeating these mass murderers.
I believe there are three things that should and can be done:Originally posted by ibrodsky
And how do you propose to fight mass murderers... by releasing a flock of doves?
1. The plan of going after the governments that support
terrorism (what Bush called "the evil axis") is an effective and relatively "clean" plan. I agree with you that the US should be more determined in its fight against international terror and that other countries should acknowledge this threat and do their share in the war. As long as we don't forget who's the enemy and who's not and as long as we don't use the same figthing methods as the terrorists use (i.e. "brute force")
2. Tighten internal security and employ coutner-intelligence to stop terror attacks that are on the way. This may involve violations of some civil rights. That is acceptable, as long as the security forces are controlled not to abuse the power they are given.
2. The US government can expect some extra support from the American Muslim community. Specifically, the leaders of this community should encourage their followers to a) exploit their connections in Arab countries to expose terrorists and alert of planned attacks, and b) become more involved in the general American community through acts of voluenteer, etc. and thus display their loyalty and commitment. American Muslim community should expect and accept to be subjected to some security measurements.
Please don't put A-Palestinian and myself in the same basket, just because we both don't agree with you. I strongly object to A-Palestinian's view on the presevation of civil rights and moreover I object to his manner of expression.Originally posted by ibrodsky
I am not willing to let mass murderers have their way, as apparently you and A-Palestinian would.
I never said the purpose of military force is something other thanwhat you specified. What I say is that it matters WHO you kill and WHAT you break. I gave both moral and pragmatic reasons for this distinction.Originally posted by ibrodsky
As I said before, the purpose of military force is to kill people and break things. Perhaps your conscience does not permit you to support such actions.
I'm sad to say I find a little fascist sitting inside every conservative.Originally posted by ibrodsky
I'm not surprised. I find there is an authoritarian current running through modern liberalism.
I have no doubt the terrorists are counting on this code of behaviour. I do doubt the willingness of civillians to voluenterily shield the terrorists. I believe that civillians are similar in their aspirations on both sides: they both seek to live in peace, raise a family and prosper. On both sides, civllians are often hostages of the fighting forces and of their governments.Originally posted by ibrodsky
Really, what you are saying is that if terrorists are willing to hide among civilians and civilians are happy to hide them, then it is wrong to fight them. I have no doubt this is precisely what they are counting on.
Now you are using the same weapon you claim is used against you - distortion. I NEVER said that you should avoid killing soldiers and fighting personell at war time. I said that making civillians a target is unacceptable, even if you believe this action will spare lives of your soldiers. In such cases there is also an alternative action open. e.g. targeting military facilities or making a demonstration to the leaders of the enemy.Originally posted by ibrodsky
Would you sheepishly go to the gas chambers rather than kill guards who were just doing their jobs and had families of their own if you had the chance?
this is besides the point but I have to answer:Originally posted by ibrodsky
This is where you and I really disagree. WW II was almost lost.
I don't know how you came by this conclusion.
The US mainlansd was never attacked and was never under threat of invasion throughout the war. Moreover, this was not the purpose of the Japanese. They intended to estroy the US military capability in the pacific so they can persue their excursion into China and central Asia.
The war over Britain was over by the end of 1940. the UK was never invaded by land and did not come under direct threat until the end of the war.
and with all due respect to the American and British war effort, it was the Russians who defeated the Germans on heir own with no help whatsoever from the west. The Russians were able to turn the tide of war by winter 1942, 18 months before the invasion of Siciliy and two and a half years before the invasion of Normandy.
I'm glad not all people have the same sense like you. Take the Marshall plan for example, I belive this is the single most unselfish act I have ever heard of. To devise such a plan takes a true vision and immense compassion. If this plan was implemented after WWI, we probably would not have WWII. This plan maybe saved us from WWIII from which we proabbly would not recover.Originally posted by ibrodsky
I am glad that the people in charge on the allied side had more good sense than you do. Anyone who looks at Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, both bent on conquering and enslaving the rest of the world, and thinks for one second that the US acted immorally in putting an end to their crimes has it all backwards.
a favorite pasttime of conservatives is revising history into painting the wolrd in black & white colors of good vs. bad. They "forget" or justify war cimes committed by their countries because it confuses this simplistic view.Originally posted by ibrodsky
I know revising history and making sure no one imagines for a minute that the US and Israel are basically forces for good is a favorite pastime of leftists. The US and Israel may be imperfect, but they are not evil. Its dictatorships, not democracies, that throw away their peoples' lives.
The truth is just a little more complicated. I believe that democracy is the best and most just form of government. I agree that the source of evil in the present world comes from dictators such as Saddam Husein. However, democracies have shown that they are capable of misusing military force in immoral ways. I say that governments must be aware that they cannot do as they please in the name of fighting terrorism.
Last edited by sharonbn; 10-15-2002 at 01:24 AM.
I'm glad we agree on the original key points.Originally posted by sharonbn
OK, I agree
This is a gross exaggeration. First, let's not forget that the heroic USSR was quite happy to make a "non-aggression pact" with Nazi Germany, and in case anyone is confused about what that meant, Soviet troops occupied part of Poland per prior arrangement with Germany.The war over Britain was over by the end of 1940. the UK was never invaded by land and did not come under direct threat until the end of the war.
and with all due respect to the American and British war effort, it was the Russians who defeated the Germans on heir own with no help whatsoever from the west. The Russians were able to turn the tide of war by winter 1942, 18 months before the invasion of Siciliy and two and a half years before the invasion of Normandy.
The USSR indeed took the brunt of the land fighting -- as a result of its own foolish willingness to make a "deal" with fascism and ignore western intelligence about the imminent Nazi onslaught.
But I don't think it's fair to suggest the Soviet war effort was not substantially aided by allied bombing of German war material manufacturing, defeating German submarines and keeping the Soviets well supplied, and inventing radar and defeating the Luftwaffe.
Winning wars also requires clear-sighted leadership. Churchill stood alone as the one leader uncompromisingly opposed to Nazi Germany on principle from beginning to end. Stalin's regime in many ways mirrored the Nazis.
Last edited by ibrodsky; 10-15-2002 at 05:31 AM.
Originally posted by sharonbn
I say that governments must be aware that they cannot do as they please in the name of fighting terrorism.
What would you proscribe?
1. Targeting civilian population and property as punishment/retaliation is prohibited.Originally posted by Mediocrates
What would you proscribe?
For example, uprooting a tree farm because it was used by terrorist snipers is unacceptable.
2. In case of terrorist hiding inside civilian building and amongst civilian population, killing the terrorist should be done with utmost care not to harm innocent lives. the choice of weapons and place/time of assassination should be done with this consideration. While such an action may indeed cost innocent lives, planning the attack with caution will keep number of casualties to minimal.
For example, using 1 ton bomb on a civilian building to kill one terrorist is unacceptable. In this case, an elite commando unit should have been used. Using civilians as shields during fighting (as was done in Jenin) is unacceptable.
3. The violations of civil rights of Muslim/Arab citizens should be kept to minimum. The political level (Congress and Government) has to authorize any such extreme measures. The political level will also monitor and control the actions of the security forces with great scrutiny. The public should be aware of such actions through the media.
Last edited by sharonbn; 10-15-2002 at 04:30 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks