Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Terrorism
"The U.S. goes to war for no reason "
why are you guys actually arguing with him? he's an idiot. he thinks the US had no reason to go to war. he thinks that one day, Bush thought "you know what? there isnt enough blood and hardship in the world; lets starts a war" there is no debating with such delusional people.
"The U.S. goes to war for no reason "
Not true, theres always a reason.
Usually oil
That's the simplistic view you're brainwashed with to keep you from looking behind the stage show. Guess it took.
The only person you're fooling is yourself.
The whole world knows iraq was about oil, the US government knows it was about oil, the US establishment knows it too.
Even Alan Greenspan, ex chairman of the federal reserve has said what everyone knows.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece
Sorry i didnt mean to say that the us went to war for no reason. I mean to say that they went to war thinking there was a reason to but once they went in they knew they were fooled. So actually the reason they had was nonexistant.
"I am opposed to a group using violence to get their way."
Did you not read how i said they used nonviolent protests for 30 YEARS??? 30 years is a long time to go through oppression. After 30 years of nonviolent protests and ur situation gets only worse... what do u expect for a human being to do? Not everyone is a saint like you.
"In the end they kept going back and hiding in the population, they would kill police officers nonstop, politicians, such as Gandhi who only was about peace, and attack civilian targets. They brain washed two whole generations into fighting for them, as well as kidnapped when they got low on numbers and forced people to fight for them."
Ok first off i believe u are mentioning rajiv gandhi. Rajiv was the farthest thing away from a peaceful politician. He wanted an end to the LTTE in sri lanka and he didnt care if thousands of civilians would get hurt. This shows how little u actually know about this conflict. And yes they killed him to save themselves.
I believe what ltte does is ABSOLUTELY justified.
imagine this scenario... a young boy loses both of his parents when the sri lankan army (SLA) bombs a tamil hospital which was built by LTTE. He has no one to take care of him so the LTTE offers to take him up. He learns the guerrila tactics of ltte and he is even taught that in the worst case scenario he must strap a bomb on himself and go to a market place in colombo and blow himself up. in this case it is human nature to respond in a violent way to violence itself. The barbaric acts of SLA perpetuates the "terrorism". If the SLA was not so ruthless in bombing hospitals because "they are nests of LTTE"... then the LTTE would not need to be ruthless in killing singhalese civilians.
The people of tamil eelam are not brainwashed. They simply believe in the statement "give me liberty or give me death" And remember i do not support killing civilians but you cannot condemn one side for doing it while overlooking when the other side kills civilians on a large scale.
"Genocidal" oh are there only 10000 Tamil? Hadn't heard they were being exterminated"
every genocide starts with a small number... must i teach u this? Hitler didnt kill 6 million jews in 1 day... he actually took more than a decade. And besides it seems very heartless of u to just dismiss 10,000 human lives as if it was worth nothing.
If they were committing genocide the efficient tamil navy could have taken untampered evidence out and reported it.
This was a true war, with a nation which cannot avoid civilian casualties, and they finally figured that out.
That they did it with so few is a testament that it was not genocide, that it was the ending of a terrorist group.
The ends justify the means. Empathy is for the weak.
Flint you may call them terrorist all you want but the fact of the matter is both sides do horrible things. the SLA just does them on a grander scale but since they are a legitimate state they are not accused of anything. I am not saying the U.S. is a bad nation... infact it is one of the better nations in the world. But i fear that because of bush you have strayed away from the morals that you were created. Liberty and justice once were your ideals that you exported greatly but now you overlook injustice in the world and you condone the restriction of liberty. You are under the illusion that all illegitimate governments are terrorists and that they come under your "global war on terror". You and president bush have started a trend of fighting against EXACTLY what your forefathers fought FOR. I guess all great civilizations come to an end through immorality, corruption and greed.
You still havent justified how a state can bomb hospitals INTENTIONALLY and bomb civilian locations? If the ends justify the means, can genocide be committed in order to kill only 3000 rebel fighters?
Targeting a civilian population is not sufficient for it to satisfy the definition of suicide. But yes, killing thousands of civilians is justified to kill 3000 terrorists, if it's necessary. Oh, and, no nation has ever actually cared about its ideals. Ideals are a way to control the population. For example, the US talks about democracy, but really it's a plutocracy like every other country in the world. Also, the rule of international politics is that the person with the biggest fist gets his way.
Red Rooster there are terrorists who in Iraq, years back, used Mosques to try to kill US soldiers, and they expected the Mosques to be untargeted due to US policy and due to their religious claims.
I would have made a parking lot with the bombs I would have dropped on the first one, and every one after that if they did that, while video taping the terrorists fighting from it on live television, explaining on live television why I am doing it, and telling them that fighting from a mosque will only kill them and destroy their precious mosque.
You do not leave a zone 'untargetable' if the enemy is using that zone, it's SUICIDE to do so. You cause more people to die over the long run than if you just hit that target and made sure to make a hard example about them using that target like that. I stress a hard example. For instance gut shooting and leaving everyone that surrendered to die for having fought in that specific target, be it school, hospital, mosque, church, or a wonder of the world.
Einstein there are dozens of reports of SLA bombing civilian hospitals on CLAIMS that wounded ltte soldiers were being treated there. Is this justified? I am only justifying the LTTE killing civilians because they have also been victim to barbaric acts by SLA.
WOW!!!!! you all have shown the reason that terrorism even exist... your so adamant about your own being right that you oppose anyone that would think differently.
basic rights to people "given by GOD"
#1 to believe as you please (free will)
#2 practice anything you want (religion) that does not harm or defame another.
#3 anything not physically harming another human being, that you want to do is your right as a living being.
#4 the truth is, either way you want to look at it, at the end of days.... everyone will be riped apart, good from bad, and go they're separate ways (meaning that some people have large portions of them good "so they only feel a scratch", but others will feel as though they are riped apart literally).
"imagine this scenario... a young boy loses both of his parents when the sri lankan army (SLA) bombs a tamil hospital which was built by LTTE. He has no one to take care of him so the LTTE offers to take him up. He learns the guerrila tactics of ltte and he is even taught that in the worst case scenario he must strap a bomb on himself and go to a market place in colombo and blow himself up. in this case it is human nature to respond in a violent way to violence itself. The barbaric acts of SLA perpetuates the "terrorism". If the SLA was not so ruthless in bombing hospitals because "they are nests of LTTE"... then the LTTE would not need to be ruthless in killing singhalese civilians."
I'd prefer that kid caught on in Colombo that here were hundreds of thousands of people who had nothing to do with his war and blowing them up would be silly. You have no such idea, you hoped he would blow up some other little kid and the govt would give up. That is YOUR best good in such situations and it is sick.
"You still havent justified how a state can bomb hospitals INTENTIONALLY and bomb civilian locations? If the ends justify the means, can genocide be committed in order to kill only 3000 rebel fighters?"
What if the artilleryman lost his gf to a stupid little war orphan with a bomb-backpack? If your guerrillas weren't so stupid and vicious they wouldn't need killing in the name of righteousness.
I am proud my tax dollars go to bomb on such freaks. I also note with pride that no diplomacy worked. Here kicking ass worked, as it should everytime it's tried. And now a new generation of Tamil will grow up without any war. Imagine that! No war. I'm sure they'll find some other "oppression" that justifies blowing up buses, not really as dramatic as your dream, I mean a kid forced to learn Singalese is really not much different than a German who doesn't want to go to school...
lashing out at nameless innocents, is the most ignorant thing i have seen since racism.
we are all, individuals.
we should care as so.
and we should find common ground to settle our own differences.
our respective governments, over inflate themselves, and over pay themselves, so that we go broke, and they gain more control.
be a smart human, don't hate because someone tells you to..... hate because you see what that person is doing to you.
and then i think we will all understand that the elitists are mocking us, while coraling us in to socislism of a sort.
what most don't understand, is that many government organisations are responsible for the inequality and racial tension... it is called divide and conquer.
Why can't a separate ethnicity who feels that they are being oppressed be granted a separate state? Is it such a horrible thing to ask that u must eradicate the population over time?
this debate will always come down to this. Your violence is justified because of my violence.... I understand that. But after 30 years of peaceful protests for a separate state, they took up arms and started to fight.
Tell me what is wrong in having a separate state when u are being oppressed?
I can, if I were physically in better shape, and if minded to, which I am not, stage with others a very effective insurgency in the United States which would take out infrastructure, but have very few civilian casualties. We also would have a discernible uniform even, which is required by Geneva conventions. Bridges, roads, electrical lines, military bases, politicians, etc all could be hit and keep a war clean. Yes we would take a lot of casualties if we failed to achieve surprise, but thats a fact of war.
"if I were physically in better shape"
lol, I know where natural gas gets it's smell added, I know where Federal ships with just 1 armed guard get repaired, I know that US highways and Interstates have culverts, bridges, sewers, and more under them, I know where I can take out a hundred plus railroad locations, I know where I can strike at government offices, I am a security expert, I can make it happen cause I know where things should be defended, but cannot be because of cost.
I could do what these Tamili's never could do, keep civilian casualties down low as accidental collateral and not deliberately target them. Make life harder on them yes, but not target them.
I am a disabled veteran Simon, I cant run without physical pain.
"this debate will always come down to this. Your violence is justified because of my violence.... I understand that. But after 30 years of peaceful protests for a separate state, they took up arms and started to fight.
Tell me what is wrong in having a separate state when u are being oppressed?"
when you turn to terrorism ie killing random civilians to make some govt surrender to yo u
"I am opposed to a group using violence to get their way."
Like the American revolutionaries, french revolutionaries and almost every other revolutionary to ever take down an oppressive government? Or any government going to war for any reason, and we all know there's a long list. Violence is often needed to affect change; if the people with the power to do so won't you are forced to make them.
what we call terrorism today was in former times just a rebellion against the local authorities. the usual way to end it was to exterminate the problem. what in sri lanka happens is just this old way of handling things. if one side would stop, the other side would win time to recover and start their uprising again after some years. that is the problem for the western world today. e. g.: in the ancient way the US would have bombed afganistan to a plain, black wasteland where not a single mouse would have been alive. nobody left who could try to resist the US. if a state has problems with "terrorist" groups (once called Freedom Fighters before 9/11), you can solve the problem only with drastic meassures: Extermination, Re-settling, destruction, starvation etc. For the modern western human a barbaric Nazi idea, for an underdeveloped nation just another example for what worked well in the past.
Exactly. The LTTE for the last 6 months stopped killing civilians and rather went after military targets. They did this is in hope that the United States would take them off the terrorist list and give them support. For all the talk of freedom and equality that the U.S. talks about, it never actually delivers. The LTTE today is almost defeated because of NOT attacking civilians.
Mind you, i can also argue that ltte does not want to attack civilians but civilian casualties are taken unintentionally. For example, LTTE's goal is to cause panic and crumble the economy in a way that the government will give the Tamils a separate country instead of keep fighting them. It is very hard to conduct an economic war without harming a single civilian.
Who are you to tell which way of fighting a war is "just". Einstein I find it amusing that you give me examples of blowing up railroads and such but stuff like that has never worked. The SLA is 50 times larger than LTTE.
Also you call the LTTE a bunch of barbaric terrorists but they built schools, hospitals, postal services, roads and such. They are limited in what they can do because as soon as they build one the SLA comes and bombs it.
" if a state has problems with "terrorist" groups (once called Freedom Fighters before 9/11), you can solve the problem only with drastic meassures: Extermination, Re-settling, destruction, starvation etc. For the modern western human a barbaric Nazi idea, for an underdeveloped nation just another example for what worked well in the past."
exactly... for the average ignorant right winger in the western world, all he sees is how his country deals with problems. He belives that the sri lankan army is going to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible kind of like what the U.S. does. But this cannot be farther form the truth. They resorted to mass starvation to get their way. The LTTE silenced their guns so that the SLA doesn't have an excuse to encirlce a whole population and starve them to death + artillery them.
Firewing
Plenty of groups fought off govts without suicide bombings
The Left are degenerates who condemn civilians to death and mutilation anytime a special interest has a beef
Red rooster
Read a book called "seven pillars of wisdom" its about arabs who destroyed stuff and avoided shootouts. Then come back and tell me about how blowing up railroads doesn't work
To you I MUST start off thinking the LTTE is always right. So your story about how they take orphans and make them murderers is fine, because the LTTE is always right. If they take human shields that is ok because the LTTE is always right. If murderers and terrorists want a brief timeout because they're losing, they should get it because the LTTE is always right. If people in Sri Lanka can feel save from being shredded when LTTE attacks the "system", that's a tragedy because the LTTE was always right.
"How dare you pwn" is the lamest moral attack...
Oh so they found that they were losing the heart and soul of everyone killing innocents, so they said 'if we go good we will get support from the Americans'.
I am sorry it does not work that way. Your going good just to get 'aid' and 'support' means you will change back the moment you think you have an upper hand.
And if you think your so friggin brilliant...
I could, if I was the fit soldier I was at 19, with my knowledge of security now, and with about 1 million dollars in special ordnance (available from most arms manufacturing nations) cause in excess of 1 billion dollars in infrastructure damage and also have that result in 1 trillion dollars in lost revenue. It would take me roughly 1-2 years to complete, with a 15% chance of getting caught.
And you ask, how is this possible?
And I remind you of a quote from Sun Tzu. The best defense is a good offense.
In Vietnam we proved this, we killed 1 million soldiers from the North, we destroyed for all intents and purposes that fact. Then we forgot our lesson by letting Democrats run the war and let the Viet Cong win with their offenses and our defenses.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Terrorism
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.