[Nico]

Zeronet, that is true, but there's also a damn lot of psychos in the army. That is not directed at any army in particular, for exemple, in the french army: 5 months ago, 5 french soldiers ambushed in Congo ( the new republic blablabla ) by 30 rebels ( or whatever they're called, it changes to often ). How can you expect a 0/30 for the french, if they're not psychotic guys who played it ala Terminator? ( the stories you never ear on news, like the "laughable" latests french deaths on an armed front, a few months ago: they crashed their car into a tree, in the middle of nowhere, only one tree around ). Of course I won't blame them for defending themselves, but still, with such a result, one would think that the last ones probably tried to flee...

[Stryke 9]

Originally posted by Zeronet
Everything possible is done to protect civilian lifes in wars post Geneva convention.

And enforced by valkyries riding winged pigs over the battlefield as they sprinkle the cure for cancer (as created by the Moon-men) over the poor little enemy combatants, right? Get real, man. obeying the law is optional if you own the police.



Here. Five seconds' search on the subject, smart guy- the article is (naturally) biased as hell, but the quotes speak for themselves.

http://www.agitproperties.com/newsDetail.php?itemID=119&PHPSESSID=c93ad8d2c0835e265cd014e6a2fe64ae


Venom: Slightly different story, that's being thorough in self-defense. ****, I wish I had those guys working for me.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by Venom
How can you expect a 0/30 for the french, if they're not psychotic guys who played it ala Terminator?

Because they are highly trained, professional soldiers with top of the line military equipment helping protect civilians, not kill them. The dictionary definition of a terrorist, is somebody who uses terror to achieve a often political goal, often causing the terror by attacking a innocent population.


Stryke, did you even look at that site? It says "Faux Headlines", you know french don't you? Vrai=true, faux=false? IE the whole text is falsification.

[Stryke 9]

Uh... no. Never read a left-wing politico site before, have we? If you care to check, most of the articles with online sources can be found, from said sources, online. IE the salon.com and such. They're real, they're calling them "faux" because their whole spiel is lampooning FOX- (Fox News=Faux News). Unless they chose to put one fake article in a whole mess of real ones for confusion value, that's a real article and those are real quotes. Next time, look a bit beyond the title bar.

I've said it before and I'll no doubt have to say it again- don't condescend to me, boy, especially when you don't know what you're talking about.

[Zeronet]

Your the one who reckons the Army is exactly the same as Al-Queda in that they deliberately target civilians. To label an entire group, because of the words of a few, is generalisation.

[Stryke 9]

Whutchoo talkin' about, Willis? I said there was a clear defining line between al Qaeda and militant operations. You were the one trying to argue against that. Just because you find out your position's untenable doesn't mean you can go and trade with the other guy without asking, you know.

[Zeronet]

Yeah, that clear defining line is the Military doesn't target civilians, Al-Queda and Hamas do.

Not to mention the lack of credibility in the quotes, London Evening News is such a good source.

[Stryke 9]

"Conspiracy"?

Pathetic. Get lost. If you can't debate without making up the other person's position entirely, you have no right to talk. It's utterly ludicrous and naive to assume that military forces are all these honor-bound paladins who would never ever ever harm a civilian if their life depended on it- these are guys with big guns, going into civilian environments, with marginal (at absolute best) ability to distinguish between what's a target and what's not. They shoot up civvies all the time. Take a look at the ****ing statistics in ****ing Iraq right now, why don't you? Doesn't target civilians... *snort*

[Bobboau]

last I saw the statistics were something like 200,000 military targets to 2000 civis (military targets being defined as someone shooting at you)
though that is no doubt out of date

[Zeronet]

Your the one ignoring my point.
They don't target(in other words, they don't set out with the aim of hitting that civilian, they don't launch operations to slaughter innocent people) civilians. Whether or not they are accidently hit is irellevant, as accidents are bound to happen, where as when a suicide bomber walks into  a Restaurant, they is a clear intent to slaughter civilians, they don't accidently walk into the Restaurant, they step in, see the people eating and blow themselves up. If all Hamas did was target soldiers, that'd make them militants, but they deliberately target the civilian population.

Thats the difference.

Just because a missile gets a error and plows into a residental area, doesn't mean the military is guilty of deliberatly targetting civilians. Its a accident, when a bullet misses the Iraqi irregular and hits his human shield, its not deliberate, its a mistake, the bullet was for the iraqi irregular, not the civilian.

[Stryke 9]

Oh, so those are all warning shots they're firing into the Iraqis' chests during the riots! I get it! They don't mean to hurt anybody, it just hasn't been adequately explained to them that civilians aren't bulletproof!

Here's a little tip for future reference: Generally speaking, when you're insisting on an absolute in any form of human behavior, you're wrong.

[Zeronet]

Lets not forget the US is maintaining law and order in Iraq and when people throw stones and violently try to storm a building, the policing force has to use whatever means to protect it.

[Stryke 9]

Protect the buildings! Forget about lives, innocent property is at stake! YES!

They're throwing gravel? The fiends! Right, out with the grenade launchers! We're hopelessly outarmed and unable to defend ourselves, but maybe, just maybe, we can take a few of them with us!

[Stryke 9]

I think the whole highfalutin bit about "protecting law and order" is lost to the average Iraqi who it's apparently being protected against. Make no mistake, our law and order is essentially those laws and that order that best benefits our corporations as they establish themselves.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Protect the buildings! Forget about lives, innocent property is at stake! YES!

Important administion is at stake, as well as the safety of the civilian workers inside the building, the documents important to the reconstruction effort, and the work being done there, which is vital to the reconstruction of iraq.

Though i think the British are better than the Americans at this, using plastic bullets instead of real ones.

[Stryke 9]

Wow, we're good at quoting Fleischer, aren't we?

Documents! Administration! Well, it's a good thing they're keeping those damn dirty apes out, if they didn't shoot 'em on sight, something important might get hurt!

But... wait a minute. If we're killing the Iraqis in order to keep them from sabotaging the reconstruction... who's the reconstruction for? Halliburton? Wow, that makes the Army FUCKLOADS better than terrorists!

You know, you've gone from calling every non-Western-style military organization terrorist, to making sweeping, completely inaccurate terminology statements about anyone that kills civilians, to trying to defend the killing of civilians. Just thought I'd point that out.

[tEAbAG]

terrorist
adj : characteristic of someone who primarily employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon

militant    
adj:
Fighting or warring.
Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist. n:
A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.

Based on these defs Hamas, which certinly is a militant organization, is more accurately described as terrorist.  While all terrorist are militant, not all militants go that extra step to be concidered terrorist.

Fleischer's an ass, Rummy talks out of his, and Bush ought to ride the short bus to work, but... THEY DO NOT ACTIVELY TARGET CIVILIANS!  This is war and **** happens; the CO of the 101st does not wake up in the morning and think "Hmmmm... maybe we should blow up a crowed resturant today.  That would sure shut them up"  Accidents happen, less would happen if we wern't there, but we are and we're going to fix this broken-ass nation.  People are there who oppose it.  People are going to die.

[Stryke 9]

See, Zero, this is a proper argument.

Granted, under that definition Hamas fits more comfortably into the first category than the second. But then you've got to question motives- from what I've seen, Hamas isn't killing people in order to press an agenda, they're killing people so that Israelis will die, so that eventually life will become unpleasant enough that the rest will leave, but if they don't, they'll kill them, too. Under that definition, a militant group- in my book, probably worse for it, but there ya go.

As I said, they're opening fire on protests and riots now. Cases where the targets are, at this point, exclusively civilian. Seems intentional to me.

[tEAbAG]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
See, Zero, this is a proper argument.

Hamas isn't killing people in order to press an agenda, they're killing people so that Israelis will die, so that eventually life will become unpleasant enough that the rest will leave, but if they don't, they'll kill them, too.

Cool dude, you just made my point!  Terrorism is not killing, but filling life with so much terror (or unplesentness) so that a group will bend to your will.

Originally posted by Stryke 9

As I said, they're opening fire on protests and riots now. Cases where the targets are, at this point, exclusively civilian. Seems intentional to me.

Once a gathering crosses a threshold where it represents a danger to people and property something must be done.  Unfortunatly the Army doesn't have much in the way of non-leathals.  If you ask me the occupation job is far better suited to the USMC which has the means and the know how to get it done. They've been doing **** like this for 150 years, only recently has the Army gotten in on it.

[Stryke 9]

If there wasn't an intent to kill there, rubber bullets and sandbag guns would be being issued. There's a pretty clear-cut divide between riot control and battle gear.