ForumGarden

What I actually expect you to do is to egg on the people with the massive armed forces and tell them that war is good, diplomacy is bad, killing uncounted bystanders is fine and no country can ever again even try to organize its internal affairs without the explicit permission of Uncle Sam. Enlightened and unprejudiced is to recognize that escalation is not a good thing and that diversity is allowable.

How many bystanders were killed in this?

edit: nevermind

Hours later, Syrian state TV confirmed one person had been killed in a car bombing, but did not identify the victim.




Seems to me that some 'terrorists' are a lot more careful of bystanders then other terrorists.

flopstock;779015 wrote: How many bystanders were killed in this?


My apologies floppy, Jester extended the discussion to the current War On Terror in general ("its a dang war, what do you think I'm going to do"). The bystander body count for that is already quite high.

spot;779017 wrote: My apologies floppy, Jester extended the discussion to the current War On Terror in general ("its a dang war, what do you think I'm going to do"). The bystander body count for that is already quite high.


Fortunately, jester and I aren't married so I still get to ask my own questions, don't I?:wah:

Galbally;778415 wrote: I think what should also be mentioned is that this constant seeming wall of constant hate against the west is causing a lot of western people to start hating Arabs and Islam back in a way that was never the case before, and at this stage a lot of people's attitudes are hardening very rapidly to having any sympathy with any Arab cause whatsoever, or the murder of their plethora of more violent advocates. I am quite sure that the long term consequences of this spiral of mutual incomprehension and hatred bodes ill for everyone's future.


just as a quick aside, something that may surprise a few people... Most people I've met here don't hate westeners! Now, I appreciate I've met a very small slice of the population, but the vast majority of people I've met both here in Syria and in Jordan (and a number of Palestinian refugees) have been nothing but friendly and welcoming and incredibly hospitable. (if anyone's interested they could take a quick look at this thread for an example: http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=35577)

Yes there are people who are just blindly against anything western, you must also appreciate the tremendous threat arab people (and people all over the world) face from the encroachment of western culture, they feel threatened by it as they see their way of life changing - think of the language laws in France and multiply by a few hundred times!

But politically, most people accept that the acts of a government are not necessarilly reflective of the wishes of the people. An often used phrase goes something along the lines of 'governments are governments, but all people are brothers.' In fact, I was in the Ummayad mosque a while ago and a man came up to me and asked (randomly) whether I was a Sunni. I said no, I was a christian, and he asked where I was from. When I tolk him I was from Britain, he said he was from Iran, and introduced me to his wife. They were both very friendly, and when they left said that all people were brothers, and all were the children of God equally. Now I'm not a religious person, but I think that's not a bad sentiment.

apologies for rambling...:-2

Jester;779032 wrote: you just dont know what yer misssin darlin!


oh yes i do DAMNITANYWAYS!!:-4

probably ms vicky would kill me though...:wah:

Well in my opinion the United States is perfectly entitled to declare and wage war on its enemies in the same way my country is, or Britain is, the difference being of course that the US actually has the resources available to make war overseas a reasonable exercise. Also of course Americans don't have the same world weary ennui about war, confict, and force than Europeans have, which maybe why Al Queda rekons it will be able to secure an Islamic Europe within a couple of generations. Maybe they just see us as a soft touch, perhaps they are right.

Of course I am not saying that the specific tactics or choice of theaters in this current Western war against Islamicism (which is actually what this is) are very good choices, but the principal remains the same. For instance I didn't hear the U.K. asking for permission to wage war against Argentina when they invaded the Falkland (or Malvinas) Islands, Russia didn't ask anyone was it alright to obliterate Grozny, and China certainly won't require anyones opinion when it retakes Tawain (whenever that will happen). This war on Al Queda has far more legitimacy as a conflict than those examples, its just hard to understand it, because its essentially of terror vs counter terror undertaken by the worlds most powerful nation against the worlds current leading terrorist organization/movement/religion. Diplomacy is of course a useful tool to achieves ones ends, but its certainly not the only one by any means.

Also of course always allowing your enemy to set the agenda and then just reacting to it with acquiescence or bargaining may be just as foolish a policy as the misdirected use of overwhelming military force. My main problem with this war on terror is that it has been fought so badly and counter-productively, but not that has been fought in the first place. Its my opinion that we are in a war whether we wish it or not, whether we choose to try and ignore that uncomfortable reality will have a large impact on whether it goes to our liking.

Isn't terrorism supposed to be against noncombatants?

This seems more like an assassination to me as he was the only one killed..

In which case the guy wasn't even inadvertently applauding terrorism. Nice try though.

I'm picking Israel.

Ditto Floppy it was a precision kill if you ask me.

[QUOTE]I'm picking Israel.[/QUOTE]

flopstock;779048 wrote: Isn't terrorism supposed to be against noncombatants?


I would, honestly, love to see an official definition of terrorism. Especially if it's an official US definition.

Jester wrote: I see nothing immoral with ending the life of a leader bent on killing my people.Is that mirrored too? Do you see anything immoral in your opponents ending the life of the US leader when he's bent on killing them? Can we look for a shrug of "fair move" from you if he gets blown up later this year?

spot;779058 wrote: I would, honestly, love to see an official definition of terrorism. Especially if it's an official US definition.

Is that mirrored too? Do you see anything immoral in your opponents ending the life of the US leader when he's bent on killing them? Can we look for a shrug of "fair move" from you if he gets blown up later this year?


Up until the guy got killed, they denied he was one of them... now suddenly he's their top martyr:-2

It's called asymmetrical warfare, floppy. It's a consequence of the Palestinians not having air cover or tanks or helicopter gunships, they have to fall back on more primitive tools like intelligence instead.

wardah;779027 wrote: just as a quick aside, something that may surprise a few people... Most people I've met here don't hate westeners! Now, I appreciate I've met a very small slice of the population, but the vast majority of people I've met both here in Syria and in Jordan (and a number of Palestinian refugees) have been nothing but friendly and welcoming and incredibly hospitable. (if anyone's interested they could take a quick look at this thread for an example: http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=35577)

Yes there are people who are just blindly against anything western, you must also appreciate the tremendous threat arab people (and people all over the world) face from the encroachment of western culture, they feel threatened by it as they see their way of life changing - think of the language laws in France and multiply by a few hundred times!

But politically, most people accept that the acts of a government are not necessarilly reflective of the wishes of the people. An often used phrase goes something along the lines of 'governments are governments, but all people are brothers.' In fact, I was in the Ummayad mosque a while ago and a man came up to me and asked (randomly) whether I was a Sunni. I said no, I was a christian, and he asked where I was from. When I tolk him I was from Britain, he said he was from Iran, and introduced me to his wife. They were both very friendly, and when they left said that all people were brothers, and all were the children of God equally. Now I'm not a religious person, but I think that's not a bad sentiment.

apologies for rambling...:-2


Sure, I am quite sure that as with most things perception is everything in this situation, and of course people always usually act with decency and courtesy on an individual level, but as communities or groups can absolutely despise each other, that was certainly the case in Northern Ireland.

So - to extend that idea - do you hold the man in the street responsible for the perpetuation of the Troubles or do you, in general, tend to blame the leadership?

spot;779069 wrote: It's called asymmetrical warfare, floppy. It's a consequence of the Palestinians not having air cover or tanks or helicopter gunships, they have to fall back on more primitive tools like intelligence instead.


Quite, and the operative word in the above sentence is "warfare".

spot;779072 wrote: So - to extend that idea - do you hold the man in the street responsible for the perpetuation of the Troubles or do you, in general, tend to blame the leadership?


The reason for the Irish troubles was the historical policy of the British Government in colonizing and then partitioning Ireland against the wishes of its people. Blame is irrelevant in conflict, its an entirely subjective thing based on your world view, its winning or losing that actually counts.

Jester;779222 wrote: There is no honor in the fella who purposely kills innocent people to make an impression on someone else. Those are bastards, and lousy sons of bitches, in my humble allbeit bastardly opinon.Do you see how you have to slip in that "purposely" there? Isn't that in itself a total condemnation of the US deployment? Nobody would be dying if your armed forces had just stayed where they belonged, and meanwhile you have to qualify this already huge number of deaths with "purposely" to wiggle out of your own definition of evil. Oh they weren't the objective. Oh they were accidents, all of them, even when we were out shooting up wedding parties. I don't think it lets you off the hook myself. I think using euphemisms like collateral damage just worsens the crimes that the US has committed. There is no honor in the fella who kills innocent people at all, purposely or otherwise.

Jester wrote: Have they done anything 'fair' so far?Yes, they've formed an armed civil resistance against foreign invaders who had no legal basis for invading their country and against the Quisling regime put in place to administer the territory that's been taken. It's a traditional reaction that dates back centuries.

I don't get why you morally outraged bunch on here aren't addressing the fact that the guy got blown to bits with no other loss of life.



That's pretty damned amazing, IMO.... and if the Israelis can do it why can't the other guys?

I'll tell you why... they can't be bothered to make the attempt.

And that's the difference in a nutshell

flopstock;779019 wrote: Fortunately, jester and I aren't married so I still get to ask my own questions, don't I?:wah:




Actually no. Ill be asking all of your questions from now on.

Jester;779251 wrote: we dont do it purposefully. To me thats the big difference.Well yes, of course it's the big difference to you. It's the one variation between one and the other that you can come up with, so you milk it to death. Other measures of difference seem irrelevant to you, like the utter disparity of equipment, the overwhelming superiority of killing ability that the invaders deploy. Go back and look at recordings of the destruction of Fallujah and then look up Guernica. Of course you have to magnify "purposefully" to the size of a mountain to hide what's happening. It doesn't make a difference at all, purposefully or otherwise, these are still the corpses of an awful lot of unarmed uninvolved people who were in the wrong country in the wrong year that we're discussing.

Jester;779222 wrote: You have got to be kidding me Spot? Please tell me you're toying with me for the sake of argument.



Have they done anything 'fair' so far?



There is no honor in the fella who purposely kills innocent people to make an impression on someone else. Those are bastards, and lousy sons of bitches, in my humble allbeit bastardly opinon.



Dont you think they havn't tried either.



Its a war Spot, I expect my enemy to try all sorts of stuff and especially this enemy.




When we drop cluster bombs that inadvertently kill innocents its merely a casualty of war.

Can you explain how thats an acceptable risk and if its done knowing the risk exists is that still honorable or can we write that off as something else ?

Jester;779307 wrote: You say that maybe we shouldn' be there and I dont fully disagree with that, but whats done is done, now we have to deal with it and thats what we're doing.I do not for one minute believe that the US is staying in Iraq to reduce the casualty rate, or even to stabilize the country. It's staying there because pulling out would be seen as an admission of the utter stupidity of going in there originally. The longer the pull-out is delayed, the longer the administration can walk around without being pelted with rotten fruit by outraged American citizens. Maybe if the pull-out can be delayed to a Democratic presidency the outraged American citizens will throw the rotten fruit at Democrats instead. That's the thinking, nothing to do with decency or respect or an improvement of anyone's lives in the Middle East.

As for that bit about overwhelming disparity on the weapons side, I take it you did read the blitzkrieg justification - that Shock and Awe proposal that got Rumsfeld so enthused about the invasion in the first place? The one about projecting mass terror onto the civilian population centres?

You do remember Donald Rumsfeld, don't you?

Jester;779260 wrote: How many spot? Estimate the number of this 'resistance' for me.


You know, I haven't the slightest idea, not even to an order of magnitude. How on earth would I know a thing like that? Are there estimates published by your Department of Defense that I missed seeing?

From what I remember of the French Resistance during World War Two, there were several independent resistances each of which tended to be secretive especially when it came to estimates of their numbers. How would they not be? Besides, surely the question is just how many armed people they can deploy when the occasion demands as much as how many organizers make up their core.

Since we're discussing civil resistances I apologize for sticking with the French model but there aren't that many others that have any comparability. None of the French voted them into being either. There was a puppet regime installed by the victors just as there is in Iraq now. The list of those allowed to stand in the purple-finger elections completely invalidates the result as far as representative democracy's concerned - you need to allow all the potential candidates to stand to get a representative government from an election.

Underpinning all of this is that nobody invited the invasion, this was a unilateral act of aggressive war against a sovereign country which posed no threat whatever to the USA, immediate or long term. That's not the sort of thing that will ever be merely set aside as a trifling error. For one thing, I think that until you hold trials of the politicians responsible you'll be boycotted by more and more consumers adding their protest. You've spectacularly failed to take world opinion along with you.

Jester;779706 wrote: What is it that you want the US to do in Iraq right now? Just leave?The country collapses into chaos, and sectarian fighting that will divide the nation into three parts And kill hundreds of thousands. Terror orgs will develop in all parts, seperatly and the state terror nations will continue to energize them with money and requested targets. namely the west in general.

And that's entirely their business.

It's nothing to do with the USA.

Whoever it is that has the say-so, take your troops home immediately. Go away. The region can either mend itself or not, but it's the region that has to do it. It's nothing to do with America. Leave, depart, do not look back, don't collect $200. Lock your borders and stay vigilant, spy on everyone who comes near your ports of entry, trust nobody. Just do it on your own soil. That's your soil, you own it. You don't own Iraq.

Once you're gone - not that anyone including me believes you'll go, you understand - but once you're gone we can all watch and learn. We can't start watching and learning while your weaponized warriors own the road checkpoints or your fighters shoot down anything the Iraqis possess and put into their own airspace.

Jester;779718 wrote: Oh Spot, that is the hardest thing for me to do my friend, sit and watch and learn as they tear each other apart when we are responsible for the initiation of this chaos? I cant do it. Could you let all of them die like that when you could intervene?I don't believe they will and I totally mistrust your country's motives. Perhaps an explanation might actually help. It's that staying another day or month or year or decade isn't going to be seen by me or anyone else outside of the US as a generous gesture of goodwill, it's going to be rightly seen as yet more US self-interest.

You can forget the idea of handing over to the UN as well - nobody's going to bail you out. Nobody wants to bail you out. You don't have enough money left to buy more than half the Honduras National Guard to take over for you and nobody higher up the food chain would be so stupid as to agree.

In saying "I don't believe they will" as far as this apocalypse you're predicting goes, I do think it would help if you didn't selectively arm groups as you head for the door. Not that I think there are many groups left in Iraq who would act as your proxies any longer, but it would be a kindness if you withdrew your killing machinery at the same time as the troops.

Jester;779782 wrote: Thats why much of the country wants us there, because of the one on one contact that occurs.I've read lots about it Jester. It's called collaborating with the enemy.

Well of COURSE it is! I'm fully aware of the subjectivity of the issue and we're both aware that there's no external judge. You wanted my opinion, you've heard it. If you want the right answer look in a general history book printed in 2200.

Jester;778730 wrote: Moot point, if he were on US soil ther'd be no need for a car bomb or a single round assasination. We'd arrest him, sentence him and kill him. Either way Im fine with it.

But remember we (the US) did not do this -car bomb-.


Can you demonstrate this? From the tone of the message it could easily be yet another CIA backed assassination.

Galbally;779043 wrote: Well in my opinion the United States is perfectly entitled to declare and wage war on its enemies in the same way my country is, or Britain is, the difference being of course that the US actually has the resources available to make war overseas a reasonable exercise. Also of course Americans don't have the same world weary ennui about war, confict, and force than Europeans have, which maybe why Al Queda rekons it will be able to secure an Islamic Europe within a couple of generations. Maybe they just see us as a soft touch, perhaps they are right.

Of course I am not saying that the specific tactics or choice of theaters in this current Western war against Islamicism (which is actually what this is) are very good choices, but the principal remains the same. For instance I didn't hear the U.K. asking for permission to wage war against Argentina when they invaded the Falkland (or Malvinas) Islands, Russia didn't ask anyone was it alright to obliterate Grozny, and China certainly won't require anyones opinion when it retakes Tawain (whenever that will happen). This war on Al Queda has far more legitimacy as a conflict than those examples, its just hard to understand it, because its essentially of terror vs counter terror undertaken by the worlds most powerful nation against the worlds current leading terrorist organization/movement/religion. Diplomacy is of course a useful tool to achieves ones ends, but its certainly not the only one by any means.

Also of course always allowing your enemy to set the agenda and then just reacting to it with acquiescence or bargaining may be just as foolish a policy as the misdirected use of overwhelming military force. My main problem with this war on terror is that it has been fought so badly and counter-productively, but not that has been fought in the first place. Its my opinion that we are in a war whether we wish it or not, whether we choose to try and ignore that uncomfortable reality will have a large impact on whether it goes to our liking.


America is entitled to declare and wage wage war on those enemies who declare war on it - it is not entitled to invade third parties who get in the way or to murder people who it finds inconvenient.



The UK did not ask permission to wage war against Argentina on the grounds that Argentina had taken possession, by force of arms, of land occupied and administered by the UK for many, many years - a very different situation to either Afghanistan or Iraq. Ask the US of it's opinion should China attempt to take Taiwan by force - they are treaty bound to intervene should that happen.

The current thread concerns the justification for the use of terrorist tactics. If it right for a representative of the US administration to applaud the killing of a person they consider to be unacceptable, without trial using a recognised terrorist tactic, then the US cannot complain about others using the same tactic to kill someone of whom they find unacceptable by their lights.

This is a matter where the application of the rule of law is all important - if it is OK for one side to act outside of the law then it is OK to for other side to act likewise. Condone one act and you condone both.

Galbally;779080 wrote: The reason for the Irish troubles was the historical policy of the British Government in colonizing and then partitioning Ireland against the wishes of its people. Blame is irrelevant in conflict, its an entirely subjective thing based on your world view, its winning or losing that actually counts.


Against the wishes of which people - it was the expressed wish of the six counties to continue to be part of the UK - not part of the Republic of Ireland.

The "colonisation" was eight hundred years before the troubles and therefore not a direct cause - not in 1916 and certainly not in the 1970s.

The action of the UK prior to the uprising was criminal but the action of the IRA in trying to force Ulster to leave the UK was equally wrong.

flopstock;779245 wrote: I don't get why you morally outraged bunch on here aren't addressing the fact that the guy got blown to bits with no other loss of life.



That's pretty damned amazing, IMO.... and if the Israelis can do it why can't the other guys?

I'll tell you why... they can't be bothered to make the attempt.

And that's the difference in a nutshell


Because it's totally immaterial - look back at how many time the Israelis have killed innocent bystanders using helicopter gunships and car bombs during previous attempts to kill their enemies. The fact that no one else was killed this time was providential.

Jester;779336 wrote: Spot, you have such a warped outlook on the war in Iraq that I dont really care at all why you think we are staying in Iraq.

What I know is the longer we stay the more secure the country is becoming and the better folks have it there. On that I am glad.

You can think the worst if you want, nobody's stoppin you!

The shock and awe dont make me laugh. That was nothing but restraint.




the US war plan calls for saturation bombing of Iraq. The Pentagon intends to devastate the country with more missiles in one day than were used throughout the 40-day Gulf War 12 years ago. The World Health Organization is warning that up to half a million Iraqi people will be killed or maimed.



Purely military considerations cannot explain such savagery. Bush’s war plans are driven by political aims—to terrorize and demoralize the Iraqi people and the Arab masses and send a message of violence and intimidation to the entire world.




Restraint - whose view is warped?

The above was published prior to the invasion.