Terrorists and why people support them

Originally posted by jayce
"But there just isn't a lot of actual terrorism going on right now, especially in Iraq,"

Hate to argue small points mate but how can you say this? Currently in Iraq myself and everyday terrorism happens, go check out some of there statements what they release! here is a web site with the translations on www.globalterroralert.com

Terrorism

[n] the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments

this what they try to do on a daily basis! using suicide bombers and complex ambushes! there is no way you deniy these facts!

And every event listed on globalterroralert.com is of course, terrorism. Come on, just because someone else says it's terrorism, doesn't make anyone any less responsible for seeing things for what they are.

No, whenever a roadside bomb goes off, or whenever there is an attempt on a government official's life, it doesn't have to be called terrorism. The news media would certainly like everyone to believe that every action our enemies take is terrorism, but it just doesn't make it so. The targets the Iraqi resistance choose have consistenly been legitimate military targets. Political figures, ING, and Iraqi police. There have been some attacks directed at civilians, but not many, and not often. They realize that the people have no power to influence their interim government, or the American military for that matter, and therefore they'd be just wasting ordinance. They are not as stupid as you would like them to be.

By the definition you've provided, the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, how would you then classify the 'Shock and Awe' campaign at the beginning of the war? Would that not be the systematic use of violence as a means to coerce a government?

Unless you want to redefine terrorism to absolve actions made by us, or anyone else that systematically uses violence to coerce governments, then the definition makes us all terrorists.

Personally, I would call terrorism "The Tactics of Desperation". An example of this I would make is the Chechnyan's taking the students hostage in the school. That's about as close to terrorism as I would bother to come to an example.

Suicide bombing is certainly an unorthodox tactic, but why is it terrorism? And the ambush? That's a very common tactic, used in every war, by all sides. NO, everything is NOT terrorism.

hey delta you have good point there!
take a read of this and tell me what you think?

Definitions of Terrorism

The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.

The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".

If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.

In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".

Proposed Definitions of Terrorism
1. League of Nations Convention (1937):

"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

2. UN Resolution language (1999):

"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;

2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):

Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

4. Academic Consensus Definition:

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

This guy is in a better position than than the rest of us.(Jayce)
He has seen first hand what the terrorists are doing.(I have seen his pics)

I got to be honest here, this guy does know what he is talking about. Forget about what we are told, and what we have seen from the tabloids etc. Take it from someone who knows first hand. This guy has experienced more than we could imagine.

I've never been in Iraq, but I don't think it differs in practice to what I witnessed in Serbia. Notice that what was going on there was never termed 'terrorism' by the news media, yet there certainly were some terrible things going on, some of which were intended to scare people. Only after September 11th did we all of a sudden start calling everything terrorism, and everyone terrorists.

These types of attacks on these types of targets have been carried out prior to September 11th, but not until "the War on Terror" did terrorism become a watchword. The administration is happy to have such a broad term universally accepted by Americans through its near constant repetition on TV and in print so that they can at any point accuse anyone of terrorism, and have public backing for their moves.

What we're dealing with is WAR. Both sides using different tactics to try to turn the balance. Taking hostages and cutting their heads off is a deterrent tactic designed to keep civilians from joining the cause. I think that would fit a definition of terrorism that I could accept because it causes people choose inaction over action. That is to say, choose not to apply for a job as a truck driver for a government contractor, or something similar.

Blowing up a HMMWV with a roadside bomb is not terrorism. Executing an ambush on legitimate targets is not terrorism. Assassinating a political figure is not terrorism.

I believe that when a term is vague to the point that people cannot agree on its definition, then that term should not be used. It causes division.

terrorist and terrorism have been used long before 9/11...... try nothern ireland!

Originally posted by jayce
terrorist and terrorism have been used long before 9/11...... try nothern ireland!

That's what I just said, Jayce. Thank you.

The point I was trying to make was that since September 11th, terrorism is a household word. Prior to then, it was not.

The term is being used for every act of violence committed by everyone who is not WITH US. I'm not saying that we are engaged in terrorism, but by dictionary definition, we might as well be. This is a problem.

Terrorism is a term intended to illicit a prescribed emotional response from a particular group of people.

I think some of the interrogation techniques used at Abu-Ghraib were probably intended to inspire fear in those prisoners, don't you? Is that terrorism, then?

Originally posted by vincere7
What you call her propaganda was soviet propaganda through the university, which carried a wide following among students and celebrities. Jane Fonda was just another active participant.

I never stated that it was HER propaganda, but I can see you agree with my conclusion. She still regrets her involvement with those who only wanted to kill her own people. This was the point I was making. Thanks for helping out.

Originally posted by vincere7
I never said such things and the "man" - the government did bring our people down. If you were to explore the LBJ, Nixon era I'm sure you would come to the same conclusion.

At least you freely admit that 'the man' is just trying to bring us down. What a cop out. "The man' doesn't even know who YOU are, much less want to bring you down. We live in a nation of consumers, meaning that the better YOU do, the better 'the man' does. If you see nothing but oppression in everything, then that is what your world will become. We live in a world where we can accomplish anything we set our minds to do. We should have hope and promise for our (meaning the World's) future.

Originally posted by vincere7
The weak minded are those who believe that President Bush is annointed by God and sincere in democracy for American citizens.

I don't feel that Bush was annointed by God or anyone else. He is an idiot who wanted to be President. His own wife publically makes fun of the fact that he cannot pronounce the word 'nuclear.' You assume too much for being someone who 'knows what they are talking about'.

Originally posted by vincere7
Ended the war quickly? Remove the supply lines? Could've? It's very clear when discussing Vietnam you have no idea what you are talking about.

I was referring to the Ho Chi Minh Trail and the politicians' reluctance to bomb the North to remove the supply chain. Ever hear of logistics? The protests and antiwar sentiment were so great that the only time Nixon had the cajones to bomb the North were times he and Kissinger wanted the North to return to the peace talks in Paris so that we could abandon the South Vietnamese people and make 50,000+ sacrifices all for naught, but that is irrelavent to the topic.

Originally posted by vincere7
Experience kid.

Experience at pontificating? Or experience suggesting that we abandon people when they need us the most and become isolationist in a world where we are all connected to each other?

OK Delta
been looking into it and what i have found is There are more than hundred definitions of this word terrorism and a single definition cannot account for all the possible uses of the term.

As for this quote

"The point I was trying to make was that since September 11th, terrorism is a household word. Prior to then, it was not".

i guess it depends on where your from, once again being brought up to fear the terrorist in northern ireland it was a household term for us!

i think most people just ignored the term which is shocking considering the actions terrorist have been taking for centerys now!

www.pbs.org...
www.camera.org...

Due to disagreements over the definition of terrorism, it isn't easy to specify an occurrence that constitutes the very first act of terrorism. Certainly, as long ago as the 14th century, there are examples of what could be called terrorism. During this time, in an early example of biochemical terrorism, the Tartars threw dead bodies over the walls of Kaffa, hoping to introduce the plague.

The word itself was invented in 1795, in connection with the French revolutionaries who executed their enemies - and surpressed opposition - with the guillotine. However, the concept of terrorism took greater hold during the 1870s in Russia, when revolutionaries began to practise it. It was a means for weaker or smaller forces, without the kind of funds or numbers at the disposal of larger countries, to wage war - an easier option for those unable to fight an orthodox struggle. Soon, the tactic spread to the Macedonians and Armenians of the Ottoman Empire, the Irish and the Indians in the British Empire, and anarchists of all descriptions in America and Europe.

Terrorist activity was normally confined to the assassination of statesmen and rulers, as well as bomb attacks on public buildings. The main objectives tended to be self-advertisement, in other words, announcing your presence and demonstrating your ruthlessness, as well as the desire to undermine and demoralise a government and its supporters. A further objective was to provoke a response from government so violent and savage that it lost support, and eventually awoke sympathy and even support for the terrorist. History has shown that this last aim is not always successful. When the Armenians provoked Turkey with acts of terrorism, Turkey reacted so aggressively that the Armenians came close to extinction.

Originally posted by jayce
i guess it depends on where your from, once again being brought up to fear the terrorist in northern ireland it was a household term for us!

i think most people just ignored the term which is shocking considering the actions terrorist have been taking for centerys now!

You're right. That statement was very Ameri-centric. England has had to deal with a lot from Ireland, and so has Israel from the Palestineans, so I digress.

But it certainly wasn't a big deal to US until WE got some of it! We are a highly reactionary society, and most of the small decisions we make every day are made on the basis of fear. So when the media pushes an idea or a term, I must contest it.

Over a hundred definitions? All the more reason to put it to rest.

[edit on 13-5-2005 by DeltaChaos]

would be nice to put it to rest! if only we had that power

if your interested there are some really good pics on this thread, shows how much a beautiful country iraq is, but then a few not so nice go see

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 13/5/05 by jayce]

Hello everyone. I'm new to the forum. I'm an ex-miltary guy (UK, but not living there..). I served in Northern Ireland twice. After the second time, I couldn't live with myself carrying out the job. I served in the Gulf War as an 18 yr old, in Somalia, Porton Down and other UN peace affairs.

Terrorism is defined as 'using terror as a means to achieving a political goal'

Obviously, these are words and open to interpretation. This is the crux of the matter. To most terrorists, their opponents are aggressors or
suppressors. And to a certain extent this is true, from their perspective. Don't forget that any people fighting terrorism, will also use terror to achieve their goals and usually have a better control of the information regarding their actions.

People support a particular cause, because they feel they are just. They feel they are under threat. They feel they are right. In my experience, two differing visions of 'right', usually lead to conflict.

When I served in Ireland, I had ( as a soldier ) a respect for the IRA and other organizations. I had to. They were bloody good at what they did. Having no respect would of gotten me and others killed.
I didn't agree with their methods AT ALL. But what other option had they, within their perception? They couldn't take us on in a straight fight. We didn't take them on in a straight fight, and this is where you start to lose your values. But what can you do? Blokes are going down, you are 5h!tting
in your trousers, you are angry. You are human. And that's what you must remember before blindly taking any side, in any situation. What ever side you are on, if you are involved first hand, you are human and just want live. It all sucks. It makes my family and myself sad, scared and angry. We try not to feel this way, because that's why we are all in this mess.

System47
I do not define terrorism as you do. If the IRA fought the British soldiers and targeted Military targets in my view it is legitimate. You also, as British soldiers, had the right to hunt them down.
It turns into terrorism when one of the sides targets civilians as a matter of strategy to attain a political goal. If the IRA blew up buses, cafes with families, churches or schools - THAT IS TERRORISM.
What I seemed to pick up from what you describe is guerrilla warfare which is legitimate.
Problem is that every country uses the term terrorist to label the other side. True terrorism is when you target civilians - This is acts of cowardice.

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
I never stated that it was HER propaganda, but I can see you agree with my conclusion. She still regrets her involvement with those who only wanted to kill her own people. This was the point I was making. Thanks for helping out.

Your attempt at labelling those who who disagree with the war in Iraq as "Jane Fonda's" is foolish. There is no troop bashing anywhere that I have seen.

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
At least you freely admit that 'the man' is just trying to bring us down. What a cop out. "The man' doesn't even know who YOU are, much less want to bring you down. We live in a nation of consumers, meaning that the better YOU do, the better 'the man' does. If you see nothing but oppression in everything, then that is what your world will become. We live in a world where we can accomplish anything we set our minds to do. We should have hope and promise for our (meaning the World's) future.

Are you a communist? This comment is a classic example of a red herring. Point out something ridiculous to distract from the original point. The "man" in 60's slang is the government. This is not the 60's dude. Nice speech, but it still doesn't make you credible.

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
I don't feel that Bush was annointed by God or anyone else. He is an idiot who wanted to be President. His own wife publically makes fun of the fact that he cannot pronounce the word 'nuclear.' You assume too much for being someone who 'knows what they are talking about'.

For someone who promotes positive thinking to better the world you're certainly disrespectful and stereotype the very President who helped created the damn mess in Iraq.

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
I was referring to the Ho Chi Minh Trail and the politicians' reluctance to bomb the North to remove the supply chain. Ever hear of logistics?

No, what you did was use a proof surrogate - which is citing something (your mind) to make yourself look authoritative without providing evidence of such. You failed in the authoritative aspect. It's rhetoric and weak rhetoric at that.

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
Experience at pontificating? Or experience suggesting that we abandon people when they need us the most and become isolationist in a world where we are all connected to each other?

I never suggested the U.S. leave Iraq - more rhetoric to enhance your smoke screen. We won't leave until oil reserves are secure. All connected to each other? I'm sure Iraqi's won't feel "connected" as radiation poisoning mutates and slowly kills them over the years along with car bombs, bullets, and political agenda.

Originally posted by vincere7
Your attempt at labelling those who who disagree with the war in Iraq as "Jane Fonda's" is foolish. There is no troop bashing anywhere that I have seen.

Calling soldiers mercenaries is not considered troop bashing? Saying that they have no morality on the battlefield is like calling them a baby-killer. Your rhetoric is no better than mine.

Originally posted by vincere7
Nice speech, but it still doesn't make you credible.

I am not trying to become credible. I am text on a forum behind an avatar. I only provide opinion and snippets of my charming personality

Originally posted by vincere7
For someone who promotes positive thinking to better the world you're certainly disrespectful and stereotype the very President who helped created the damn mess in Iraq.

Disrespectful of our President? Perhaps. Stereotyping? I was paraphrasing. Here are Laura Bush's words verbatim:
"But George and I are complete opposites — I'm quiet, he's talkative, I'm introverted, he's extroverted, I can pronounce nuclear" link

Originally posted by vincere7
No, what you did was use a proof surrogate - which is citing something (your mind) to make yourself look authoritative without providing evidence of such.

Are you for real? My original statement was a rhetorical comparison. Would you have me give proof of the Ho Chi Minh Trail or Henry Kissinger? This is music for the masses, my friend, not a dissertation to get my dotoral degree from Vincere7 University.

Originally posted by vincere7
I'm sure Iraqi's won't feel "connected" as radiation poisoning mutates and slowly kills them over the years along with car bombs, bullets, and political agenda.

Nice downplayer. Are we done with our pissing contest yet? Or shall we go another round?

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
System47
I do not define terrorism as you do. If the IRA fought the British soldiers and targeted Military targets in my view it is legitimate. You also, as British soldiers, had the right to hunt them down.
It turns into terrorism when one of the sides targets civilians as a matter of strategy to attain a political goal. If the IRA blew up buses, cafes with families, churches or schools - THAT IS TERRORISM.

what isn't legitimate is the fact that the US funded the IRA attacks, then suddenly declare 'war on terror' when they had been actively taking part in what they then called terrorism

great thread. Terrorists, and terrorism is altogether such a fasinating topic at the moment. Granted its been occuring for countless years now, but since 9/11 and since america has decided to take up the cause its become a centrepice for world politics.

So Why do people support terrorists? Thats pretty easy to explain, really. So lets see, if a foreign army decided to invade your country. They start by blowing everything up, killing half the people you know, destroy you're school, you're place of work etc. What would you do? Please mister army dude, my next door neigbours harbouring all these fanatical army type people, please go and kill them all so i might get a good nights sleep... If anyone didsuch a thing they'd be unpatriotic, and with good reason. Even if you're country 'crap' it still is you're country, it isn't someone else's land for them to do what they see fit. You'd fight wouldn't you? Fight some foreign oppressor. Fight till the last man standing. Fight for you're family, you're friends, fight for you're life. How are they terrorist's? Simply because they decide to take arms arms foreign soldiers? or is it because with the world media being what it is today, it often makes good sense portraying you're enemies as being evil? I'd go for the propoganda aspect. Granted, they give their population heaps of propoganda, but is you're country any better? We did this for the freedom of other people... we're helping them... yeah helping by reducing the population and destroying as many buildings as possible.

As someone mentioned this quote earlier... One man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter... I love that quote, because its so true. And if you think you're country would never stoop to a propoganda, please think again, america against communists... well to me the terrorists in the middle east are just the new communists. America always needs an enemy so that they may take the high moral ground, but then again in war there are no moral's.

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
could it be that they are opportunists who think that oil is worth more than lives?

the answer: YES!

thats the most absurd thing you've written since you've been here..

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
Calling soldiers mercenaries is not considered troop bashing? Saying that they have no morality on the battlefield is like calling them a baby-killer. Your rhetoric is no better than mine.

Ridiculous statements is what it is blackx - thats all. Who said troops have no morality on the battlefield? Some do some don't, it's the same anywhere, what of it? You imply troop bashing, but no one is bashing troops, calling them baby killers, etc.. Your assuming that those who take a position against the Iraq war are now spitting on troops. You're dead wrong - it's the very opposite.

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
Disrespectful of our President? Perhaps. Stereotyping? I was paraphrasing.

Calling the President an idiot is disrespectful and a stereotype not paraphrasing. The president is anything but an idiot and I'm sure if you were to visit the oval office for a chat with the President - idiot would not be in your vocabulary.

Originally posted by vincere7
No, what you did was use a proof surrogate - which is citing something (your mind) to make yourself look authoritative without providing evidence of such.

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
Are you for real? My original statement was a rhetorical comparison. Would you have me give proof of the Ho Chi Minh Trail or Henry Kissinger? This is music for the masses, my friend, not a dissertation to get my dotoral degree from Vincere7 University.

There was no comparison - just an empty statement to use as proof to back up your stance. Here is your statement:

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
The US could have ended the war quickly if it had the support at home to remove the supply lines to the VC in the South.

Yes, and the civil war would have ended quicker if they had F-15's. There is no reality in that statement - just empty drivel.

Originally posted by vincere7
I'm sure Iraqi's won't feel "connected" as radiation poisoning mutates and slowly kills them over the years along with car bombs, bullets, and political agenda.

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
Nice downplayer.

Let me help you out before you embarass (notice the last three letters) yourself further. This is an example of a downplayer: The woman who made a diagnosis is a, so called, doctor, where "so called" downplays her credentials as a physician.

For some odd reason the notion of depleted uranium being spent along with car bombs for the next decade or so, doesn't seem to bother you, especially when our troops are the ones coming home with no legs and mysterious cancer tumors. It's a downplayer right?

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
Are we done with our pissing contest yet? Or shall we go another round?

I haven't even unzipped my fly yet.

Originally posted by vincere7
For some odd reason the notion of depleted uranium being spent along with car bombs for the next decade or so, doesn't seem to bother you, especially when our troops are the ones coming home with no legs and mysterious cancer tumors.

It does bother me. Some of the people over there are close friends and co-workers of mine in harms way. Why not tell us on how things can get better. I don't know how to fix it. How can we pull out and yet give meaning to those who have sacrificed their lives there? How can we avoid what my father felt when he came home after seeing his close friends killed only to find out it was all for nothing. How does the US save face in a growing world where people will take advantage of any weakness?

I work in a field where there are clear answers to problems. Ones and zeros flowing through copper and switches where everything can be solved and traced. This situation is not so. No one knows what the truth is. Everything is compartmentalized and those who are in the loop only get pieces of the big picture, so even they do not know the WHOLE story.

What the hell do we do when any move we make it the wrong one?

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
I am not trying to become credible. I am text on a forum behind an avatar. I only provide opinion...

Once again, I will state for you that this was my opinion. You do not need to prove opinion. Bombing the North would have cut the supply line to the South is my opinion. Comparing the person in my original statement (which you thought was my first statement to you) that started this mess to Jane Fonda was a Rhetorical Comaprison and my opinion. I do not ask for status in any way shape or form. I only ask to present opinion. I do not care if you agree. I do not care that you disagree. Opinion, my friend. You are entitled to YOUR opinion as well.

I know that bothers you. This is what bothers me. People who think opinion is proof. Nope...just opinion. I never stated that I offered proof. Some sources WILL lead you to believe that their opinion is proof.

I know how hard real proof is to acquire. Words are not proof. Links to places on google is not proof. Links to a news article is not proof. Pictures are no longer proof since they can be edited. Audio is not proof because words can be taken out of context.

I doubt countless cycles of synthesis will EVER find proof or truth in ATS.

Originally posted by vincere7
The president is anything but an idiot and I'm sure if you were to visit the oval office for a chat with the President - idiot would not be in your vocabulary.

Yes, it would be. Since I voted for him and if I was lucky enough to visit with him, I would say it just like this:

"Mr. President, I know you have been getting hit pretty hard in the press lately. My friends say that not being able to pronounce 'nuclear' makes you sound like an idiot, but a man with your education and stature should be able to pronounce it any way he likes."

I doubt that I would ever be invited back, but it would make for a great story.

[edit on 16-5-2005 by xman_in_blackx]

[edit on 16-5-2005 by xman_in_blackx]

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
How can we pull out and yet give meaning to those who have sacrificed their lives there? How can we avoid what my father felt when he came home after seeing his close friends killed only to find out it was all for nothing.

We don't need to give meaning its an experience for the individual. His friends didn't die for nothing. They were part of your dads experience and when you look in your dads eyes thats what you see.

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
How does the US save face in a growing world where people will take advantage of any weakness?

Age old question for any nation. There will always be warriors who require war - only the foolish punish the weak for revenge.

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
What the hell do we do when any move we make it the wrong one?

We can hold those responsible for atrocity and murder and not commit such deeds ourselves. How unfortunate the soldier or citizen to suffer a lifetime for a leaders foolishness and pride. Any man that holds peoples lives in his hands has a great responsibility. Using the excuse, "I had to make a decision," is not good enough. It comes down to the character of the man. When a nation no longer can see or care for the character and the honor of their very leader - that nation is destined to suffer.

Originally posted by xman_in_blackx
I know how hard real proof is to acquire. Words are not proof. Links to places on google is not proof. Links to a news article is not proof. Pictures are no longer proof since they can be edited. Audio is not proof because words can be taken out of context.

If you believe that then your very opinion should not be defended. If you are unable to sift through the corruption or have not achieved the means of doing so, why defend what you do not believe or question? Better to remain quiet until you are sure of what you believe. America is a battleground, a battle for the hearts and minds. It's serious business and people die in combat everyday.


[edit on 16-5-2005 by vincere7]