'USS Cole a war declaration on region'

reply to post by BlueRaja

---

All non partisan and impartial observers agree that civilian areas have been targetted.

Saddams sons picked up weapons in defense of their lives when they were attacked by the illegal occupation forces.

Cluster munitions have been regularly targetted against civilain areas causing hundreds of thousands of deaths.

These are FACTS.

Dispute them as much as you want, I don't care, the proof is easy to find.

The navy are now engaged in a campaign of intimidation and bullying in a region where they have not been asked to intervene.

Bush continues to act illegally.

Take off the khaki and try looking at the real world for a change.

reply to post by budski

---

If combatants are in civilian areas, we target them where they happen to be, trying to minimize collateral damage in the process. There's a distinct difference between that, and targetting non-combatants, but you can't seem to pick up on that. Combatants don't only stay in "combatant areas."
Of course you do realize that it is illegal under the law of armed conflict to use civilians as a shield, but we never hear you complain about that.
War would be easy, if all combatants agreed to only fight in certain areas, and clearly identified themselves and their positions. That never happens, so you do the best you can with whatever the situation happens to be.

reply to post by BlueRaja

---

Rubbish - indiscriminate bombing is not war.

Using cluster munitions in civilain areas is not war.

The geneva convention states that every effort possible must be made to avoid civilian casualties - I don't think that using cluster munitions falls into this category, at all.

You can try and defend murder all you want - that's exactly what the insurgents in iraq do - but many of them are doing it in the name of freedom, and trying to reclaim their country from a foreign aggressor, who engineered an illegal war of conquest.

reply to post by budski

---

You are confusing every possible effort to avoid civilian casualities, with a prohibition to ever cause civilian casualties. The best you can hope for is minimizing the impact of military operations on civilians, but it's an impossible and unreasonable standard to say that enemy combatants are off limits if any risk to civilians is present. You are also confusing the definition of murder, which means unlawful, and premeditated killing, with civilians being killed that were in the vicinity of who was being targeted.
I'd love for you to show me an example of any war in human history where the standard that you are expecting has ever been met, with zero civilian casualties and suffering. I'm not saying war isn't horrible, with terrible suffering, but that doesn't mean that it's illegal because there is suffering. The law of armed conflict/Geneva Conventions/etc... recognize military necessity. So long as a proportional amount of force is used, civilians aren't put in unnecessary risk or directly targeted, then you do what you have to to subdue/destroy your foe, in the shortest period of time possible. Using less force, but over a longer period prolongs suffering, and that is why the laws are what they are.

reply to post by GT100FV

---

I'm confusing nothing - don't presume to lecture me.
You don't know me and have no idea how I think or where I'm coming from - you just THINK you do.

I stand by my assertions made in this thread and will continue to do so.

I know what the geneva convention says, and it is not open to interpretation - that's straight out of the dubya book of war.

I'm presuming nothing. You're certainly entitled to hold incorrect assumptions, but please don't cite them authoritatively. You can't even answer a simple question, or cite just one example of the hogwash you're putting forth.

reply to post by GT100FV

---

My "assumptions" are incorrect only in your eyes, and in the eyes of others who cannot bear any criticism of the military.

There are many more people who hold this view than hold yours.
shrub is a murderer and should be tried for war crimes and punished appropriately.

I stand by my assertions, and am under no obligation to answer any questions, particularly those which have no merit and seek only to defend the indefensible.



[edit on 6/3/2008 by budski]

reply to post by budski

---

So your answer to my question is Bush=Bad, so nothing else needs to be explained? Your credibility is called into question when you say Hezbollah=Good.

reply to post by GT100FV

---

I never said hezbollah were good - I said that only 6 nations consider them to be a terrorist organisation.

I also said that their goals seem reasonable - at no time did I say that the way they go about achieving those goals was either good or reasonable.

Try to remember that one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

If your country was being occupied by a foreign power, would it not seem reasonable to you that you would want them out of there?

If your only option was to use guerrilla or terror tactics would you not use them?

If a foreign power occupying your country denied you basic rights would that seem reasonable?

I don't like their methods, but I sympathise with their position.
I hold the same opinion about the israeli's and their problems.

Imperialism is responsible for terrorism.
Left to their own devices, these countries would not produce terrorists.

The credibility of shrubs list of terror organisations also suffers because he has named the standing armed forces of a democratic country as a terrorist organisation - the term could equally be applied to bush and the US armed forces who trained the taliban and al' qaeda as well as the contra's and many more.

reply to post by budski

---

Bush wasn't the first US President to consider Hezbollah terrorists. If you use terror to achieve your goal, you are a terrorist. How much plainer can you get. There is never an acceptable circumstance where you strap on a explosive vest, walk into a market, and blow up civilians, to achieve your goal. It is never acceptable to fire rockets at homes, schools, etc.. to terrify/kill civilians. It is never acceptable to car bomb civilians, embassies, etc... Hezbollah, are not freedom fighters. Honorable fighters, fight against military targets. Cowards and scoundrels fight women and children.

Imperialism is not the cause of terrorism. Militant Islamists don't believe in peaceful coexistence with infidels. Islam has been spread by the sword since its origins. Even back in times of the Crusades(which were a defensive war by the way), Extreme Islamists were trying to increase their land and membership, by the sword. That's who we're still dealing with today. You're welcome to Dhimmitude, but I'll pass.

reply to post by GT100FV

---

You obviously have no concept of history and believe everything you read in the MSM who have been trying to make islam the boogeyman for years.

Hezbollah is defined as a political party and organisation by the UN and the so-called terrorist activities have never been proven, they have also been the target of terror tactics themselves.

In short, only SIX countries (which happen to have a vested interest) call hezbollah a terror organisation.

They have been accused of terrorism but this remains unproven - there are groups who claim to have ties with hezbollah who are alleged to have carried out terrorist attacks, but again this is unproven, and is viewed by many WORLDWIDE as US and Israeli propaganda.

Lookslike you bought into it.

Try some facts next time.



[edit on 6/3/2008 by budski]

reply to post by budski

---

I apparently have a much better understanding of History than you do by the looks of it. You seem to fall more into the "those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it" school of thought.

Riddle me this- in your last response you say Hezbollah isn't a terror organization. In the response before that you said you disagreed with their methods. What methods of theirs do you disagree with, since apparently they aren't terrorists? You also said one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Who were you referring to, as you don't think Hezbollah is either?

reply to post by GT100FV

---

I don't like the kind of pressure they use.

I don't like the hysteria they create.

I don't agree with their statements about israel.

I don't agree with much of their rhetoric which is designed to incite hatred.

So although their goals are reasonable and some would say admirable, I disagree with their methods which can only cause the israeli's to react with violence and cause the death of innocents.

I said try to remember, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter - which means that although 6 countries call them terrorists, the rest of the world do not, and neither does the UN.

Is that clear enough, or should I just use words of one syllable



[edit on 6/3/2008 by budski]

reply to post by budski

---

If you can manage to get your point across with monosyllabic words, go for it.

reply to post by GT100FV

---

It is all a game to bush.

He loves war.

OK?

reply to post by budski

---

While I disagree with you, you did get your point across with monosyllabic words, so I suppose that's something.

reply to post by GT100FV

---

Sometimes people need to take a step back and ask themselves why their government is saying or doing things that no-one else agrees with.

In the case of hezbollah, it's because that's the way israel wants it IMO.

Israel might actually have a point - although hezbollah are not recognised by any except a handfull as a terror group, they are pretty vocal about israel and are sometimes very aggressively militant.

When you're surrounded by enemies, this can be a pretty scary scanario.

BUT, I also think that the warships parked off the coast are a step too far - there's no excuse for interfering in the democratic process of another country, and nor is there any excuse for occupying one.

How does a ship at sea interfere with the democratic process?

Are they threatening to destroy polling places? Are they sending folks ashore to ensure no one votes?

reply to post by COOL HAND

---

How many times are you going to ask the same thing?

Intimidation here is the tactic.

it's the "or else" factor.

It's bullying them into doing what shrub wants.

Even condy rice pretty much said so.
Do you know better than her?

reply to post by budski

---

So did the Republican candidate in Lebanon win, or are they gonna need a recount? What about Syria's involvement in the democratic process(i.e. killing the person who was elected)?