BF2S Forums Mandela Finally Taken Off US Terror List

Braddock wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Do you believe military action is automatically not terrorism just because it has been done by a Government and it's military arm?

Not trying to turn this into a 'teh US are terrorists thread' but I'm just saying if Mandella killed a few civilians in the quest for 'greater good' what makes him any different to the US in any of their foreign conflicts over the last 60 years? Subjectivity is a bitch.

If he went and intentionally killed innocent civilians, then yeah, he is worse than teh USA's, and he is a terrorist

Even if it was against a racist regime, actually if he's attacking civilians then it's not against the regime, it's against civilians...

It fucking pisses me off when the US (and other countries) get a free pass just because they "say" they never meant to kill innocent civilians during attacks. Granted, many deaths may be purely accidental, maybe even the majority of them but I'll bet my bottom dollar there are people discussing how many civilians might get killed and what collateral damage figure will be acceptable prior to every planned attack.

I don't condone the killing of innocent civilians by any party but it pisses me off that the "goodies" get off the hook because we're supposed to always believe they never meant it.

Perhaps if our enemies didn't disguise themselves as civilians than we would try a little harder to not kill "civilians". 

Besides, who made Ireland the moral authority on anything?  Just because your country took a backseat to every important war of the 20th century doesn't mean your shit doesn't stink.

FEOS wrote:

There is a difference between intentionally targeting civilians and knowing that civilians will be hurt/killed striking a non-civilian target.

For instance, a terrorist targets a cafe. They don't hit it at night when it's closed because they aren't targeting the building/business, they are targeting the civilians inside the building/business.

In contrast, if the cafe had military value (C2 bunker underneath or something), the "goodies" would likely hit it in the middle of the night to ensure the smallest number of civilians were around.

That you (and others) don't understand the distinction is amazing to me.

I understand the distinction quite clearly but it doesn't excuse instances in which civilian deaths are incurred and have been contemplated to a certain extent beforehand. If I were pursuing a campaign of terrorism I would use the approach the IRA had for a while whereby infrastructural targets (with civilians forewarned prior to bomb detonation) and military targets were considered legitimate.

A perfect example of the double standards we apply to military and terrorist attacks would be the Omagh bombing. The Omagh bombing was supposedly intended to damage only property but there was confusion over the bomb warning beforehand and 29 people were killed. The terrorists didn't mean to kill those people so I guess the Omagh bombing wasn't as bad as other terrorist attacks?

Thorax wrote:

Perhaps if our enemies didn't disguise themselves as civilians than we would try a little harder to not kill "civilians".

Yeah, those dirty Towelheads all look the same and they are all in on it so just kill em all...go team America!

Thorax wrote:

Besides, who made Ireland the moral authority on anything?  Just because your country took a backseat to every important war of the 20th century doesn't mean your shit doesn't stink.

Couldn't agree more with you, I'm appalled at the way Ireland have let US military flights pass through Shannon and refused to check for instances of rendition on board.

Braddock wrote:

Thorax wrote:

oug wrote:

Yeah I know... fuckin arabs all look the same... Tell 'em to wear those bright yellow vests so you can spot them right away.

I'd be happy with no hiding in mosques or not using children as human shields.

I'd be happy with America minding their own fucking business and not invading countries and turning them into blood baths.

Tell Bush and Co.  The American people didn't up and decide to go to war you wank.

Braddock wrote:

Thorax wrote:

Braddock wrote:

I'd be happy with America minding their own fucking business and not invading countries and turning them into blood baths.

Tell Bush and Co.  The American people didn't up and decide to go to war you wank.

That's funny because the entire Muslim population seem to take the blame for anything done by Islamic extremists.

Double standards much?

Quote me on taking up arms against Muslims in general.  As a matter of fact, find me evidence that the American people are taking out their "problems and hatred" out on the American Muslim population.  AS A MATTER OF FACT, go look at the stats on how many MUSLIM nations the U.S. sends economic and humanitarian aid to, then go see how many we offered it too and were turned down.  Find me some news reports from the source of your choosing were we hold people in mosques accountable for crime, violence or terrorist attacks.  Find me an article where we blame anything on a Muslim that we didn't have a good reason for.

Well?  I'm waiting.

Braddock wrote:

Thorax wrote:

Braddock wrote:

That's funny because the entire Muslim population seem to take the blame for anything done by Islamic extremists.

Double standards much?

Quote me on taking up arms against Muslims in general.  As a matter of fact, find me evidence that the American people are taking out their "problems and hatred" out on the American Muslim population.  AS A MATTER OF FACT, go look at the stats on how many MUSLIM nations the U.S. sends economic and humanitarian aid to, then go see how many we offered it too and were turned down.  Find me some news reports from the source of your choosing were we hold people in mosques accountable for crime, violence or terrorist attacks.  Find me an article where we blame anything on a Muslim that we didn't have a good reason for.

Well?  I'm waiting.
http://www.theonion.com/content/files/i … e-Of-R.jpg

I tell you what, just type 'lowing' into the search facility and read through all the comments from your fellow American Muslim-haters at your leisure.

Well, if you want to count 1 Americans personal views as fact for the rest of us then I shall do the same for you.

You church bombing, terrorist sympathizing religious bigot of a drunkard.

Braddock wrote:

Thorax wrote:

Braddock wrote:

That's funny because the entire Muslim population seem to take the blame for anything done by Islamic extremists.

Double standards much?

Quote me on taking up arms against Muslims in general.  As a matter of fact, find me evidence that the American people are taking out their "problems and hatred" out on the American Muslim population.  AS A MATTER OF FACT, go look at the stats on how many MUSLIM nations the U.S. sends economic and humanitarian aid to, then go see how many we offered it too and were turned down.  Find me some news reports from the source of your choosing were we hold people in mosques accountable for crime, violence or terrorist attacks.  Find me an article where we blame anything on a Muslim that we didn't have a good reason for.

Well?  I'm waiting.
http://www.theonion.com/content/files/i … e-Of-R.jpg

I tell you what, just type 'lowing' into the search facility and read through all the comments from your fellow American Muslim-haters at your leisure.

Are you really sure you want to use lowing as your baseline for the feelings and attitudes of the majority of the American people?  Or ME, for that matter?

Thorax wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Thorax wrote:

Quote me on taking up arms against Muslims in general.  As a matter of fact, find me evidence that the American people are taking out their "problems and hatred" out on the American Muslim population.  AS A MATTER OF FACT, go look at the stats on how many MUSLIM nations the U.S. sends economic and humanitarian aid to, then go see how many we offered it too and were turned down.  Find me some news reports from the source of your choosing were we hold people in mosques accountable for crime, violence or terrorist attacks.  Find me an article where we blame anything on a Muslim that we didn't have a good reason for.

Well?  I'm waiting.
http://www.theonion.com/content/files/i … e-Of-R.jpg

I tell you what, just type 'lowing' into the search facility and read through all the comments from your fellow American Muslim-haters at your leisure.

Well, if you want to count 1 Americans personal views as fact for the rest of us then I shall do the same for you.

Go back and read my previous post Thorax. I didn't say just look at lowing's rants, I said look through all the comments by other American forum users in his threads...there are plenty.

Thorax wrote:

You church bombing, terrorist sympathizing religious bigot of a drunkard.

Outstanding, move to the front of the class.

Braddock wrote:

Thorax wrote:

oug wrote:

So, no mosques and no kids. Ok, I'll go tell 'em.

Oh and btw, the majority of the American people actually did "up and decide to go to war" because your traitor-filled government and your sold-out media did a good job bullshitting you.

And next time you decide to go on a witch hunt in the ME looking for WMDs and Owsami Binladin don't blame the kids for getting blown up.

We overwhelmingly supported war in Afghanistan, not Iraq.  The Iraq war has been criticized since day one.  Although, I would fullheartedly support bringing some forcibly inflicted freedom to your area.

To Greece? Man, you're so full of shit you're gonna float away.

And you totally dodged my last post.  Still waiting on those things I mentioned.

Braddock wrote:

Well if you actually read my original post you'll see I didn't accuse you specifically of holding the entire Muslim population responsible for the actions of extremists...

Ohh reary?  See below:

Braddock wrote:

That's funny because the entire Muslim population seem to take the blame for anything done by Islamic extremists. ---->Double standards much?

Double standards much Braddock or just vague shifty talk that you use so that nothing you say can actually stick to you?  Seems you HAVE learned from the Bush administration after all.

Braddock wrote:

Many people counter with the argument that it's not the fact that they blame the wider Muslim population but rather that they are annoyed that they don't speak out enough against extremism or stand up to it...well the same can be said about Americans allowing the Bush regime to act the goat, in fact ye voted him in for a second term.

I really don't think this rhetorical nonsense needs to be addressed.  From all I can tell it's just you rambling a bunch of blather to make your previous fuckup sound more legit.

Braddock wrote:

Thorax wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Well if you actually read my original post you'll see I didn't accuse you specifically of holding the entire Muslim population responsible for the actions of extremists...

Ohh reary?  See below:

Braddock wrote:

That's funny because the entire Muslim population seem to take the blame for anything done by Islamic extremists. ---->Double standards much?

Double standards much Braddock or just vague shifty talk that you use so that nothing you say can actually stick to you?  Seems you HAVE learned from the Bush administration after all.

Errr...nowhere in that comment is it addressed directly to you. I was talking about the common attitude among many Americans whereby the blame for Islamic extremism is spread over the wider Muslim population and how it is an incredible example of double standards when you compare it with how the American people are not all blamed for the actions of the Bush administration.

And I think you spelt 'really' wrong too.

Thorax wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Many people counter with the argument that it's not the fact that they blame the wider Muslim population but rather that they are annoyed that they don't speak out enough against extremism or stand up to it...well the same can be said about Americans allowing the Bush regime to act the goat, in fact ye voted him in for a second term.

I really don't think this rhetorical nonsense needs to be addressed.  From all I can tell it's just you rambling a bunch of blather to make your previous fuckup sound more legit.

Now who's dodging stuff Thorax?

Americans on the whole DO NOT, have a common attitude of anti-muslim.  I have met none.  I have seen extremely few.  You are wrong.

He's a goodie, he bombs at night, not alot of ppl around... what kind of thinking is that.

It's a wrong way of thinking. Like most american coorporations: our product will kill 10 out of 10000, but the cost of paying those victims is lower than our benefit, so let's sell the product.

With great power comes great responsibility... and the US is just f'in responsibility up it's ...

Just to be clear: I have the upmost respect for all military personel putting their lives on the line!!! But fighting a war that is not yours to fight is just immoral and stupid. In my views joining the army is swearing to protect the people of your country, yet all u Americans do in Iraq is protecting coorporations' assets.

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

There is a difference between intentionally targeting civilians and knowing that civilians will be hurt/killed striking a non-civilian target.

For instance, a terrorist targets a cafe. They don't hit it at night when it's closed because they aren't targeting the building/business, they are targeting the civilians inside the building/business.

In contrast, if the cafe had military value (C2 bunker underneath or something), the "goodies" would likely hit it in the middle of the night to ensure the smallest number of civilians were around.

That you (and others) don't understand the distinction is amazing to me.

I understand the distinction quite clearly but it doesn't excuse instances in which civilian deaths are incurred and have been contemplated to a certain extent beforehand. If I were pursuing a campaign of terrorism I would use the approach the IRA had for a while whereby infrastructural targets (with civilians forewarned prior to bomb detonation) and military targets were considered legitimate.

A perfect example of the double standards we apply to military and terrorist attacks would be the Omagh bombing. The Omagh bombing was supposedly intended to damage only property but there was confusion over the bomb warning beforehand and 29 people were killed. The terrorists didn't mean to kill those people so I guess the Omagh bombing wasn't as bad as other terrorist attacks?

Mooney & O'Toole wrote:

They could not find a parking space near the intended target, the Omagh courthouse.[20]

But they detonated the bomb anyway. There's another difference for you.

That would be like the "goodies" not being able to hit their primary target and just pickling off their bombs randomly over a populated area. If a "goodie" did that, they would be arrested, investigated, and likely put in jail for doing it. Yes, people got arrested and convicted of the Omagh bombing, but it wasn't internal policing by the IRA/Sinn Fein--another key difference.

So, looking at the Omagh bombing's facts...yes, it was as bad as other terrorist attacks. If they hadn't meant to kill those people, they 1) wouldn't have detonated it to begin with (couldn't actually get to their target) or 2) would have set it off at night so that the streets wouldn't have been filled with pedestrians.

So, again...it appears you don't really understand the distinction as much as you claim to.

BTW, Israel warned the civilian population of Lebanon before they attacked targets in civilian areas, but that wasn't good enough for you...but it would be OK for you to do the same?