BF2S Forums Mandela Finally Taken Off US Terror List

M.O.A.B wrote:

LyricWolf5 wrote:

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.

What about the other countries in Iraq?

All the same, in there due to presure or assets.

Dilbert_X wrote:

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?

Israel also bombed all the roads and bridges preventing the civilians from escaping.

No, they bombed the roads and bridges to disrupt Hezbollah logistics.

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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

I'm not making excuses for those butchers but I believe the bomb used a timer because a number of calls were made to attempt to clarify the location (as though they couldn't delay the blast remotely), the RIRA also released a statement that it did not mean to kill civilians. It would be similar to any incident where a US plane or tank struck a target without a confirmed ID beforehand instead of abandoning the mission.

So, they knowingly parked a bomb they couldn't stop in front of something that wasn't their target and left it there to detonate?

US planes and tanks don't strike a target without positive ID. Sometimes, that PID is incorrect, but it's never intentional...unlike the Omagh bombers.

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

Or chasing civilians participating in a civil rights march and opening fire randomly on them?

What did the US have to do with that?

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yes, people got arrested and convicted of the Omagh bombing, but it wasn't internal policing by the IRA/Sinn Fein--another key difference.

Sin Fein condemned the Omagh bombi=ng and to be honest they have pretty much washed their hands of these extremists. And again I refer you to the whitewash that was the enquiry for bloody Sunday - not one soldier convicted.

So you're saying you can't hold Sinn Fein accountable for the actions of individuals of the RIRA? Maybe you should try applying that evenly.

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

I could just argue with you on other issues of military practice that are equally as evil. How selective is napalm for example? It's all shades of grey to be honest. Terrorism and unjustified military action are as bad as each other...I despise both.

Ah, now you say "unjustified" military action.

BTW, napalm has been outlawed for quite some time. Regardless, it's "blast radius" is about the same as a conventional bomb.

Braddock wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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?

So if someone threw a grenade at your house but let you know beforehand you'd be cool with that? Like I said, terrorism and unjustified military action are as bad as each other.

I don't know...are there terrorists in my attic? How about my neighbors? Or maybe they've taken control of my house at gunpoint. Israel warned areas where point targets were being struck. It's not like they put a leaflet on the doorway of the individual building(s) they were going after.

Who are you to determine whether one country's military actions are justified or unjustified? It's not your interests that are being protected, it's theirs.

Dilbert_X wrote:

BTW, napalm has been outlawed for quite some time.

Strange then that the US is still using it.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/ … iraq01.htm
'"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."'
'In an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, Marine Corps Maj-Gen Jim Amos confirmed that napalm was used on several occasions in the war. '

You can argue if its 'napalm' or not. Go argue with these two officers who call it napalm.
Petroleum product mixed with polystyrene is napalm according to most definitions

I seem to remember an Iraqi news outlet naming a large explosion at an ammo dump as a nuclear explosion as well. But regardless, fire occurs on vehicles when they're hit by explosives so I don't see much of the difference between that and a nap strike. Napalm is also highly controlled when its dropped as it follows the direction of the aircraft.