Ft Hood Terror Attack

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry, BC

No....it is not the same as the Taliban or insurgents, who expressly kill "civilians" as a primary objective vs. so called "collateral damage" from NATO weapons.

Philosophically, your position would have been most problematic during the strategic bombing campaigns of WW2. Steps have been taken to help reduce the number civilian casualities in such conflicts, but such casualities will never be eliminated. That's why we call it "war".

This is exactly what's being proposed on this thread - specifically the bombing of Mecca. Go back and find it if you're unsure.

I'm not sure how strategic civilian bombings are in the first place, which (from my reading of Voltaire's Bastards) I gather may be a reason that it's not done anymore.

We call it "war" but it doesn't much look like the wars of even 40 years ago.

[DogOnPorch]

Sorry, BC

This is exactly what's being proposed on this thread - specifically the bombing of Mecca. Go back and find it if you're unsure.

Wulf wants to bomb the enemy...just who that is seems debatable.

I'm not sure how strategic civilian bombings are in the first place, which (from my reading of Voltaire's Bastards) I gather may be a reason that it's not done anymore.

Works only for industrial nations...to target civilians as a strategic resourse.

We call it "war" but it doesn't much look like the wars of even 40 years ago.

Much fewer casualties.

Edited November 11, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[wulf42]

Wulf wants to bomb the enemy...just who that is seems debatable.

That is why i despise Al Qaeda and Taliban so much...the cowards won t come fight

out in the open or in uniform's but sliver around killing innocent people with bombs

i have more respect for the Nazi's...yes they were evil but they still

fought in uniform and even they for the most part didn t kill POW'S ...these animals

of today are cowards who hide in with the civilians threatening and killing their own people!

[DogOnPorch]

That is why i despise Al Qaeda and Taliban so much...the cowards won t come fight

out in the open or in uniform's but sliver around killing innocent people with bombs

i have more respect for the Nazi's...yes they were evil but they still

fought in uniform and even they for the most part didn t kill POW'S ...these animals

of today are cowards who hide in with the civilians threatening and killing their own people!

I do agree that the terrorists are pretty much cowards who can only fight our guys by remote control road-side bombs. No medals there if you ask me.

Re: The Germans.

I would also agree that even the Waffen-SS were many fold more honourable a group of soldiers than any terrorist dressed in civilian clothes blowing-up civilians. Re: the SS and POWs...depends what front we're talking about here. The average Soviet POW ended up with the same fate as the Jews and Roma.

[Gabriel]

Gabriel,

The president really doesn't give personal advice. This was a direct response to his belief that they hated us because we were free from the then-US president.

The president says:

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

By "kick ass" you mean "bomb innocent people", which involves: not kicking but pushing a button, not hurting their asses but ripping their bodies apart with military weapons. You're also blurring the line of my argument, and bringing in the question of killing civilians by accident, which we're not discussing. And you close by saying you're not responsible for civilian deaths, while evading the point we're discussing here of bombing religious sites.

Philosophically, you seem to believe in killing civilians in order to achieve what you deeply believe to be a greater good, and as such you're exactly like the Taliban in my eyes.

I will no longer discuss the absurdity of your statement regarding how we should respond to terrorism. It was a ridiculous statement and you've got too much pride to acknowledge your own silliness. Continuing our lifestyles as they are isn't a response to terrorism.

With respect to equating me with the Taliban - this again illustrates your absurdity. I do not WANT to kill civilians. I don't wish harm on them. What I do want, more than anything, is for us to be safe from our enemies. That involves destroying our enemies. Our enemies operate among civilian populations. Our enemies force us to respond, and they put the civilian populations are risk by inciting a response from us where it is virtually impossible to discern between combatants and non-combatants. My heart breaks for CANADIANS and OUR ALLIES. Although it hurts me to see Afghani and Iraqi civilians harmed, I care about them much less than I care about our own and the lives of our allies.

If a religious site is being utilized as an operational base for our enemies, it is a fair target for destruction. The safety of our soldiers and country trumps all other interests. We wouldn't be in this position if it wasn't for our enemies, anyways.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Gabriel

[wulf42]

wulf42 - I reject your assertion that Israel isn't messed with because it responds harshly to attacks from terrorists. Indeed, the opposite is true. Israel's enemies are emboldened because they know Israel always responds with extreme restraint. Israel responds extremely carefully, and compromises the safety of its soldiers in order to minimize civilian casualties among Palestinians. Israel has always fought with one hand tied behind its back, observing laws and regulations of war (which to me seems like an oxymoronic concept) while its enemies break every law/regulation/convention of war. It's a completely uneven war with respect to observance of morality, with one side utilizing every weapon at its disposal, from sickening anti-semitic propaganda to hiding in hospitals and schools among civilians, attacking civilians at every opportunity, while Israel observes rules of engagement, prosecutes its own soldiers when crimes are believed to have been committed, and the demonstration of EXTREME restraint when responding the Palestinian animals. If Israel threw caution to the wind and behaved as its enemies do, Gaza would be annihilated. Every Israeli death and injury is the result of Israel's restraint. Very often I wish Israel would take the handcuffs off of its soldiers, and allow them to destroy the enemies of Israel. The supreme mercy of Israel is what allows to Palestinians to continually regroup and rearm and kill more Israelis. It's been a pattern since day one.

I agree with most of your statement but after the Israeli's attacked Gaza i think Hizbullah learned an important lesson,even the Hizbullah leader expressed regret over kiddnapping two Israeli soldiers,he didn t think the Israeli's would use such excessive force! I am sure the Israeli's would love to unleash their full military on the Militants but as always and even more so now with Obama they don t want to piss off the American's too much they still need them as an Ally and for arming!

I too believe to win a war with Terrorist's means throwing out the rule book, we

can t win a war with half measures...either go full out or don t bother at all!

Vietnam is a good example of failed half measures fighting an enemy.

Edited November 11, 2009 by wulf42

[DogOnPorch]

I agree with most of your statement but after the Israeli's attacked Gaza i think Hizbullah learned an important lesson,even the Hizbullah leader expressed regret over kiddnapping two Israeli soldiers,he didn t think the Israeli's would use such excessive force! I am sure the Israeli's would love to unleash their full military on the Militants but as always and even more so now with Obama they don t want to piss off the American's too much they still need them as an Ally and for arming!

The fact that the Israelis caught these terrorists rearming tells me that they haven't had enough just yet.

[Gabriel]

What do you think of international law? Do you believe it's okay to violate it in such circumstances?

Our western moral standards aside, this mentality you are displaying will never win any wars.

The enemy is fair game wherever they operate. International law doesn't stop us from protecting ourselves simply because the enemy garrison themselves in a religious site.

My mentality is what's required to WIN wars. The only reason we've been a conflict for almost a decade is because we fight half-heartedly. He fight with our hands tied behind our backs while our enemies operate without any adherence to any laws/conventions/rules whatsoever. Take the handcuffs off our soldiers, let our forces destroy our enemies. Break them, destroy them, then the war will be over. They fight with everything they have at their disposal, and we operate under rules of engagement where we can only shoot once we've been fired upon. IT IS INSANITY. Our military might eclipses that of the enemy, yet we don't even operate at a fraction of our capacity. Our misplaced sense of mercy and pity for animals is the reason why we have suffered so many casualties.

[DogOnPorch]

Our misplaced sense of mercy and pity for animals is the reason why we have suffered so many casualties.

To be fair, we haven't suffered that many casualties compared to some wars. Remember that 60,000 casualties were inflicted in the first three hours of the Somme. Now that's carnage.

[Gabriel]

I agree with most of your statement but after the Israeli's attacked Gaza i think Hizbullah learned an important lesson,even the Hizbullah leader expressed regret over kiddnapping two Israeli soldiers,he didn t think the Israeli's would use such excessive force! I am sure the Israeli's would love to unleash their full military on the Militants but as always and even more so now with Obama they don t want to piss off the American's too much they still need them as an Ally and for arming!

I too believe to win a war with Terrorist's means throwing out the rule book, we

can t win a war with half measures...either go full out or don t bother at all!

Vietnam is a good example of failed half measures fighting an enemy.

I agree, wolf42. But I wouldn't use the term "excessive force" when describing Israel's military operations in Gaza, most recently. The response by Israel was incredibly reserved and subdued. In such a heavily populated area, to only have one thousand dead is actually an accomplishment. Again, the blood of the civilians lost in that military operation lies on the hands of Hamas and all other Palestinian supporters of terrorism.

Half-measures are why we lose lives and why the conflict is so drawn out. It is insane to adhere to rules of engagement that are always use against you in order to maximize harm to your forces and civilians. Terrorists are laughing at us with our morality and mercy.

[wulf42]

Re: The Germans.

I would also agree that even the Waffen-SS were many fold more honourable a group of soldiers than any terrorist dressed in civilian clothes blowing-up civilians. Re: the SS and POWs...depends what front we're talking about here. The average Soviet POW ended up with the same fate as the Jews and Roma.

True! my Grand Father was captured in North Africa fighting with the British then later sent to Germany to sit out the war as a POW, he said he was treated very well and actually stayed friends with some of the Guards after the war...but yes it was sadly different for others even more so if you were in the hands of the SS.

Edited November 11, 2009 by wulf42

[Gabriel]

To be fair, we haven't suffered that many casualties compared to some wars. Remember that 60,000 casualties were inflicted in the first three hours of the Somme. Now that's carnage.

Yes, I'm aware that in the historical context of conflict, casualties have been greatly reduced (both military and civilians). Still, I strongly believe that the majority of American/Canadian/British/UK/coalition casualties could have been avoided if we didn't show such mercy to animals. Whether it's getting close to potential enemies in Iraq in order to identify whether or not they're combatants, putting the soldiers are risk by getting within range of IEDs in order to discern the truth, or rules of engagement preventing our soldiers from fighting until being shot at, all of our casualties have been the result of mercy and compassion for our enemies. Every time a coalition soldier is shot or killed, he/she dies for the Afghanis and/or Iraqis.

[wulf42]

Half-measures are why we lose lives and why the conflict is so drawn out. It is insane to adhere to rules of engagement that are always use against you in order to maximize harm to your forces and civilians. Terrorists are laughing at us with our morality and mercy.

I totally agree here! the Terrorist's use our sense of fair play and rules of engagement against us..we in the West are to concerned about offending the enemy rather than protecting our troops........as far as i am concerned Al Qaeda or Taliban should be shot on the spot no prisoners....we could severely hurt the Taliban by wiping out ALL their opium fields but yet we don't because we may offent a Afghan farmer, you can t win a war this way.

The major problem fighting these animals is they hide within the Civilians making it hard for us to get at the real enemy, many of these Taliban will switch sides according to who pay's them more! One day they are planting road side bombs the next they are telling Nato troops where their buddies are hiding!

Edited November 11, 2009 by wulf42

[wulf42]

If a religious site is being utilized as an operational base for our enemies, it is a fair target for destruction. The safety of our soldiers and country trumps all other interests. We wouldn't be in this position if it wasn't for our enemies, anyways.

Good Point! the enemy uses Mosques all the time as a hiding place because they know they are off limits to attack! Even in our own Country Mosques are used to recruit, plan, and organize fund raising for terror groups...yet they are off limits, we should at least be eaves dropping on all Mosques in Canada!

Edited November 11, 2009 by wulf42

[DogOnPorch]

Yes, I'm aware that in the historical context of conflict, casualties have been greatly reduced (both military and civilians). Still, I strongly believe that the majority of American/Canadian/British/UK/coalition casualties could have been avoided if we didn't show such mercy to animals. Whether it's getting close to potential enemies in Iraq in order to identify whether or not they're combatants, putting the soldiers are risk by getting within range of IEDs in order to discern the truth, or rules of engagement preventing our soldiers from fighting until being shot at, all of our casualties have been the result of mercy and compassion for our enemies. Every time a coalition soldier is shot or killed, he/she dies for the Afghanis and/or Iraqis.

It's hard to show mercy (or not) to an invisible enemy. A friend of mine has been wounded multiple times without ever seeing who blew him up (in both Iraq and Afghanistan). A great many of Canada's casualties could have been prevented by not going out on senseless patrols down IED infested roads just to prove you control said road...lol.

Helicopters and good fire support are the key in this war...and we don't have nearly enough of either of them. As for manpower...to put it in context again...we would have barely enough troops to cover 2-300 yards of line at a battle like Antietam or Gettysburg if we were fighting in the Civil War days. Really tiny...and I'm sure you're aware of that...but others here might not be.

Edited November 11, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[wulf42]

It's hard to show mercy (or not) to an invisible enemy. A friend of mine has been wounded multiple times without ever seeing who blew him up (in both Iraq and Afghanistan). A great many of Canada's casualties could have been prevented by not going out on senseless patrols down IED infested roads just to prove you control said road...lol.

Helicopters and good fire support are the key in this war...and we don't have nearly enough of either of them. As for manpower...to put it in context again...we would have barely enough troops to cover 2-300 yards of line at a battle like Antietam or Gettysburg if we were fighting in the Civil War days. Really tiny...and I'm sure you're aware of that...but others here might not be.

Another big problem is the differences in Nato Allies on how to fight this war....the French see things one way, the Germans another the American's and Canadian's yet another, all this does not help our cause.

Edited November 11, 2009 by wulf42

[Guest American Woman]

Hasan on Islam

Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the Army psychiatrist believed to have killed 13 people at Fort Hood, was supposed to discuss a medical topic during a presentation to senior Army doctors in June 2007. Instead, he lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting wars in Muslim countries.

For those who are interested, the Washington Post has posted Hasan's entire slide presentation here.

[Michael Hardner]

Gabriel,

With respect to equating me with the Taliban - this again illustrates your absurdity. I do not WANT to kill civilians. I don't wish harm on them.

What I do want, more than anything, is for us to be safe from our enemies. That involves destroying our enemies. Our enemies operate among civilian populations. Our enemies force us to respond, and they put the civilian populations are risk by inciting a response from us where it is virtually impossible to discern between combatants and non-combatants. My heart breaks for CANADIANS and OUR ALLIES. Although it hurts me to see Afghani and Iraqi civilians harmed, I care about them much less than I care about our own and the lives of our allies.

Basically, you reframed the question to something more palatable. Well, hooray for you but your study buddy Wulf put the bombing of Mecca on the table, and you're coming out with this tap dance.

It's quite disgusting really. You would do well to follow what the US commander-in-chief said:

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war. When we think of Islam we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world.

[wulf42]

Gabriel,

Basically, you reframed the question to something more palatable. Well, hooray for you but your study buddy Wulf put the bombing of Mecca on the table, and you're coming out with this tap dance.

It's quite disgusting really. You would do well to follow what the US commander-in-chief said:

I said imagine if the U.S. played by their rules and threatened Mecca...stop twisting words,however it has been suggested by Politians in the past!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/06/1997179.htm

Edited November 11, 2009 by wulf42

[naomiglover]

Hasan on Islam

Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the Army psychiatrist believed to have killed 13 people at Fort Hood, was supposed to discuss a medical topic during a presentation to senior Army doctors in June 2007. Instead, he lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting wars in Muslim countries.

For those who are interested, the Washington Post has posted Hasan's entire slide presentation here.

Wow - If this is indeed true, is astonishing. In 2007, he foreshadowed what could happen. Red flag?

[Guest American Woman]

Wow - If this is indeed true, is astonishing. In 2007, he foreshadowed what could happen. Red flag?

It's true. As for the rest of your post ...... not worth responding to.

[Michael Hardner]

Wulf,

I said imagine if the U.S. played by their rules and threatened Mecca...stop twisting words,however it has been suggested by Politians in the past!

You never used the word "Imagine" - you're no John Lennon.

Here's your quote:

i would let these animals know if such an attack were to happen on the U.S. ....the resulting

wrath would be quick and complete on the attacking group or country responible including the use of limited Nuclear strikes! I wonder how these terror groups would feel if the U.S threatened to wipe Mecca

off the planet?

If that's not putting the bombing of Mecca on the table, then what is it ? You need to choose a side - are you an 'ass kicker' like Gabriel or are you an imagineer like John Lennon ?

[wulf42]

Wulf,

You never used the word "Imagine" - you're no John Lennon.

Here's your quote:

If that's not putting the bombing of Mecca on the table, then what is it ? You need to choose a side - are you an 'ass kicker' like Gabriel or are you an imagineer like John Lennon ?

If you could read at all which i am seriously beginning to doubt, i was stating i wonder how the Arab world would react if the U.S. threatened them? ...as a leftie i would expect no less from you to twist it into something that could fit your incredibly weak arguement! My experience with Liberals or Leftie's is instead of sticking to the arguement they attempt to attack the poster....old trick really but still very ineffective.

If you read the link you would see it was obviously been thought of by some politicians, Personally i think we need to inflict damage on terrorist's much more than we are now ie: wipe out the Talibans opium fields! Tact

strike in mountainous area's where Al Qaeda is hiding!

Edited November 11, 2009 by wulf42

[DogOnPorch]

If you could read at all which i am seriously beginning to doubt, i was stating i wonder how the Arab world would react if the U.S. threatened them? ...as a leftie i would expect no less from you to twist it into something that could fit your incredibly weak arguement! My experience with Liberals or Leftie's is instead of sticking to the arguement they attempt to attack the poster....old trick really but still very ineffective.

If you read the link you would see it was obviously been thought of by some politicians, Personally i think we need to inflict damage on terrorist's much more than we are now ie: wipe out the Talibans opium fields! Tact

strike in mountainous area's where Al Qaeda is hiding!

...never get out of the boat.

[Gabriel]

Gabriel,

Basically, you reframed the question to something more palatable. Well, hooray for you but your study buddy Wulf put the bombing of Mecca on the table, and you're coming out with this tap dance.

It's quite disgusting really. You would do well to follow what the US commander-in-chief said:

More dishonesty... you suggesting that Islam is not to blame is implying that I blamed Islam for anything. You are so desperately trying to paint a picture of me as some sort of Islamophobe when I have clearly explained that the threat we face is from fundamentalist/extremist Islam, which isn't to be confused with other forms of mainstream Islam. It is advantageous for you, for some reason, to intentionally confuse the different types of Islam, and attack any criticism of extremist/fundamentalist Islam as an attack on Islam as a whole. Why are you such a compulsive liar?

And who the hell is talking about Mecca? Where did you get Mecca from ANYTHING I've said?