Why We Have to Fight

[White Doors]

Doesn't matter in the slightest when the initial justification for the occupier is completely lacking. That alone makes collateral damage nothing but murder.

Does it matter to you that no court in the world agrees with you?

[AndrewL]

WWII death totals:

Military 25 million

Civilian 37 million.

That is a ratio of more civilians dead than soldiers. The ratio has increased dramatically since WWII through Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon, etc... Modern war is far more deadly to civilians than any other era of war.

Andrew

For the record, civilians deaths totalled over 47 million

The fact is we move on to Vietnam where ~3-4 million civilians were killed, and just over 1 million soldiers.

Then we have both Iraq wars. The ratio is huge.

In Lebanon this past summer again we had another massively lopsided military adventure in which civilians paid the highest price.

This is unacceptable, especially when the world is constantly made a worse place by all these actions, nothing is achieved. And you gotta admit, if total war ever was realized again, civilian casualties would be in the billions.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Doesn't matter in the slightest when the initial justification for the occupier is completely lacking. That alone makes collateral damage nothing but murder.

Does it matter to you that no court in the world agrees with you?

That is not true. Both the Nuremburg tribunals and the UN charter recognize international aggression as the highest of all war crimes.

Besides, what are you saying? That a war with no justification and a 100% guarantee of civilian casualties is somehow not murder?

Yes, this is the glossing over that is so disturbing. It is pure hatred.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

How about I just pat you on the head and say never mind?

Yep. Glossing over of murder. Why such hatred M.dancer? Its ok that these people are killed right? You dont know them, you dont have to see them, they are just an object to you. That is pathetic, and really just proves my point about our media.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Lets look at it from a different angle.

When the hijackers crashed a plane into the pentagon were the resulting deaths murder or collateral damage?

The pentagon is obviously a military target, AQ had declared war on the US previous to the attack, and the only way they could hit their target was by slamming a hijacked plane into it. Too bad for the 'non targeted objects' that had to be destroyed in order for this to happen. Right? They are collateral damage, we shouldn't think of them as human beings with families and lives, the are just necessary victims of war. Too bad for them? Except the truth is is was murder just as much as a 1000 pund bomb slamming into a civilian neighborhood in baghdad is. Neither are justified, both are murder. Twerms like collateral damage in the media are kust revolting, and when we dont use it to refer to white westerners being killed under similar circumstances, it is obviously a racist term.

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

In Lebanon this past summer again we had another massively lopsided military adventure in which civilians paid the highest price.

Andrew

The civilian death toll in lebanon is directly related as to where the terrorists choose to position themselves. Unfortunately that situation was envisioned by the framers of the convention. Clearly the guilt lies with those who choose to militarize civilian areas by launching attacks from them.

[M.Dancer]

Lets look at it from a different angle.

When the hijackers crashed a plane into the pentagon were the resulting deaths murder or collateral damage?

The pentagon is obviously a military target, AQ had declared war on the US previous to the attack, and the only way they could hit their target was by slamming a hijacked plane into it. Too bad for the 'non targeted objects' that had to be destroyed in order for this to happen. Right? They are collateral damage, we shouldn't think of them as human beings with families and lives, the are just necessary victims of war. Too bad for them? Except the truth is is was murder just as much as a 1000 pund bomb slamming into a civilian neighborhood in baghdad is. Neither are justified, both are murder. Twerms like collateral damage in the media are kust revolting, and when we dont use it to refer to white westerners being killed under similar circumstances, it is obviously a racist term.

Andrew

Kidnapping and using civilians as weapons negates any bullshit about collateral damage.

[AndrewL]

In Lebanon this past summer again we had another massively lopsided military adventure in which civilians paid the highest price.

Andrew

The civilian death toll in lebanon is directly related as to where the terrorists choose to position themselves.

Even if that is true my point remains unchanged. Modern war achieves nothing (or worse), and civilians pay the heaviest price. Its a direct result of the cowardice of soldiers on both sides. Modern war is essentially the definition of cowardice. Be it a militant hiding out in a neighborhood, or a fighter pilot dropping bombs from thirty thousand feet. Either way, i have little respect for the militant or uniformed western soldier, I am only concerned about the reality that civilians are murdered in large numbers every day in these conflicts and people like you gloss over it as if it is somehow acceptable when 'your' side is just as guilty.

Unfortunately that situation was envisioned by the framers of the convention. Clearly the guilt lies with those who choose to militarize civilian areas by launching attacks from them.

So that makes the pentagon a legitimate target, right in the middle of a civilian center? And any civilians who happen to die from such an attack are just 'collateral damage' to the west i suppose. The media wont go on ad-nauseum about the tragic details of their lives as the nation mourns their loss? You mean i wont see pictures of every victim and know most of their names? They will just be a number i suppose to the media? Right?

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Lets look at it from a different angle.

When the hijackers crashed a plane into the pentagon were the resulting deaths murder or collateral damage?

The pentagon is obviously a military target, AQ had declared war on the US previous to the attack, and the only way they could hit their target was by slamming a hijacked plane into it. Too bad for the 'non targeted objects' that had to be destroyed in order for this to happen. Right? They are collateral damage, we shouldn't think of them as human beings with families and lives, the are just necessary victims of war. Too bad for them? Except the truth is is was murder just as much as a 1000 pund bomb slamming into a civilian neighborhood in baghdad is. Neither are justified, both are murder. Twerms like collateral damage in the media are kust revolting, and when we dont use it to refer to white westerners being killed under similar circumstances, it is obviously a racist term.

Andrew

Kidnapping and using civilians as weapons negates any bullshit about collateral damage.

Ahh yes, here it is. The poor white westerners were murdered, they were not collateral damage, even though the target was purely military. I can see your inadvertend jingoism and racism seeping through, even if you can't. AQ specifically picked the pentagon as a strategic target, the only way they could figure to hit it was by sacrificing civilians. Tough luck, i guess. Obviously if AQ just wanted to maximize civilian deaths there were better targets they could have chosen, like a baseball game or something?

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

Lets look at it from a different angle.

When the hijackers crashed a plane into the pentagon were the resulting deaths murder or collateral damage?

The pentagon is obviously a military target, AQ had declared war on the US previous to the attack, and the only way they could hit their target was by slamming a hijacked plane into it. Too bad for the 'non targeted objects' that had to be destroyed in order for this to happen. Right? They are collateral damage, we shouldn't think of them as human beings with families and lives, the are just necessary victims of war. Too bad for them? Except the truth is is was murder just as much as a 1000 pund bomb slamming into a civilian neighborhood in baghdad is. Neither are justified, both are murder. Twerms like collateral damage in the media are kust revolting, and when we dont use it to refer to white westerners being killed under similar circumstances, it is obviously a racist term.

Andrew

Kidnapping and using civilians as weapons negates any bullshit about collateral damage.

Ahh yes, here it is. The poor white westerners were murdered, they were not collateral damage, even though the target was purely military. I can see your inadvertend jingoism and racism seeping through, even if you can't. AQ specifically picked the pentagon as a strategic target, the only way they could figure to hit it was by sacrificing civilians. Tough luck, i guess. Obviously if AQ just wanted to maximize civilian deaths there were better targets they could have chosen, like a baseball game or something?

Andrew

If you can't see the difference between intentionally using civilians and murdering them in cold blood in order to attack and the unintentional deaths of civilians being used as human shields....is there a point to this? I can see you deliberate assine stupidity seeping through and I'm sure everyone else can too. Poor white westerners? Shall we just ignore the blacks on board the airplane or are ytou one of those who think black folk are too poor to fly? Racism? Yep you got it. So, being a military tactician that you are, you think the rason they hijacked a plane filled with civilians was becasue that was the only way to attack? Nice!

I am going to assume that the reason you are making these embarrassing statements is becuase you are young immature and don't know what you are talking about so take the hint: read the geneva conventions regarding the treatment of civilians and save your we're no better that murders claptrap for the doey females who may think your clever.

[M.Dancer]

Obviously if AQ just wanted to maximize civilian deaths there were better targets they could have chosen, like a baseball game or something?

Andrew

Or like hitting the Twin Towers? Do you realize what the death toll might have been had it been hit 10 or so floors lower?

[ScottSA]

Doesn't matter in the slightest when the initial justification for the occupier is completely lacking. That alone makes collateral damage nothing but murder.

Does it matter to you that no court in the world agrees with you?

That is not true. Both the Nuremburg tribunals and the UN charter recognize international aggression as the highest of all war crimes.

Besides, what are you saying? That a war with no justification and a 100% guarantee of civilian casualties is somehow not murder?

Yes, this is the glossing over that is so disturbing. It is pure hatred.

Andrew

It's also not "illegal":

Protected civilians must NOT be:

- Discriminated against because of race, religion or political opinion. - Forced to give information.

- Used to shield military operations or make an area immune from military operations.

- Punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. - Women must not be indecently assaulted, raped, or forced into prostitution.

Fourth Geneva Convention

Hezbollah, and frequently Hamas, are the criminals according to international law. Do you have no words of condemnation for them, or is your condemnation reserved for white folk?

Just so you know, things are not "illegal" just because you 'feel' they should be.

[jdobbin]

No, I meant Jains or Buddhists.

I mean really...with 257 self-proclaimed Islamic terror groups afoot and active in the world today and killing hundreds across the globe each day, don't you feel a little foolish trying to jam everything from every religion together to make up a fraction of the amount of terror that Islam spawns?

I don't necessarily link each and every incident of violence to Islam as I do to factionalism and nationalism.

[AndrewL]

Doesn't matter in the slightest when the initial justification for the occupier is completely lacking. That alone makes collateral damage nothing but murder.

Does it matter to you that no court in the world agrees with you?

That is not true. Both the Nuremburg tribunals and the UN charter recognize international aggression as the highest of all war crimes.

Besides, what are you saying? That a war with no justification and a 100% guarantee of civilian casualties is somehow not murder?

Yes, this is the glossing over that is so disturbing. It is pure hatred.

Andrew

It's also not "illegal":

Protected civilians must NOT be:

- Discriminated against because of race, religion or political opinion. - Forced to give information.

- Used to shield military operations or make an area immune from military operations.

- Punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. - Women must not be indecently assaulted, raped, or forced into prostitution.

Fourth Geneva Convention

Hezbollah, and frequently Hamas, are the criminals according to international law. Do you have no words of condemnation for them, or is your condemnation reserved for white folk?

Just so you know, things are not "illegal" just because you 'feel' they should be.

The Iraq war is a clear case of international aggression. That is illegal. Im sorry you cant see that. The justices @ Nuremberg considered the crime of international aggression to be the highest of all war crimes because it engendered and made possible all other war crimes. Every death in Iraq as a result of the american invasion is a war crime, and hence, murder. That is a legal interpretation.

Yes Hamas and Hezbollah are also criminals by international law, duh? What is your point? Are you suggesting its one or the other? Both sides fo a conflict can be illegal, immoral, and subject to my scorn.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Obviously if AQ just wanted to maximize civilian deaths there were better targets they could have chosen, like a baseball game or something?

Andrew

Or like hitting the Twin Towers? Do you realize what the death toll might have been had it been hit 10 or so floors lower?

The twin towers could also be construed as a military/economic target. And what would you care if the death toll was higher, its just collateral damage to you... they arent real poeple, just 'non-targets'. How is it AQs fault that there were people in the building?

Andrew

[ScottSA]

The Iraq war is a clear case of international aggression. That is illegal. Im sorry you cant see that. The justices @ Nuremberg considered the crime of international aggression to be the highest of all war crimes because it engendered and made possible all other war crimes. Every death in Iraq as a result of the american invasion is a war crime, and hence, murder. That is a legal interpretation.

Andrew

Well, the only problem with your thesis is that no courts agree with you. Nuremberg doesn't either, since it has not ruled on the issue, largely because it no longer exists. What you in effect arguing is that war itself is illegal, and that's a fairly ridiculous proposition. That's not a "legal" interpretation; that's your angst.

[AndrewL]

If you can't see the difference between intentionally using civilians and murdering them in cold blood in order to attack and the unintentional deaths of civilians being used as human shields....is there a point to this?

In modern war there is a 100% guarantee of civilian casualties. There is no chance of not killing innocent people. When a war does not even come close to meeting the criteria of self-defense, when a war is brought forth based on manipulations and lies, it is pure aggression. The deaths that happen as a result are by definition were unnecessary, unwarranted, and unjustified. And they were a guarantee. How is this not intentional murder?

So, being a military tactician that you are, you think the rason they hijacked a plane filled with civilians was becasue that was the only way to attack? Nice!

Well they obviously are not in possession of fighter jets, stealth bombers, and cruise missiles. Would it all of a sudden be more moral if they were? The targets being the same? Seriously, even if we grant that the Twin Towers were just murder, wy would you not consider the victims at the pentagon just inimportant collateral damage?

I am going to assume that the reason you are making these embarrassing statements is becuase you are young immature and don't know what you are talking about so take the hint: read the geneva conventions regarding the treatment of civilians and save your we're no better that murders claptrap for the doey females who may think your clever.

I have read them all and i have come to the conclusion that the only thing that can possibly justify the murder of civilians in war is if the war is carried out with just cause in self defense. It is still murder, but at leas then it is defensible. Once the step has been taken to wage an elective war of aggression, all resulting deaths can be considered nothing but murder.

That is the most important lesson learned from WWII, and it is the basis of the UN charter prohibiting wars fo aggression.

I find it amazing that nobody ever seems to know this. Too busy glorifying war i suppose, rather than learning from it.

But i see you have resulted to name calling (and im the immature one, right!), its unfortuante. For a second i though you at least understood some parts of history. Guess i was wrong.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

The Iraq war is a clear case of international aggression. That is illegal. Im sorry you cant see that. The justices @ Nuremberg considered the crime of international aggression to be the highest of all war crimes because it engendered and made possible all other war crimes. Every death in Iraq as a result of the american invasion is a war crime, and hence, murder. That is a legal interpretation.

Andrew

Well, the only problem with your thesis is that no courts agree with you. Nuremberg doesn't either, since it has not ruled on the issue, largely because it no longer exists. What you in effect arguing is that war itself is illegal, and that's a fairly ridiculous proposition. That's not a "legal" interpretation; that's your angst.

The Nuremberg principles were adopted as the basis for the UN resolutions prohibiting aggression. According to the closest thing we have to international law, the UN, the Iraq war was clearly illegal and clearly a war crime.

Andrew

[ScottSA]

The twin towers could also be construed as a military/economic target, no different than the US. And what would you care if the death toll was higher, its just collateral damage to you... they arent real poeple, just 'non-targets'. How is it AQs fault that there were people in the building?

Andrew

You clearly don't understand what these terms mean, and until you do, you shouldn't use them. Collateral damage refers to the accidental killing of civilians. 911 intentionally targeted civilians. That may be a nominal difference to you, but its a very large difference in the eyes of the geneva convention, which is, after all, the paramount body of universally accepted intl law on the rules of war.

You're arguing from feeling, making the odd vague refernce to the Nurenberg Tribunal through your own interpretive powers and hoping it works. But fortunately for the rest of the world, what you are arguing is not law...it's what you feel law ought to be.

[betsy]

Absolutely untrue. Not even close. Even with a headstart, Christianity isn't anywhere near Islam in bodycount. Not even in the same league. The only religion that beats Islam is the atheism of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and assorted hangerson like Pol Pot and Che.

Let's see, the Inquisiton, the Crusades, Slavery, American expansion, I believe the last figure was 19/20 Natives were killed off. Some have the number pegged at over 500,000,000 killed directly or indirectly by Christians.

Atheism didn't kill those people, despotic rulers did. By the way the church also had a cozy relationship with Franco.

There were slaves in the old Islamic kingdoms! And Mohammed had had bloody hands too.

"Slaughter of non-believers" beats the Inquisition. The Inquisition had ended, but the slaughtering of non-believers or those who don't follow the slamic teachings to perfection...is still going on.

[BC_chick]

They beheaded Christian girls in Indonesia who were making their way to school. They stopped them at gunpoint, forced them to kneel down and then cut off their heads, the blood drenching their tiny uniforms.

They planted bombs in places of worship that belonged to their own Muslim faith, murdering scores of people who they knew to be innocent, apolitical and intent only on worshipping and praying. They demanded that others respect Mosques but simultaneously used them as killing fields.

MURDERED THEIR OWN

They murdered 150,000 of their own people in Algeria in an attempt to destabilize their government. Often they would slit the throats of children in front of their parents before in turn killing those horrified mothers and fathers.

In Iraq they kidnapped people who had devoted their lives to helping the impoverished and the abused, tied those good people up like animals and then tortured and humiliated them. They videotaped their screams and their wild pleas for mercy and help and then slowly cut off their heads with a knife, holding the severed object up to the cameras.

They pulled organs from within the bodies of their victims and offered them to children, then ran away with severed limbs as if they were treasured trophies.

-snip-

They declared their intention to target children because, they said, they knew their enemies valued children most of all and loved life. For them, they boasted, death was more important than life. They vomited this philosophy all over the world, in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and Australia.

BOMBED CHILDREN

They indoctrinated their own children and taught them to hate and loathe and lust for blood and death. They bombed schools, mosques, churches, hospitals, crowds of children asking for candy, old people's homes, funeral possessions.

-snip-

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/2007/03/...820782-sun.html

People who bring up Muslim atrocities as the reason for "why we fight" would be taken more seriously if the leaders whom you claim are fighting this "fight" would give one iota of the same criticism toward their so-called allies. You know, the fundamentalist wahhabis? You know the fundamentalist war lords in Pakistan? If the "fight" was truly against fundamentalism, SA should have been the starting point for launching "the fight." As far as I know, however, they have not even been scolded.

[ScottSA]

The Nuremberg principles were adopted as the basis for the UN resolutions prohibiting aggression. According to the closest thing we have to international law, the UN, the Iraq war was clearly illegal and clearly a war crime.

Andrew

Well, you can keep saying that if it makes you feel better, but it simply is not true. You're talking about Chapter VII, which has sweet piss all to do with Nurenberg. It is based upon the sovereignty of nations; an ideal which originated from Westphalia, long before even the League of Nations was a glimmer in France and Britain's eye. Here's what Chapter VII actually says, as opposed to what you wish it said:

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 42

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

Are we clear so far? Here is the original UNSC resolution 687, often known as the "ceasefire resolution":

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/UN_Security_..._Resolution_687

It sets out very clear terms required by Iraq in order to cease military operations against Iraq, by UN forces in the first gulf war. Almost immediately, Iraq violated parts of the resolution, to wit:

9. Decides, for the implementation of paragraph 8 above, the following:

(a) Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

( The Secretary-General, in consultation with the appropriate Governments and, where appropriate, with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, within forty-five days of the passage of the present resolution, shall develop, and submit to the Council for approval, a plan calling for the completion of the following acts within forty-five days of such approval:

(i) The forming of a Special Commission, which shall carry out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological, chemical and missile capabilities, based on Iraq's declarations and the designation of any additional locations by the Special Commission itself;

(ii) The yielding by Iraq of possession to the Special Commission for destruction, removal or rendering harmless, taking into account the requirements of public safety, of all items specified under paragraph 8 (a) above, including items at the additional locations designated by the Special Commission under paragraph 9 ((i) above and the destruction by Iraq, under the supervision of the Special Commission, of all its missile capabilities, including launchers, as specified under paragraph 8 ( above;

(iii) The provision by the Special Commission of the assistance and cooperation to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency required in paragraphs 12 and 13 below;

12. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities related to the above; to submit to the Secretary-General and the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution a declaration of the locations, amounts, and types of all items specified above; to place all of its nuclear-weapons-usable materials under the exclusive control, for custody and removal, of the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the assistance and cooperation of the Special Commission as provided for in the plan of the Secretary- General discussed in paragraph 9 ( above; to accept, in accordance with the arrangements provided for in paragraph 13 below, urgent on-site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items specified above; and to accept the plan discussed in paragraph 13 below for the future ongoing monitoring and verification of its compliance with these undertakings;

Then, the resolution goes on to bind all UN states to the agreement:

27. Calls upon all States to maintain such national controls and procedures and to take such other actions consistent with the guidelines to be established by the Security Council under paragraph 26 above as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of paragraph 24 above, and calls upon international organizations to take all appropriate steps to assist in ensuring such full compliance;

Once iraq violated the resolution, it was repudiating the ceasefire, which then ceased to be in effect.

The breaking of the resolution is the SOLE justification used by Clinton in attacking various facilities in Iraq during the 90s. The reason Clinton didn't need further justification was that Iraq almost immediately violated the terms of the resolution, thereby allowing, and indeed requiring the UN to reinitiate a state of hostilities against Iraq.

And in fact, since a state of de jure war already existed with Iraq, Bush didn't need any further justification either prior to the invasion. The following 15 UNSC resolutions were just icing on the cake.

The most important resolutions in the group were Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284. Each "recalls and affirms each previous resolution, which is international legalese for restating each one without wasting the ink. In other words, each subsequent resolution added to, rather than overrode the previous ones. But Resolution 1441, often called the "serious consequences" resolution, was the final resolution threatening the use of force. It began with the usual recall, which is a statement in itself that hostilities would resume:

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

Stated uncategorically that Iraq was in noncompliance:

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

And then went on to threaten "serious consequences, which everyone took to mean the use of force, even though that wasn't necessary, since Iraq had been in non-compliance for years:

13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

Legally then, the US was at perfect liberty to invade Iraq from sometime in the early 1990s. The notion that the UN has to churn out explicit declarations of war prior to an attack being legal is simply not on. The answer to those criticisms, using immediate legal context is simple: The first gulf war didn't need one, and the UNSC accepted and authorised the attack both tacitly and de jure after the fact by its subsequent resolutions. So to argue after the fact that an explicit resolution was required is farcical at best. Wiki notes that "most members" of the UN take this stance, but not only is this not actually true, but it's not the UNGA who is relevant anyway. Within the UNSC, no one takes this stance. Not even france. It's also telling that not even France tried to claim the invasion was illegal.

Finally, Bush went to the US congress and it passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization...inst_Terrorists ) This is not in the realm of "international law, but it heads off your next retreat, which will be that it wasn't legal under national law. It was legal under US law too.

So you see, all this "the war was illegal" nonsense really doesn't wash in the real world.

[ScottSA]

People who bring up Muslim atrocities as the reason for "why we fight" would be taken more seriously if the leaders whom you claim are fighting this "fight" would give one iota of the same criticism toward their so-called allies. You know, the fundamentalist wahhabis? You know the fundamentalist war lords in Pakistan? If the "fight" was truly against fundamentalism, SA should have been the starting point for launching "the fight." As far as I know, however, they have not even been scolded.

I agree. That's why the "War against Terror" plays so much kinder and gentler to the multicult ear, but its rather like the US declaring a "War against Bombers" following Pearl harbour. The war truly is against Islam...it's only a matter of time before the west finally admits it.

[Canadian Blue]

I agree. That's why the "War against Terror" plays so much kinder and gentler to the multicult ear, but its rather like the US declaring a "War against Bombers" following Pearl harbour. The war truly is against Islam...it's only a matter of time before the west finally admits it.

If we go after a whole religion, how are we any different than the Nazi's?

If we punish an entire nation, or religion for that matter for the action's of the few how could that possibly benefit us. One also has to consider that the government may not have supported the attacks, thus we would be attacking a government and people who may not have even been involved. To use the Pearl Harbour example is a complete folly in and of itself, Japan as a nation attacked America. Al Quieda is a terrorist organization which was not based in Iraq even. The only real country we would have been able to attack legally was Afghanistan for sheltering Bin Laden.

In ScottSA's case we would have to declare war on Indonesia, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudia Arabia [coincidentally where the majority of 9/11 hijackers were from], the United Arab Emirates, pretty well all of North Africa, Albania, Somalia. It would be worse than World War 2, since we would be fighting against hundreds of million's of people.

[ScottSA]

You're not very smart, are you?