More reason for you Terrorist Supporters to Cheer

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by promethius9594: john, war is indeed not a nice buisiness, but it is still a buisiness and as such demands a certain level of professionalism. flattening an entire city and blasting every home to pieces is not only inhumane, its not soldierly and detrimental to the cause. HOWEVER, i agree, we take war too lightly in our little corner of the world here. i would have no problem laying seige to a city, cutting off power, water, gas and food access and allowing any who wanted to leave the city for my refuge campe until the insurectionists turned themselves in or were destroyed by their own people. that way, after alls said and done, the people can go back to their lives. we forget, today, that the civil war was only won when one general had the cajones to cut a swath through the rural south, destroying every resource (military and civilian) in his path, while the other general repeatedly hit towns and armies with unstoppable assualts. i fear if we ever meet an enemy anywhere remotely close to our level of military prowess, that we could lose because we were too afraid and locked up to act as TRUE war (not these little skirmishes) DEMANDS in order to succeed.

Well I'm open for suggestions, they may not need to take the drastic steps I want, but then you can't always get what you want. I'm interested in results, if they can do it without flating cities great, if they need to flaten a city great. General Sherman has earned himself a special place in "Hale for what he did to Et-lanta" but he did what he had to do to end the war.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Black Baron: Donut, i think that TL means quite another person. I am 100% sure about that, because sometimes i feel almost the same. You can figure out who he is.

Unfortunately if you use a blunderbuss you often hit targets you didn't mean to hit. BTW - check the title of the thread. He uses "terrorist supporters" in the plural. That means he thinks there is more than one.

[Donut]

Originally posted by MagiK: As for the administration that did that...well it was one of our worst failures as president who was sumarrily slam dunked in the following election.

You are talking about Thomas Jefferson aren't you? The political exemption clause has been part of American foreign policy since the time of the French Revolution.

It only changed last year - because of Sept 11th.

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: As for the administration that did that...well it was one of our worst failures as president who was sumarrily slam dunked in the following election.

You are talking about Thomas Jefferson aren't you? The political exemption clause has been part of American foreign policy since the time of the French Revolution.

It only changed last year - because of Sept 11th. [/QUOTE]
As is frequently the case, my simple mind is unable to perceive your point.
I was in fact speaking of President Jimmy Carter. (Jefferson can hardly be said to have been a faileed US president.) who was in fact excused from office in his bid for re-election in 1980. Had Ronald Reagan been in office at the time...I cannot say that things would have been the same regarding terrorists.

To be fair to former President Carter. The US State Department quite frequently follows its own lead in these kinds of matters, completely ignoring the wishes of the Executive Branch....you see most of the top positions at State are Civilain Workers who have an unnaturally strong Union that pretty much makes them immune to any administration that wants to take action against them.

[ 06-21-2004, 08:25 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

check the title of the thread. He uses "terrorist supporters" in the plural. That means he thinks there is more than one.

No, I only allowed for the possibility that there may be more than one. In truth, the title is accurate -- if there were terrorist supporters, it would be reason for them to cheer. I also allow for the possibility that non-members come and visit this site and read the posts. Perhaps Osama saw my message on his Blackberry.

[Chewbacca]

Are people lining up to become new recruits military targets? I do wonder because the definition of the word terrorist, I thought, was people who attacked civilian targets.

If this bombing was against a military target than would not the use of the word terrorist to describe the perpretators and their fictional and factual supports be incorrect?

[Timber Loftis]

I don't know, Chewbacca, you tell me. Apparently, I have to consult you with the meanings and definitions of a lot of words I use, so please advise. Oh, and what's my opinion? I need to know it to argue it, so please forward that along as well.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Are people lining up to become new recruits military targets? I do wonder because the definition of the word terrorist, I thought, was people who attacked civilian targets. If this bombing was against a military target than would not the use of the word terrorist to describe the perpretators and their fictional and factual supports be incorrect?

People who are lining up to BECOME recruits ARE still civilians BY definition....do you not see that? and oh by the way, the people who worked in the shops surrounding this line..they were civilians too...and the passers by on the street? Yep civilians too...

So Im Confused here...
Are you really siding with the terrorists on these abominable attacks? If you support these kinds of indiscriminate attacks where civilians are being killed...how in heck could you sit there and condemn American troops during the "Actual War" against the "Real" army of Saddam Hussein when there were reletively few civilian casualties...versus the terrorists/insurgents or whatever where the primary casulaty list IS civilians...

I am just trying to figure your view point out...seems like if it is American Soldiers doing their damndest to avoid "colatteral damage" It's a horrible act of unreasoned violence......If it is an Attack against women, Children, or men who may one day become military members...it is excusable....Or have I missed something in your argument?

Or perhaps maybe TL titled his thread correctly? Or maybe I just don't understand your view.

[ 06-21-2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Timber Loftis]

Or perhaps maybe TL titled his thread correctly?

I'm reminded of a Warner Bros. character falling down stairs....

*ouch*
*thump*
*ooch*
*crack*
*eech*
*ack*
*owwwww!*
*thump*
*eeek*
*owww*
*oooch*

Or maybe
"Spin, parry, thrust, dodge, *sproingngnngngngng*

Look, MagiK Man, you DON'T want to be on my side of this debacle, I promise you. [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img]

[promethius9594]

i'll stand by you on this debacle though, TL. everyone already hates me as is, it wont be any worse if they're mad at me because i recognize the fact that some here turn a blind eye to terrorism.