Liverpool FC Forum

by **aCe'** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:49 pm

ignorance at its best....

by **dawson99** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:50 pm

aCe' wrote:

ignorance at its best....

from who...

or you just hurling insults hither and thither, seeing who bites?

by **GYBS** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:51 pm

aCe' wrote:

ignorance at its best....

you will have to expand on that a little bit

by **metalhead** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:53 pm

Can we call declaring Jihad on Old Trafford and the sc*mmers, act of Terrorism?

by **aCe'** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:02 pm

Im not going to get into this again but if you know very little about something then maybe it wouldnt be the worst idea ever if you dont get involved in discussing the matter... free world, freedom of speech and all that, everyone has an opinion blah blah ....
One thing i dont understand though is how people can sit there and define terrorism in such an over simplistic manner ...
sorry, ill stay out of this...

by **GYBS** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:04 pm

Terrorism is the intentional use or threat to use violence against civilians and non-combatants "in order to achieve political goals"

by **dawson99** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:06 pm

aCe' wrote:Im not going to get into this again but if you know very little about something then maybe it wouldnt be the worst idea ever if you dont get involved in discussing the matter... free world, freedom of speech and all that, everyone has an opinion blah blah ....
One thing i dont understand though is how people can sit there and define terrorism in such an over simplistic manner ...
sorry, ill stay out of this...

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
normally terrorists are weaka$$ punks who want to kill innocents

by **Big Niall** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:13 pm

dawson99 wrote:
aCe' wrote:Im not going to get into this again but if you know very little about something then maybe it wouldnt be the worst idea ever if you dont get involved in discussing the matter... free world, freedom of speech and all that, everyone has an opinion blah blah ....
One thing i dont understand though is how people can sit there and define terrorism in such an over simplistic manner ...
sorry, ill stay out of this...

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
normally terrorists are weaka$$ punks who want to kill innocents

I prefer the GYBS definition as I don't think the "unlawful" part is a requirement as any government can twist their law to defend their actions.

by **aCe'** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:16 pm

great.. pick it up from here...

by **woof woof !** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:19 pm

metalhead wrote:
woof woof ! wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:Like I said, the Japs were more or less beaten. So, rather than sacrafice the lives of US soldiers who's job it is to fight in a war, they decided to kill a quarter or a million Japanese civilians

And how many d'yer think would have died if "conventional warfare" had continued ? In March 1945 Tokyo was bombed the resulting firestorm killed over 100,000 people.

I do understand your point, think of the long term effects of the atomic bomb anyways, the area is inhabitable and will stay for another 1000 years because of the radiation caused by that bomb. Even its affecting future generations of Japanese civilians living near the areas affected, the radiation is affecting health (creating more disabilities, cancers, infections, etc...). Furthermore its affecting society and future generation of new children.

And I understand your point about about the long term effects of radiation and without dismissing them here's Hiroshima today.

by **Big Niall** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:21 pm

I'm sure the radical muslims will say that the pentagon was a legitamate target (which it would be under any war rules) but they would claim that the passengers were collateral damage.

Obviously I don't believe this but just pointing out how nearly everything can be twisted.

Can democratic governments be terrorists - how many times have governments ordered the army to shoot into unarmed protesters - is that terrorism?

by **Bad Bob** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:33 pm

woof woof ! wrote:
metalhead wrote:
woof woof ! wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:Like I said, the Japs were more or less beaten. So, rather than sacrafice the lives of US soldiers who's job it is to fight in a war, they decided to kill a quarter or a million Japanese civilians

And how many d'yer think would have died if "conventional warfare" had continued ? In March 1945 Tokyo was bombed the resulting firestorm killed over 100,000 people.

I do understand your point, think of the long term effects of the atomic bomb anyways, the area is inhabitable and will stay for another 1000 years because of the radiation caused by that bomb. Even its affecting future generations of Japanese civilians living near the areas affected, the radiation is affecting health (creating more disabilities, cancers, infections, etc...). Furthermore its affecting society and future generation of new children.

And I understand your point about about the long term effects of radiation and without dismissing them here's Hiroshima today.

Looks like it's still smoldering in the background.

by **SupitsJonF** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:46 pm

Even if it is terrorism, which terrorists would you rather have?

Group A): Drops pamphlets written in your own language telling you to leave the city and go a safe distance, because we will blow you up if you don't surrender. Me, having a choice to leave, I'd fuken leave

/

Group B): Hijacks your :censored:

without warning and kills civilians without reason of war.

Maybe if Bin laden dropped Pamphlets over NY saying were going to hijacks planes and crash the towers, a lot less people would of died. I can't imagine anyone going to work or flying that day.

Just a thought

by **Sabre** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:57 pm

Spain has troops in Afghanistan.

By default, I don't like having my troops in another country unless there's a good reason.

A good reason would be the presence of the troops really helping to combat terrorism. So in order to answer Barry's question, I would like to know how effective is being these military operations to combat global terrorism. I guess we need some years to know that efectiveness. If the answer is positive, then yes, I'm in favour of my soldiers doing the jobs they're paid for under a United Nations mission. If the answer is negative and the soldiers only help to have a friendly government in a foreign country but not combat global terrorism, then I'd bring the soldiers back.

I wouldn't have Spanish soldiers in a country just because I dislike how they treat women or homosexuals. It's up to them to fight their tirany and injustices. I only accept having soldiers there if it helps to combat global terrorism, and that is the debate I'd like to know: how effective are being those military operations to achieve that goal?

by **Emerald Red** » Mon Jul 13, 2009 11:51 pm

SupitsJonF wrote:Even if it is terrorism, which terrorists would you rather have?

Group A): Drops pamphlets written in your own language telling you to leave the city and go a safe distance, because we will blow you up if you don't surrender. Me, having a choice to leave, I'd fuken leave /

Group B): Hijacks your without warning and kills civilians bwithout reason of war.

Maybe if Bin laden dropped Pamphlets over NY saying were going to hijacks planes and crash the towers, a lot less people would of died. I can't imagine anyone going to work or flying that day.

Just a thought

You think that happened for no reason?

Liverpool FC Forum

War in afganistan - What you think!

Who is online