Trying to divert right?

If you were aware of atrocities would you report it?

If you tried to report it to your superiors and was told to not think about would you try to report it somewhere else?

Do you feel good when the the order is to shoot 360 degrees anything after an IED explosion?

Do you ever ask yourself why you are ordered to do this?

Do you ever ask yourself why these people object to your illegal occupation?

Why are you chasing the Taliban when the objective was to find BL?

Oh it is the minerals and other resources right.

Please tell them that they are fighting to secure these resources.

Why are you never critical or ask these questions about terrorists or rogue nations? Your questions seem like phony sympathy dredged up for propaganda purposes. I'm sure that you do not want to come across as a partisan hypocrite.

It will be interesting to see how many anti-establishment posts will be allowed on the Internet when China is the big kahuna.

yeah Free Tibet!!

Don't expect any war dances....

"Will you do the haka like your rugby team?,'' a European reporter asked.

"Skinny white guys doing the haka? That would be very intimidating,'' Nelsen (NZ skipper) said.

just dont look right

Trying to divert right?

If you were aware of atrocities would you report it?

If you tried to report it to your superiors and was told to not think about would you try to report it somewhere else?

Do you feel good when the the order is to shoot 360 degrees anything after an IED explosion?

Do you ever ask yourself why you are ordered to do this?

Do you ever ask yourself why these people object to your illegal occupation?

Why are you chasing the Taliban when the objective was to find BL?

Oh it is the minerals and other resources right.

Please tell them that they are fighting to secure these resources.

I guess if it is a good war like WW II everything is pretty much OK. Or maybe it is a good war because everyone on this forum was on the winning side. I think. Since the winners write the history it is hard to debate the results.

I think the Boer war was a pretty bad war. I think lots of wars were pretty bad wars.

I think what the Brits did in Palestine and India left something to be desired.

Why is the US in Afghanistan? If the Brits had done a better job there would we even be there? Or the Russians?

Bush looked like a pretty bad President until the Financial crash and oil spill. Now he doesn’t look near as bad as he did a couple of years ago.

AlexLah I could be wrong but I would bet you never fought in a war. That does not mean you should not have an opinion about it but I just bet you never fought in a war.

I was in a war. I didn’t see any atrocities. So I don’t know what I would have done if I saw any. I got drafted and my choices were Vietnam or Federal Penitentiary. I must say, seeing that I was not killed or maimed I liked Vietnam. I liked the women, beer and other things. Only a very few soldiers who serve get to see any atrocities. Very few actually see any combat. The ones who do see a lot of it because of the modern miracles like helicopters.

I gotta tell you if someone tried to blow my balls up I would be angry. You see I never worried about being killed. I worried about having my private parts blown up. I sat on my flak vest instead of wearing it.

If you tried to blow up my private parts I would get shooting angry. I would shoot anything that moved anywhere around. I would shoot mice and birds.

War is about overkill. You not only have to kill more people than your enemy you have to terrify him.

The Japanese chopped of heads. They chopped off Aussie and Brit and American heads. They chopped off a lot of heads in China too. The Chinese are still upset about it. But over kill was the first atomic bomb. It killed every man woman and child in a very large area. You couldn’t help but get the Japanese’s attention with that. The second atomic bomb was really over kill. The first one would have done the job just fine but the men making the decisions understood war. It is not about just winning it is about terrifying your opponent. Make him not want to fight even a little bit.

The Taliban are not even a little bit afraid of the Americans and Brits that are over there fighting.

The make videos and prance around talking about all the murder and mayhem they will cause tomorrow.

That is not being afraid. The people running the war are stupid. In for a penny in for a pound. Either fight or go home.

I think we should go home. I think the Brits should go home. We have both lost the stomach to fight a war. We aren’t going to win. We are just going take a lot more causalities.

So in a way I agree with you. In a way I don’t. I think the whole exercise is dumb because we no longer know how to fight a war.

When we get threatened again and some guy smuggles an suitcase nuke into London or New York and kills tens or thousands of people we will have the will to win a war. Until then we might as well all grab a beer and broad and head to Soi Six.

Trying to divert right?

If you were aware of atrocities would you report it?

If you tried to report it to your superiors and was told to not think about would you try to report it somewhere else?

Do you feel good when the the order is to shoot 360 degrees anything after an IED explosion?

Do you ever ask yourself why you are ordered to do this?

Do you ever ask yourself why these people object to your illegal occupation?

Why are you chasing the Taliban when the objective was to find BL?

Oh it is the minerals and other resources right.

Please tell them that they are fighting to secure these resources.

Do you feel it's fair you have to leave Santa Claus milk & cookies?

Do you ever wonder what the tooth fairy does with all those teeth?

Have you ever asked yourself what eggs have to do with Easter?

The Japanese chopped of heads. They chopped off Aussie and Brit and American heads.

During the singapore campaign, I believe this was more to do with terrifying the enemy, they were outnumbered, short of fuel and had to have a quick victory, it worked.

It killed every man woman and child in a very large area. You couldn’t help but get the Japanese’s attention with that. The second atomic bomb was really over kill. The first one would have done the job just fine but the men making the decisions understood war. It is not about just winning it is about terrifying your opponent. Make him not want to fight even a little bit.

Ah, this has been discussed before and I am still in two minds, I think the U.S had a very difficult decision to make, it was estimated that they would take approx a million casualties in doing a landing on the Japanese Main Land, or do they drop the bomb, there was no surrender, so they dropped the second.

I am just glad I didn't have to make the decision

I am just glad I didn't have to make the decision

Word

Word

Word

Word = 1) well said 2)said in a agreement

Slang In the USA...not sure what country your from kor tort

As long as the teenagers who where seduced or economically forced to join the army and subsequently brainwashed follow the rules of engagement ..

Just think. These brave kids are protecting the likes of you. 

because without this protection the Taliban and al-Qaeda would have invaded Bangkok and killed Alex?

next ridiculous statement please!

1) Al-Qaeda tend to commit acts of terrorism, rather than "invade" their enemies.

2) Thailand is a close ally of the USA.

3) Thaland has a big problem with the Muslims in the south of the country.

4) There is more than one way to protect somebody.

Next ridiculous statement please!

As long as the teenagers who where seduced or economically forced to join the army and subsequently brainwashed follow the rules of engagement ..

Just think. These brave kids are protecting the likes of you.

because without this protection the Taliban and al-Qaeda would have invaded Bangkok and killed Alex?

next ridiculous statement please!

Yeah...real brave to sit in a helicopter a km away and blast a neighbourhood full of unarmed civilians.

As long as the teenagers who where seduced or economically forced to join the army and subsequently brainwashed follow the rules of engagement ..

Just think. These brave kids are protecting the likes of you.

because without this protection the Taliban and al-Qaeda would have invaded Bangkok and killed Alex?

next ridiculous statement please!

Yeah...real brave to sit in a helicopter a km away and blast a neighbourhood full of unarmed civilians.

Right on cue.

Of course.

Is there any denying that that sort of "bravery" occurs?

Impossible to deny with honesty.

If only you right-wingers would stop denying and/or defending the atrocities, and furthermore take one step more and decry them, then maybe the expected responses would diminish because I wouldn't have to point them out all the time.

I'm quite happy to come in on cue while you guys think it's all defensible.

Why is it that you guys dislike any mention of real US or Israeli bullying and murder and other atrocious acts? They are real occurences after all. Why appear to defend the atrocities by trying to put down anyone that mentions them?

Because you never mention anything about all the other countries and terrorists who are bullying and committing murder and other atrocious acts, so it becomes very obvious that you could care less about such things. You just want to an excuse to hate countries that are fashionable targets for the left.

What's the latest with our intrepid investigative reporter, Julian Assange, that is fighting for freedom of the press?

The last rumor I heard he is hiding under Birgitta Jonsdottir's bed in Iceland.

Mr. Harcourt:

Considering how much you have assailed the Israeli and US soldiers in your recent posts, do you feel your signature is entirely appropriate?

Your signature is...

"In war, it is not who is right that wins, it is who is left."

Your signature is exactly what I think as well, so good on you.

Of course.

Is there any denying that that sort of "bravery" occurs?

Impossible to deny with honesty.

If only you right-wingers would stop denying and/or defending the atrocities, and furthermore take one step more and decry them, then maybe the expected responses would diminish because I wouldn't have to point them out all the time.

I'm quite happy to come in on cue while you guys think it's all defensible.

Those helicopters are dam_n dangerous. They're always either getting shot down or suffer mechanical failure due to the conditions over there. I think I'd rather take my chances on the ground.

Why is it that you guys dislike any mention of real US or Israeli bullying and murder and other atrocious acts? They are real occurences after all. Why appear to defend the atrocities by trying to put down anyone that mentions them?

The instances where US soldiers are intentionally committing murder or other atrocious acts are not condoned by the US military, government or people. In most cases - if not all - they are brought to light by the US military themselves and the guilty are locked up. People like you take an accident and make it out to be intentional and a crime which it isn't.

You must have been pissing yourself at the thought of accepting that job in Afghanistan and relying on those you hold in contempt for your survival and the fact that the ones you champion would likely saw off your head if they ever captured you.

Of course.

Is there any denying that that sort of "bravery" occurs?

Impossible to deny with honesty.

If only you right-wingers would stop denying and/or defending the atrocities, and furthermore take one step more and decry them, then maybe the expected responses would diminish because I wouldn't have to point them out all the time.

I'm quite happy to come in on cue while you guys think it's all defensible.

Those helicopters are dam_n dangerous. They're always either getting shot down or suffer mechanical failure due to the conditions over there. I think I'd rather take my chances on the ground.

They are also several thousand kilometers closer to the bad guys than is New Zealand.

1. Helicopters are very dangerous. That is from personal experience. Guys who fly them in combat are beyond my understanding.

2. I think you guys are missing the war experience part.

3. If a country drops a bomb or lots of bombs on another country a lot of people, men women and children get killed and no one cries war criminal if the side dropping the bomb wins.

4. Eisenhower when President of the US wanted to nuke North Vietnam and Churchill talked him out of it. If Ike had done that the US would have won the Vietnam war very quickly and probably a lot less Vietnam and Americans would have been killed and the transition of Vietnam from a communist country to a MacDonald’s friendly country would have taken a lot less time. How many people did Churchill kill by talking Ike out of nuking North Vietnam?

How many people did Gandhi kill by letting India be partitioned into India and Pakistan? How many people did Gandhi kill by insisting on independence from Britain? Whose idea was it to partition Africa along geographical instead of tribal boundaries? It may have been Churchill and how many millions of people has that killed? Did you know Lincoln freed the slaves to keep Britain out of the American Civil war?

So what on earth is the point of railing against terrorists who bomb innocent people and soldiers who kill innocent people? If it is a war innocent people get killed. What is the difference who or what does the killing. War is a nasty business and takes place when diplomacy fails.

Why are you never critical or ask these questions about terrorists or rogue nations? Your questions seem like phony sympathy dredged up for propaganda purposes. I'm sure that you do not want to come across as a partisan hypocrite.   

UG thanks for your reply, I hope you can free some time to answer a few questions. I have to make sure I am not misinterpreting your or any others comments.

1. Could you please define the meaning of terrorism/terrorist?

2. After your research, finding out the definition of the above, could we then compare notes to agree on who is committing acts of terror?

3. Do you agree that act's of terror should be reported to the public in order to form a balanced view of events?

4. Do you believe that a soldier has the right to object against an unlawful order?

5. Do you believe that when a soldier or ex soldier exposes war crimes through whatever media is doing the wrong thing after having tried to unsuccessfully report it to his superiors?

The question really is if a site like Wikileaks should exist or not according to your (or everyone else here) point of view.

Mark thanks for your contributions to this thread. However, your question to me if I have ever been engaged in some kind of war is irrelevant to this thread.

Mind you , I have been involved in many things, just cannot discuss them here.

Take care all, and let's have a good discussion here.

1. Helicopters are very dangerous. That is from personal experience. Guys who fly them in combat are beyond my understanding.

2. I think you guys are missing the war experience part.

3. If a country drops a bomb or lots of bombs on another country a lot of people, men women and children get killed and no one cries war criminal if the side dropping the bomb wins.

4. Eisenhower when President of the US wanted to nuke North Vietnam and Churchill talked him out of it. If Ike had done that the US would have won the Vietnam war very quickly and probably a lot less Vietnam and Americans would have been killed and the transition of Vietnam from a communist country to a MacDonald's friendly country would have taken a lot less time. How many people did Churchill kill by talking Ike out of nuking North Vietnam?

How many people did Gandhi kill by letting India be partitioned into India and Pakistan? How many people did Gandhi kill by insisting on independence from Britain? Whose idea was it to partition Africa along geographical instead of tribal boundaries? It may have been Churchill and how many millions of people has that killed? Did you know Lincoln freed the slaves to keep Britain out of the American Civil war?

So what on earth is the point of railing against terrorists who bomb innocent people and soldiers who kill innocent people? If it is a war innocent people get killed. What is the difference who or what does the killing. War is a nasty business and takes place when diplomacy fails.

Contrary to much popular opinion Churchill was not a war monger as he had been on the frontline many times and had seen the misery of battle first hand. He begged Roosevelt to let the Germans surrender, but good old Franklin wanted them to suffer, thus many thousands of allied lives were thrown away needlessly, as they battled through and destroyed great swathes of Western Europe ( Oh how the Russians rejoiced ). Not much black and white in history, just plenty of shades of grey.

Why are you never critical or ask these questions about terrorists or rogue nations? Your questions seem like phony sympathy dredged up for propaganda purposes. I'm sure that you do not want to come across as a partisan hypocrite.

UG thanks for your reply, I hope you can free some time to answer a few questions. I have to make sure I am not misinterpreting your or any others comments.

1. Could you please define the meaning of terrorism/terrorist?

2. After your research, finding out the definition of the above, could we then compare notes to agree on who is committing acts of terror?

3. Do you agree that act's of terror should be reported to the public in order to form a balanced view of events?

4. Do you believe that a soldier has the right to object against an unlawful order?

5. Do you believe that when a soldier or ex soldier exposes war crimes through whatever media is doing the wrong thing after having tried to unsuccessfully report it to his superiors?

The question really is if a site like Wikileaks should exist or not according to your (or everyone else here) point of view.

Mark thanks for your contributions to this thread. However, your question to me if I have ever been engaged in some kind of war is irrelevant to this thread.

Mind you , I have been involved in many things, just cannot discuss them here.

Take care all, and let's have a good discussion here.

Not directed to me but I will answer without googling an officially approved definition...

Terrorism is purposely targeting the innocent civilian population in order to strike enough fear in the population to force their gov't to change its policies. Blowing up buses full of women and children doing their daily business in order to force the Israeli gov't to leave the occupied territories. That is terrorism. Blowing up planes full of innocent travellers in order to get the US out of the holy lands of Medina and Mecca is terrorism. These acts make the people afraid to ride buses or fly. Their goal is to frighten a population to the point where they force the gov't to change. Americans, Brits, Israelis, Russians to name a few don't play that game. The Spanish showed in Madrid in March 2004 that they obviously do.

When the US military accidentally kills civilians the people aren't terrified. They make banners, march, protest and burn American flags and effigies of the current US President. NOT a sign of being terrorized. Funny that you never see them protest when insurgents/terrorists intentionally blow people up or bomb a mosque. Why not? Because they are scared sh*tless to do it. They are terrorized. When US troops roll through the village or town, children run out to get candy or other toys. I wonder how often they run out to greet the Taliban or various insurgents in Iraq? What child wouldn't want acid thown in their face for attending school like the Taliban have been known to do?

To answer #4, a soldier is not required to follow an unlawful order that I know of. However, you have your own ideas of what an unlawful order is. You think the ooccupation is illegal (and it isn't despite what the Dutch Judge Judy might say).

1. Helicopters are very dangerous. That is from personal experience. Guys who fly them in combat are beyond my understanding.

2. I think you guys are missing the war experience part.

3. If a country drops a bomb or lots of bombs on another country a lot of people, men women and children get killed and no one cries war criminal if the side dropping the bomb wins.

4. Eisenhower when President of the US wanted to nuke North Vietnam and Churchill talked him out of it. If Ike had done that the US would have won the Vietnam war very quickly and probably a lot less Vietnam and Americans would have been killed and the transition of Vietnam from a communist country to a MacDonald's friendly country would have taken a lot less time. How many people did Churchill kill by talking Ike out of nuking North Vietnam?

How many people did Gandhi kill by letting India be partitioned into India and Pakistan? How many people did Gandhi kill by insisting on independence from Britain? Whose idea was it to partition Africa along geographical instead of tribal boundaries? It may have been Churchill and how many millions of people has that killed? Did you know Lincoln freed the slaves to keep Britain out of the American Civil war?

So what on earth is the point of railing against terrorists who bomb innocent people and soldiers who kill innocent people? If it is a war innocent people get killed. What is the difference who or what does the killing. War is a nasty business and takes place when diplomacy fails.

Contrary to much popular opinion Churchill was not a war monger as he had been on the frontline many times and had seen the misery of battle first hand. He begged Roosevelt to let the Germans surrender, but good old Franklin wanted them to suffer, thus many thousands of allied lives were thrown away needlessly, as they battled through and destroyed great swathes of Western Europe ( Oh how the Russians rejoiced ). Not much black and white in history, just plenty of shades of grey.

How did Churchill feel about the fire bombing of Dresden towards the end of the war?

Bombing of Dresden in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was ultimately responsible for the bombing even though he later tried to distance himself from it"

You should read the link. It shows that while the US and RAF bombed Dresden, the US bombed the Marshalling Yards and Industrial Area while the RAF bombed the City Area. I never knew that.

1. Helicopters are very dangerous. That is from personal experience. Guys who fly them in combat are beyond my understanding.

2. I think you guys are missing the war experience part.

3. If a country drops a bomb or lots of bombs on another country a lot of people, men women and children get killed and no one cries war criminal if the side dropping the bomb wins.

4. Eisenhower when President of the US wanted to nuke North Vietnam and Churchill talked him out of it. If Ike had done that the US would have won the Vietnam war very quickly and probably a lot less Vietnam and Americans would have been killed and the transition of Vietnam from a communist country to a MacDonald's friendly country would have taken a lot less time. How many people did Churchill kill by talking Ike out of nuking North Vietnam?

How many people did Gandhi kill by letting India be partitioned into India and Pakistan? How many people did Gandhi kill by insisting on independence from Britain? Whose idea was it to partition Africa along geographical instead of tribal boundaries? It may have been Churchill and how many millions of people has that killed? Did you know Lincoln freed the slaves to keep Britain out of the American Civil war?

So what on earth is the point of railing against terrorists who bomb innocent people and soldiers who kill innocent people? If it is a war innocent people get killed. What is the difference who or what does the killing. War is a nasty business and takes place when diplomacy fails.

Contrary to much popular opinion Churchill was not a war monger as he had been on the frontline many times and had seen the misery of battle first hand. He begged Roosevelt to let the Germans surrender, but good old Franklin wanted them to suffer, thus many thousands of allied lives were thrown away needlessly, as they battled through and destroyed great swathes of Western Europe ( Oh how the Russians rejoiced ). Not much black and white in history, just plenty of shades of grey.

How did Churchill feel about the fire bombing of Dresden towards the end of the war?

Bombing of Dresden in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was ultimately responsible for the bombing even though he later tried to distance himself from it"

You should read the link. It shows that while the US and RAF bombed Dresden, the US bombed the Marshalling Yards and Industrial Area while the RAF bombed the City Area. I never knew that.

I would imagine just the same way he felt about the Blitz and the " V " Rocket attacks on the UK. Not in the context of an eye for an eye, but in the " OK let's see if we can break the civilian spirit and push the Prussian elite into overthrowing Hitler ", sort of way. He was not a war monger but when in one, he wanted to win by any means. His callousness demonstrated by the German bombing of Coventry. Modern historians are pretty sure he new it was coming, but in order to maintain the intelligence edge, watched whilst his own people burned.

Strangely enough I come from Tunbridge Wells in the UK, which is where Dowding lived...

- the govt had the emergency bunkers there in a nearby forest....

not only that... but our largest hotel - The Spa was and is still owned by the Goring family ( they have also had a hotel next to buckingham palace for hundreds of years). This family were originally called "Goering' .. and yes, they are cousins... it's part of the theory why my UK hometown didnt get blasted to bits...I think the RAF also had agreements not to bomb some places in German for family reasons...

Not directed to me but I will answer without googling an officially approved definition...

Terrorism is purposely targeting the innocent civilian population

Blowing up buses full of women and children doing their daily business

When the US military accidentally kills civilians the people aren't terrified. They make banners, march, protest and burn American flags and effigies of the current US President. NOT a sign of being terrorized.

Maybe a google would have been a better idea???

Basically you said....

1) Terror is what folks targeted feel.....I agree 100%

Because purpose is identical...dead is dead

But your 2nd example....

Do you really feel as you said? You really feel that the US accidentally kills & those folks are not terrified? Those instead rise from the grave & make banners etc as you wrote?

No more likely you are saying the folks who did not get terrorized/killed complain....

In which case that does seem like a normal thing to do eh? Would you not complain if your daughter was killed?

If it were me I would do a he11 of a lot more than make banners, march, protest etc...