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.

I think you are refering to the breaking of the Enigma Code: Intel from that code suggested that the Germans were going to bomb Coventry, now his dilemma, does he evacuate Coventry and alert the German military that the code had been broken, or let it be destroyed.

A case of the bigger picture being employed, however I believe it to be a myth, unless someone can show me a worthwhile link.

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. .

Nagasaki and Hiroshima, "Shock and Awe". Tell me those were US accidents.

As for victims of the US not being terrified.... I give you enough credit to suspect that you might regret having written that but missed out on your window of opportunity to edit your post, so I will refrain from any comment for now.

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...

I stand by what I wrote. You just didn't comprehend it.

And your mindset of going more than protest what got us into Afghanistan in the first place so quit complaining about it.

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. .

Nagasaki and Hiroshima, "Shock and Awe". Tell me those were US accidents.

As for victims of the US not being terrified.... I give you enough credit to suspect that you might regret having written that but missed out on your window of opportunity to edit your post, so I will refrain from any comment for now.

I don't regret it one iota nor should I. Hiroshima & Nagasaki were about ending the war. The point of fighting and killing all those millions was to make the other gov't change and surrender.

I doubt you and flying can understand this that's why you're so wrong on this whole subject in the first place.

And your mindset of going more than protest what got us into Afghanistan in the first place so quit complaining about it.

:lol: I dont have your secret decoder ring so...

Now lemme get this straight....You put the lime in the coconut & then you feel better?

Nagasaki and Hiroshima, "Shock and Awe". Tell me those were US accidents.

Have you ever red about what the Japanese did to Allied prisoners or civilians in the Nanking massacre? That seems fine with you.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima ended Japanese butchery and ended the war.

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. .

Nagasaki and Hiroshima, "Shock and Awe". Tell me those were US accidents.

As for victims of the US not being terrified.... I give you enough credit to suspect that you might regret having written that but missed out on your window of opportunity to edit your post, so I will refrain from any comment for now.

I don't regret it one iota nor should I. Hiroshima & Nagasaki were about ending the war. The point of fighting and killing all those millions was to make the other gov't change and surrender.

I doubt you and flying can understand this that's why you're so wrong on this whole subject in the first place.

It seems your comprehension is the one that is falling short. Above, 2 paragraphs, one referring to accidents and Nagaski, and one referring to your statement that victims of the US are not terrified. You responed to the 2nd paragraph as if it was the first.

Since you don't regret saying "....When the US military accidentally kills civilians the people aren't terrified..." I will have to pull you up on it.

Either Afghani civilians are braver than American civilians in that they don't get terrified at the thought of more American atrocities while Americans are apparently quaking in their boots at the thought of Al Qaeda, or you have convinced yourself that somehow when Americans kill civilians that the survivors don't feel any terror!

Either proposition is ridiculous.

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.

I think you are refering to the breaking of the Enigma Code: Intel from that code suggested that the Germans were going to bomb Coventry, now his dilemma, does he evacuate Coventry and alert the German military that the code had been broken, or let it be destroyed.

A case of the bigger picture being employed, however I believe it to be a myth, unless someone can show me a worthwhile link.

Not sure you will ever get the 100% reliable " Link " on something so emotive.

In late seventies/ early eighties, I used to sit in little holes in the ground in Germany waiting for the Jolly Russians to come. We now know their policy was to hit the nuke button first and roll in after the dust had settled. At the time we geared up for a conventional battle that would not end in big bangs until a mythical line in ( yet again ) the Low countries was breached with us not them, throwing the first salvo. How mis-guided we were.

However, one thing we were taught to believe in at the time, was that our NBC ( Nuclear Biological and Chemical) suits, made from smelly charcoal infested green card board like material, would save us from the evil empire's bio/chemical attacks. It was not until some years later working in a different field, that I was told, that even as I used to sit like a tit wearing one, , our ( that's us and you fine US of A types at the top) governments, were fully aware that the agents that would have been deployed by the other side, would have penetrated our suits like a knife through butter and we all would have died in horrible ways.

Now that Moss is true. Not tried it, but I don't think you'll find a link that supports my version yet. Just too emotive, too early for the unpalatable truth. Still some people left around politics that told that lie with a smile on their face, knowing that the boys deployed on the frontline, were in effect defenceless. The lie necessary to protect a mole in the Soviet system, so important that his identity needed to be protected, even at a tragic ( potential ) cost.

Difficult decisions and links that prove them, are not always easy to find. Bloody Sunday case in point.

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. .

Nagasaki and Hiroshima, "Shock and Awe". Tell me those were US accidents.

As for victims of the US not being terrified.... I give you enough credit to suspect that you might regret having written that but missed out on your window of opportunity to edit your post, so I will refrain from any comment for now.

I don't regret it one iota nor should I. Hiroshima & Nagasaki were about ending the war. The point of fighting and killing all those millions was to make the other gov't change and surrender.

I doubt you and flying can understand this that's why you're so wrong on this whole subject in the first place.

It seems your comprehension is the one that is falling short. Above, 2 paragraphs, one referring to accidents and Nagaski, and one referring to your statement that victims of the US are not terrified. You responed to the 2nd paragraph as if it was the first.

Since you don't regret saying "....When the US military accidentally kills civilians the people aren't terrified..." I will have to pull you up on it.

Either Afghani civilians are braver than American civilians in that they don't get terrified at the thought of more American atrocities while Americans are apparently quaking in their boots at the thought of Al Qaeda, or you have convinced yourself that somehow when Americans kill civilians that the survivors don't feel any terror!

Either proposition is ridiculous.

You are confusing terror of the moment and lasting terror. Of course at the moment the missile hits nearby anyone is terrified. But there is no long term "terror". Afghan civilians know that the US & coalition forces are not intentionally targeting them (every single one of them would be dead by now if they were). They see these troops all the time and don't cowher in fear the same way they do when a Toyota of Taliban goes by.

Coventry Bombing

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.

I think you are refering to the breaking of the Enigma Code: Intel from that code suggested that the Germans were going to bomb Coventry, now his dilemma, does he evacuate Coventry and alert the German military that the code had been broken, or let it be destroyed.

A case of the bigger picture being employed, however I believe it to be a myth, unless someone can show me a worthwhile link.

Not sure you will ever get the 100% reliable " Link " on something so emotive.

In late seventies/ early eighties, I used to sit in little holes in the ground in Germany waiting for the Jolly Russians to come. We now know their policy was to hit the nuke button first and roll in after the dust had settled. At the time we geared up for a conventional battle that would not end in big bangs until a mythical line in ( yet again ) the Low countries was breached with us not them, throwing the first salvo. How mis-guided we were.

However, one thing we were taught to believe in at the time, was that our NBC ( Nuclear Biological and Chemical) suits, made from smelly charcoal infested green card board like material, would save us from the evil empire's bio/chemical attacks. It was not until some years later working in a different field, that I was told, that even as I used to sit like a tit wearing one, , our ( that's us and you fine US of A types at the top) governments, were fully aware that the agents that would have been deployed by the other side, would have penetrated our suits like a knife through butter and we all would have died in horrible ways.

Now that Moss is true. Not tried it, but I don't think you'll find a link that supports my version yet. Just too emotive, too early for the unpalatable truth. Still some people left around politics that told that lie with a smile on their face, knowing that the boys deployed on the frontline, were in effect defenceless. The lie necessary to protect a mole in the Soviet system, so important that his identity needed to be protected, even at a tragic ( potential ) cost.

Difficult decisions and links that prove them, are not always easy to find. Bloody Sunday case in point.

On a related note, some theories have FDR being informed by the Brits that the Japanese were planning to attack Pearl Harbour and let it happen to pull America into the war because Republicans at the time were for staying out of WWII (my, how times have changed!) . We may never know the truth but was it just a coincidence that the Japanese "surprise" attack happened on a day when ALL of our air craft carriers were out at sea?

Coventry Bombing

1) You won't find leaders nowadays willing to put themselves in harms way like that.

2) Churchill sent his secretaries to the shelter and his typists to their home. Presumably, to save the former and let the later go die with their families?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2-qzn1WmKE

Julian Assange, who the Feds fear may release State Dept. secrets, 

It really would be unfortunate if Addange and Manning (and Daniel Ellsburg) all met with unfortunate accidents.

That would probably make the "left" happier than the actual release of the secrets.

That would probably make the "left" happier than the actual release of the secrets.

Be careful, you might make our resident conspiracy theorists' heads explode.

Aren't you the one who just suggested FDR turned a blind eye to the Pearl Harbour attack?

Aren't you the one who just suggested FDR turned a blind eye to the Pearl Harbour attack?

That's not on par with the WTC being brought down by an underground nuclear bomb. And I don't post it as fact on forums across the planet, I just mentioned it off-hand to make the other guys not feel so bad about Churchill.

My dear chap, cometh the hour cometh the man. The world needed Winston ( soon got rid of him when they thought they didn't need him any more ) and all should be grateful.

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...

Please show the link where you got your definition from.

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).

Nevermind Kohee we are here to exchange information and hopefully can find out the truth.

You say that I think that the occupation is illegal, I can show you that it actually is illegal.

Do you know that the US is actually supporting the guy that likes to throw acid in the faces of unveiled women as claimed by the MSM?

If I show you that these occupations are illegal are you willing to change your point of view?

The question remains, do you agree or not that a site should exist where people can upload corporate and government "secrets"

The question remains, do you agree or not that a site should exist where people can upload corporate and government "secrets"

I would prefer ATMs that give me free money. 

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

Please show the link where you got your definition from.

Nevermind Kohee we are here to exchange information and hopefully can find out the truth.

You say that I think that the occupation is illegal, I can show you that it actually is illegal.

Do you know that the US is actually supporting the guy that likes to throw acid in the faces of unveiled women as claimed by the MSM?

If I show you that these occupations are illegal are you willing to change your point of view?

The question remains, do you agree or not that a site should exist where people can upload corporate and government "secrets"

Not all of us need to read something on the first Internet to know it. The Internet has become the calculator of the 21st century. Whereas the calculator made people forget how to do math(s) in their head, the Internet makes (some) people unable to think for themselves. Whatever you write, if you didn't get it from somewhere on the Internet, it isn't vaid!

Back to the legality of the occupation...

I believe (you can google it, I'm not) that the law is - and I'm paraphrasing - since the US was the main force behind the invasion of Iraq, they are responsible for fixing it. In other words, the US can't just blow the place up then leave ("you break it, you own it"). Some humanitarian came up with that one, I'm sure.

Alex, sure, show me what you call proof. If it is the judgement of some court in Holland, save your keystrokes.

There is a level of responsibility if someone wants to leak secrets. Not just of corporations, governments and the military, but of people also. For example, if I know you cheated on your wife once, am I obligated to tell her as her friend even though I know it's highly likely that it may split up your family and leave you seeing your kids just one weekend a month? Would you salute me as a hero of the truth, or hate my guts? If the military secret you release will cause even more people to needlessly die, are you willing to take that chance simply because you think making that military look bad is far more important than the lives of nameless little brown people in a 3rd world country? Have you ever thought that this makes you the evil SOB in this equation and NOT the hero you like to think of yourself as? With "you" being the leaker, not you personally, Alex.

the lives of nameless little brown people in a 3rd world country

This tell it all.

the lives of nameless little brown people in a 3rd world country

This tell it all.

I know. It's despicable that the people you idolize think of them like that if they think of them at all.

Back to the legality of the occupation...

since the US was the main force behind the invasion of Iraq, they are responsible for fixing it. In other words, the US can't just blow the place up then leave ("you break it, you own it").

Actually they may repair the craters made by bombs or re-build the mud huts they collapsed etc but they cannot fix it nor restore all that is lost.

There is a level of responsibility if someone wants to leak secrets. Not just of corporations, governments and the military,

I found interesting the you tube I just posted above regarding the laws of what is considered a secret...& what is considered a type of administration buried info. Seems this will not be considered a secret if it follows in the same way & if the laws are unchanged.

This is exactly what it appears to be ...a negligent homicide that is being buried to escape prosecution.As such it is not a secret being leaked.

..........There is a level of responsibility if someone wants to leak secrets. Not just of corporations, governments and the military, but of people also. For example, if I know you cheated on your wife once, am I obligated to tell her as her friend even though I know it's highly likely that it may split up your family and leave you seeing your kids just one weekend a month? Would you salute me as a hero of the truth, or hate my guts? If the military secret you release will cause even more people to needlessly die, are you willing to take that chance simply because you think making that military look bad is far more important than the lives of nameless little brown people in a 3rd world country? Have you ever thought that this makes you the evil SOB in this equation and NOT the hero you like to think of yourself as? With "you" being the leaker, not you personally, Alex.

Cheating on the wife is not a fair analogy.

If the military secret leaked will cause more US soldiers to die, but save untold "little brown people in 3rd world countries", then it should be leaked.

Without approaching the aspect that you have raised (implicitly, that 3rd world brown people have a lesser value)....without approaching that obscenity..... the secret should be leaked because the US soldiers shouldn't be doing what they are doing in the first place!

..........There is a level of responsibility if someone wants to leak secrets. Not just of corporations, governments and the military, but of people also. For example, if I know you cheated on your wife once, am I obligated to tell her as her friend even though I know it's highly likely that it may split up your family and leave you seeing your kids just one weekend a month? Would you salute me as a hero of the truth, or hate my guts? If the military secret you release will cause even more people to needlessly die, are you willing to take that chance simply because you think making that military look bad is far more important than the lives of nameless little brown people in a 3rd world country? Have you ever thought that this makes you the evil SOB in this equation and NOT the hero you like to think of yourself as? With "you" being the leaker, not you personally, Alex.

Cheating on the wife is not a fair analogy.

If the military secret leaked will cause more US soldiers to die, but save untold "little brown people in 3rd world countries", then it should be leaked.

Without approaching the aspect that you have raised (implicitly, that 3rd world brown people have a lesser value)....without approaching that obscenity..... the secret should be leaked because the US soldiers shouldn't be doing what they are doing in the first place!

What's wrong with the cheating anaolgy? It's something that happened in the past (not on-going) and the "owner of the horse" has a right to know.

The little brown people part is obscene but that's how these people think of them. The people are just little expendable pawns in their game to make the US look as bad as possible. They never cared about them when the Taliban or Saddam were torturing them. I remember leading up to the war in Iraw in 2003 during an anti-war protest in London an Iraqi woman who was trying to protest against the crimes of Saddam was chased away from the protest by the lefty "peaceniks". Their hypocrisy is unmatched in this world.

As for your bit about US soldiers or civilians, what exactly are you referring to when you write "US soldiers shouldn't be doing what they are doing in the first place!"? That they should die because they shouldn't be in Afghanistan in the first place? Anyway, I would side with protecting the civilians first since they are more vulnerable. Soldiers are trained to protect themselves.

Alex, I guess your "proof" was that ruling by that court in Holland. Interesting to hear that they find at least something illegal over there.

Now that Moss is true. Not tried it, but I don't think you'll find a link that supports my version yet. Just too emotive, too early for the unpalatable truth. Still some people left around politics that told that lie with a smile on their face, knowing that the boys deployed on the frontline, were in effect defenceless. The lie necessary to protect a mole in the Soviet system, so important that his identity needed to be protected, even at a tragic ( potential ) cost.

Difficult decisions and links that prove them, are not always easy to find. Bloody Sunday case in point.

I am sure it is true suiging and as for Coventry, perhaps the myths are as maybe, who knows, we are not told what we should.

Now, Bloody Sunday is a different matter.

We may never know the truth but was it just a coincidence that the Japanese "surprise" attack happened on a day when ALL of our air craft carriers were out at sea?

I don't believe it to be coincidence, but some very clever navy types who ensured they were not bottled up when tensions are high.

Or it could be conspiracy, I like to think it was some clever types

Quote Koheesti: Alex, I guess your "proof" was that ruling by that court in Holland. Interesting to hear that they find at least something illegal over there.

The ruling was based on international law but I guess you will never agree even when presented the evidence.

You and your comrades most likely still believe that the leader of Iran called to wipe off Israel from the map although I presented evidence he did not.

Wikileaks is providing us with some insight how these fuc_kheads try to manipulate the view of the general population.

I said before and I say again, watch this docu to understand how most people have been fooled: The Century Of Self Part 1 (of 4) Happiness Machines