Why when the West attacks terrorists...

[Solly]

"that avatar is a ****ing disgrace."

I agree. Still, it's not like we can change the election result now.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ming
Let's stick to the topic... and NOT talk about the posters...

Last warning....

[Solly]

Thanks Ming It's people like Chegitz and Arrian who spoil otherwise good discussions. Let's ignore them in this thread and carry on as normal.

"You might want to study history more. Starting with the birth of the USA - and do remember, one man's freedom fighter is another man's rebel/terrorist/insurgent."

That's bollocks..it's quite obvious who is fighting for freedom and who is just out to maim and kill as many as possible.

[GePap]

Re: Why when the West attacks terrorists...

Originally posted by Park Avenue

You never hear criticism (from BBC etc) of terrorists attacks from groups like the Palestinians saying "well, this is sure to continue the cycle of violence and demand a response from the Israeli army"?

Well then, you have a tin ear, becuase I hear this every time after a militant attack in Israel.

It seems quite a few in the West haven't learnt anything from tales of appeasement - we have to fight back, and not give in to what they want. Evidence on Poly of this too, and in Spain. Damn fools.

Well, bods, then why don;t you enlist and asked to be sent to Afghanistan instead of appeasing terrorists by simply posting online? Please, do stop appeasing and get your butt to the mounatins of Afghanistan!

[Patroklos]

That is an odd critisism coming from GePap. Why not let the actually military people level that critisism please.

I was not really expecting the Pakistanis to actually capture anyone. Their military is just too slow and unweildy to catch up wth a group living in those moutains, knowing everywhere to hide and evade.

What I had hoped would happen was in their efforts to evade the Pakistanis the terrorists would have tried to jump ship into Afghanistan and run head long into Task Force 21.

In any case a major camp was found and dispersed, a few dozen fighters catured or killed, and Pakistan was taking decisive action. It is a poor place and the number of forces deployed by them and scope of the operation had a heafty price tag on it. I wouldn't count Pakistan and its army as "dummy allies." Pakistan is a country that prides themselves as a modern muslim power. Their ideology is quite different from their Western neighboors. Sure they have their mountian provinces full of Taliban types. But the majority of their population is in the Indus lowlands and have NO similarities to their mountaineous counterparts.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Re: Why when the West attacks terrorists...

Originally posted by Park Avenue
...all we hear (well, in UK) is "well, the terrorists won't be happy with this and surely we will now see a continuing of the cycle of violence".

When did we start caring what terrorists want?

You never hear criticism (from BBC etc) of terrorists attacks from groups like the Palestinians saying "well, this is sure to continue the cycle of violence and demand a response from the Israeli army"?

It seems quite a few in the West haven't learnt anything from tales of appeasement - we have to fight back, and not give in to what they want. Evidence on Poly of this too, and in Spain. Damn fools.

What about the Northern Ireland peace accord?

[Kuciwalker]

End is Forever: I can't stop laughing, that's f*cking brilliant. I particularly like:

Dec 26, 1944: Patton relieves Bastogne. (World outraged! Patton is a "hawk". The fact that the Americans put a man like that in charge of their military shows "they're not serious about peace.")

and

April 30, 1945: Adolf Hitler commits suicide. (World now very upset! Fears someone "worse than Hitler" may now take his place!)

[JCG]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever* Jan 6, 1944: Soviet troops advance into Poland. (World condemns Soviet aggression! Demands Soviets stop their "brutal oppression.")

Admittedly taking this just a little bit out of *this* context (ie: the rest of the message and the specific point behind it), it ends up being not so funny anymore...

[GePap]

Interestingly, I found EiF post to be a long vitrolic troll

[Whoha]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
March 15/16, 1939: Nazis take Czechoslovakia. (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi attack but urge Czechoslovakia to be restrained in their response.)

May 22, 1939: Nazis sign 'Pact of Steel' with Italy. (Other nations declare that Italy and Germany signing pact to help each other take over the world "not helpful to the peace process.")

Aug 23, 1939: Nazis and Soviets sign Pact. (The world heralds signing of treaty as a sign of Hitler's good intentions. He wouldn't be signing a peace treaty if he wanted war would he?)

Sept 1, 1939: Nazis invade Poland. (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi attack but urge rest of the world to be restrained in their response.)

Sept 3, 1939: Britain, France, Australia and New Zealand declare war on Germany. (World condemns these nations for declaring war. This may cause unrest in Europe!)

Oct, 1939: Nazis begin euthanasia on sick and disabled in Germany. (World mildly condemns this but declares that we must understand the actions of Germany in the context of the horribly unfair treaty of Versailles.)

April 9, 1940: Nazis invade Denmark and Norway. (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi attack but urge rest of the world to be restrained in their response.)

May 10, 1940: Nazis invade France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi attack but urge rest of the world to be restrained in their response.)

June 14, 1940: Germans enter Paris. (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi attack but urge rest of the world to be restrained in their response.)

July 10, 1940: Battle of Britain begins. (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi attack but urge Britain to be restrained lest they further the "cycle of violence.")

Aug 23/24: First German air raids on Central London. (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi attack but urge Britain to be restrained lest they further the "cycle of violence.")

Aug 25/26: First British air raid on Berlin. (World outraged at British attacks! Civilians may have been killed by irresponsible British attacks! World votes 453-4 to condemn Britain!)

Sept 13, 1940: Italians invade Egypt (Other nations give mild condemnation of Italian attack but urge rest of the world to be restrained in their response.)

Nov 20, 1940: Hungary joins the Axis Powers. (World excited! Hopes Hungary may now have the influence to help move the peace process forward. World publicly says they applaud the peace effort they are sure Hungary will soon begin!)

Nov 23, 1940: Romania joins the Axis Powers. (World excited! Hopes Romania may now have the influence to help move the peace process forward. World publicly says they applaud the peace effort they are sure Romania will soon begin!)

Dec 9/10: British begin a western desert offensive in North Africa against the Italians. (World outraged at British attacks! How will we ever have peace if Britain keeps attacking the other side?)

March 11, 1941: President Roosevelt signs the Lend-Lease Act. (World criticizes Americans for selling weaponry to combatants! Announces they should only give food, blankets, and tents if they're going to get involved at all.)

May 10/11, 1941: Heavy German bombing of London; British bomb Hamburg. (World is outraged by British attack on Hamburg! Civilians may of been injured! World condemns Britain in strongest terms and demands they stop bombing anywhere civilians might be!)

June 14, 1941: United States freezes German and Italian assets in America. (Americans accused of "hating all Germans and Italians". 32 lawsuits filed.)

June 22, 1941: Germany attacks Soviet Union as Operation Barbarossa begins. (World upset that treaty broken. They urge president Roosevelt to personally sit down with Stalin and Hitler to negotiate new treaty.)

Sept 29, 1941: Nazis murder 33,771 Jews at Kiev (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi murders but urge rest of the world to be restrained in their response.)

Dec 7, 1941: Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor (Other nations give mild condemnation of Japanese attack but urge United States to be restrained in their response.)

Dec 8, 1941: United States and Britain declare war on Japan. (Other nations outraged! Accuse United States of furthering "cycle of violence". World says that Roosevelt calling Dec 7, 1941 "a date which will live in infamy" is "simplistic" and "not helpful.")

Jan 20, 1942: SS Leader Heydrich holds the Wannsee Conference to coordinate the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question." (World declares plan to kill all Jews is "not helpful". Urges Hitler to declare that exterminating all Jews is wrong in German.)

Aug 17, 1942: First all-American air attack in Europe. (World outraged at American aggression! Suggests putting Roosevelt up for war crimes trial!)

Oct 18, 1942: Hitler orders the execution of all captured British commandos. (World takes occasion to remind "Allies" that German prisoners should get extra bratwurst and beer for "Oktoberfest".)

Jan 14-24, 1943: Casablanca conference between Churchill and Roosevelt. During the conference, Roosevelt announces the war can end only with an unconditional German surrender (World outraged! Says that Churchill and Roosevelt must be willing to negotiate with Hitler now while they're being attacked!)

May 13, 1943: German and Italian troops surrender in North Africa. (World demands that relief groups monitor the conditions for German and Italian troops to make sure they're not being "tortured.")

July 25/26, 1943: Mussolini arrested and the Italian Fascist government falls; Marshal Pietro Badoglio takes over and negotiates with Allies (World fears change in Italian leadership will cause "more instability in Europe.")

July 27/28, 1943: Allied air raid causes a firestorm in Hamburg. (World condemns "Allies" raid on Hamburg. Votes 454-2 to order all allied forces to withdraw to their own countries and begin negotiating for peace.)

Jan 6, 1944: Soviet troops advance into Poland. (World condemns Soviet aggression! Demands Soviets stop their "brutal oppression.")

March 18, 1944: British drop 3000 tons of bombs during an air raid on Hamburg, Germany. (World outraged! Citizens of Hamburg "under siege"! World suggests putting troops inbetween combatants in effort to insure a cease fire.)

June 6, 1944: D-Day landings. (World goes nuts! This outrageous aggression by the Allies must not stand!)

June 13, 1944: First German V-1 rocket attack on Britain. (Other nations give mild condemnation of Nazi attack but urge rest of the world to be restrained in their response.)

Sept 1-4, 1944: Verdun, Dieppe, Artois, Rouen, Abbeville, Antwerp and Brussels liberated by Allies. (World urges Allies to negotiate with Axis for peace! World has moment of silence for the German people who may of been harmed in attacks!)

Dec 17, 1944: Waffen SS murder 81 U.S. POWs at Malmedy. (World chides Allies that they had better not treat their prisoners like that!)

Dec 26, 1944: Patton relieves Bastogne. (World outraged! Patton is a "hawk". The fact that the Americans put a man like that in charge of their military shows "they're not serious about peace.")

Feb 13/14, 1945: Dresden is destroyed by a firestorm after Allied bombing raids. (World calls for all allied leaders to be put up for war crimes trial. World expresses "shock and dismay" at Allies "complete disregard" for civilians!)

March 6, 1945: Last German offensive of the war begins to defend oil fields in Hungary. (World comments "Who could blame them after all those allied attacks? Wouldn't you do the same thing in their place?"

April 1, 1945: U.S. troops encircle Germans in the Ruhr(World demands US allow German troops a way out rather than attack.)

April 16, 1945: Soviet troops begin their final attack on Berlin; Americans enter Nuremberg. (World demands that Hitler not be overthrown! He is the elected leader of the German people!)

April 30, 1945: Adolf Hitler commits suicide. (World now very upset! Fears someone "worse than Hitler" may now take his place!)

May 7, 1945: Unconditional surrender of all German forces to Allies. (World upset and concerned about fate of German people. Sends relief groups in to make sure Germans not mistreated!)

June 5, 1945: Allies divide up Germany and Berlin and take over the government. (World outraged! Demands that the "occupation of Germany" end immediately)

Aug 6, 1945: First atomic bomb dropped, on Hiroshima, Japan. (World demands Truman be tried for war crimes. Protestors and peaceniks from across the world flock to Japan to act as human shields)

Aug 9, 1945: Second atomic bomb dropped, on Nagasaki, Japan. (World tells US that dropping atomic bombs will only "create more martyrs" and will encourage more Japanese than ever to turn against the Allies!)

Aug 14, 1945: Japanese agree to unconditional surrender. (World sincerely hopes the citizens on the Axis nations can forgive the Allies for their uncalled for aggression, imperialism, and oppression in this war.)

Add the entries for the 1935-1939 violations of the Versailles treaty by the Nazis to that :P

[Sandman]

What the terrorists want is totally irrelevant. If there's a terrorist group that is fighting for disaffected group X, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to help the disaffected group.

[Ned]

Totally agree with Park Avenue and especially End is Forever. St. Marcus, as also, is smug and clueless as any spoiled brat.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ned
St. Marcus, as also, is smug and clueless as any spoiled brat.

What part of my warning did you not understand?

[Whaleboy]

PA's argument is flawed on a number of counts.

Firstly, the pacifists do not want to see the terrorists succeed, nor do they want to do nothing. Since they tend to be of a libertarian or socialist disposition they are in fact inclined to be more friendly to a relatively liberal Western society than an oppressive fascist Sharia regime. I know because I am involved with the people in question (the protesters not the terrorists). The pacifists merely do not believe that war is the solution to the problem.

Secondly, the pacifists do not want to appease the terrorists.

Appeasement:
1 : to bring to a state of peace or quiet : CALM
2 : to cause to subside : ALLAY
3 : PACIFY, CONCILIATE; especially : to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=appease

In other words, buying them off, or conceding to their demands. I don't think you'll find many pacifists advocating the destruction of Western civilisation! . I have seen proposals flowing out of the pacifist camp, many of which would not be welcomed by the fundies. Some of the most sensible proposals are accurately described as a very extreme case of tough love. Emphasis on "tough".

So you see, it is not merely a case of war or appeasement.

As for the pacifists being objectively pro-terrorist:

Response to Orwell's attack on Pacifism

"Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi." - Orwell on the English Pacifists

This statement was written in a time when Orwell's country of origin, namely the United Kingdom, was under threat of Nazi invasion., however, one can replace that particular foe with a contemporary, equivalent, for example, Islamic, anti-West terrorism at the time of writing.

In a time when one point of view was fighting another, an opinion such as that of the Pacifist will be regarded by the nation in which one resides as inherently opposed to the interests of that nation and thus supporting that of the enemy. This leads to such statements as “You're either with us or against us”.

However, the belief that one should not go to war is an objective perspective to the view “I support nation A” or “I support nation B”. It is so because it is an ideology that is separate to that of nationhood and is not intrinsically opposed to any one nation. Nor, indeed, are most of its interpretations opposed to the concept of nationhood itself, though it can be argued that nationhood leads to war, in a coherent pacifism, I know of no major strand of pacifism that does this so it cannot be used in this instance. It is an opinion separate to that of “Britishness”, or indeed of any nation embroiled in a conflict.

Consider a triangle of apexes a, b and c. Where a and b are at war, and a member of c resides in nation a, he will be regarded as being friendly to nation b because he is neutral. On the simplistic line between between a and b, c is in the middle, but as c is independent, objectively it is neither necessarily for or against either or the other two positions. Though it is possible for a pacifist to be a lover of freedom on top of peace, pacifism itself does not dictate national allegiance. The Pacifist will be regarded as friendly with the enemy by ones warring nation of course, but that is a view dictated by that nations own subjectivity and inability to emulate the point of view of anyone objective, let alone their enemy. The statement: “Objectively, the pacifist is pro-[enemy]”, is false. It is a mere subjective observation that bears no relation to reality.

I really should stop quoting myself .

Thirdly, as not merely an antithesis to the notion of violence, it is possible to point out that escalating violence with more violence is not a solution. You lock yourself into a Catch-22 by declaring that military action is the only solution. Plainly it is not.

That's bollocks..it's quite obvious who is fighting for freedom and who is just out to maim and kill as many as possible

Tell that to the Arabs. Your point belies your own egocentricity, even people living in the West are capable of seeing both sides of that particular coin. Unless you call "evil" on that one. But then I guess Western support of it makes it necessary? No dice.

At least PA is impressing the OT by his vociferous use of photoshop

[Dinner]

EiF: That was the most sensable post I've seen in the OT for a long while.