Why when the West attacks terrorists...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ming
What part of my warning did you not understand?

Stick to the topic.. NOT THE POSTERS... and one more personal insult out of you and you will be restricted.

If you restricted those who stupidly Godwin everytime we talk about terror, you'd have less trouble on hand.

[Whaleboy]

I find that amusing as it comes immediately after your post in which you substitute Islamic terrorists with Nazi Germany in order to make a rebuttal.

Ah!! The situations are wildly different but the attacks on the pacifists are the same.

[*End Is Forever*]

Can you not restrict Oncle Boris anyway for being too stupid to understand simple political satire?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oswald Ernald Mosley

Who dat?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
*End Is Forever*

You are an idiot, aren't you? Where did you learn history? What's this 'world' you're talking about?

Actually, YOU are the idiot here he was saying what WWII would look like from the perspective of the pacifists. He wasn't saying that actually happened.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
EiF: Your post is flawed on two counts:

Firstly WWII and its causes are not analogous to the current situation (and I defy anyone to show my how they are) since we are there dealing with states therefore the tactical situation is far different. Also each tactical situation is wildly different. I doubt that anyone is going to start nuking anyone.

The fact that states are involved is fundamentally irrelevant to EiF's point that the whiners hold the west to a hypocritically different standard. If we wanted to operate on the level of terrorists, but with state resources and power, we could remove entire cities from the map. Instead of ****ing around with tribes who protect terrorists, we could exterminate them to the last man, woman and child, and give their former territory to those who play ball with us. Instead, our counter-terror and anti-terror responses are highly moderated and focused, but this still isn't good enough for the whiners.

Secondly, the atomic bombs were creating martyrs. Think of the Japanese insurrection led by Major Hatanaka that very nearly stopped the surrender announcement. The Americans were also about to nuke Tokyo (more dozens of thousands of bleached skeletons) because the Nagasaki bomb had not generated a surrender announcement.

Hatanaka (and others) were not concerned with the a-bomb's creation of "martyrs." They were concerned with fundamental notions of honor, as interpreted in Hagakure and nearly a millenium of traditional preference of death to capture.

The Americans weren't about to nuke Tokyo (if we had wanted to, it would have been done from the outset) as we had no more bombs after Nagasaki and wouldn't have a fourth one for quite a while.

People think that the nukes caused the Japanese surrender, but it was more likely the Russians declaring war on Japan, the 1.5 million Red Army troops marching through Manchuria, Korea and the like.

Unless the Russkies could swim, I doubt the Japanese were two worried. The Soviets had no significant amphibious experience, totally inadequate amphibious capability, and would have been extremely hard pressed to make successful landings with adequate air and naval support on the Japanese mainland before 1947.

The US had the capability in place, and we had demonstrated it again and again from Guadalcanal to Iwo Jima. We owned the sea, we owned the air, and had the Japanese not surrendered, millions would have starved over the winter of 1945-6, hundreds of thousands if not millions more would have been killed during conventional bombing raids, and we would have been ready to move in massive force in the spring of 46. The Japanese knew this.

The only effect the Soviets had was on those few souls who were deluded enough to consider the possibility of a Japanese homeland victory over the American invader, but who would consider surrender instead of suicide if the odds were hopeless. Awfully hard to find any of those around.

[C0ckney]

i hardly even noticed the words you put in my mouth...

Originally posted by molly bloom
Of course.

The IRA placed cherry bombs, or killed with kindness, in Enniskillen. The Continuity IRA loved to death the civilians killed in Omagh .

Good grief.

The Birmingham Pub Bombings of 1974 killed 21 people and injured 182 others. Presumably you think the bombers weren't like Hamas members because they didn't get blown up themselves, unlike the would be IRA bomber in Coventry, James McDade, sent to glory whilst attempting to plant a bomb, in the same month as the Birmingham blasts.

i think you missed the point (by about a mile). maybe i should have elaborated a bit, but essentially what i was trying to say was this.

the IRA and hamas are very different for many reasons, not just their method of murder, but in their structure, and their aims and goals.

for example the IRA wanted us out of northern ireland, but never sought to destroy britain, whereas one of hamas' stated aims is the destruction of the state of israel. the ira had (and has) a political wing, sinn fein, who speaks for hamas in israeli/palestinian political circles? just how would you even start to negociate with them.

the thing is that the IRA were and are scum of the worst kind, but they could at least be negociated with, albeit indirectly, through sinn fein. a settlement was reached, which although not without its problems (martin mcguiness, a man who has killed in cold blood, as education minister and the shameful waste of public money that is the savile inquiry, being too examples), is infinately preferable to the situation which existed before it.

now with hamas, you can't negociate with them because their only aim is to destroy you. imagine the reaction of the british (and irish) public if we had started just killing off IRA leaders, would the situation have improved, i somehow doubt it. the difference is that israel doesn't have that choice, it's kill or be killed for them.

that's why you can't really compare them.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Can you not restrict Oncle Boris anyway for being too stupid to understand simple political satire?

You were obviously comparing the pacifists' stance towards terror to the what... well, what so-called pacifists would have done about nazi Germany?

[Kuciwalker]

Uh, yeah, Boris, that's the idea...

[C0ckney]

give the boy a cookie

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Uh, yeah, Boris, that's the idea...

Don't worry, guys, I can understand humor... but isn't satire supposed to be funny and/or original? His post obviously wasn't.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Oswald Ernald Mosley

Who dat?

He's from the 20/30s, and was the British attempt at a Mussolini, Hitler, Franco etc.

Before becoming a Fascist he was an MP for the Tories, and then again as an independent and then joined the Labour party.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Don't worry, guys, I can understand humor... but isn't satire supposed to be funny and/or original? His post obviously wasn't.

Uh, yeah it was - at least the rest of us found it so.

[C0ckney]

it was comic genius from EiF

[C0ckney]

kucinch, i've had just about as much as i can take of your beating me to posts!