*IT* ended the war because the leaders of Japan suddenly realized they were dealing with a nation that was, by all humanitarian accounts and unspoken rules of fair warplay, insane. Atomizing tens of thousands of people? Um, yeah, that's fair. War is hell, but the US proved itself to be Satan.
Hate the US much?
You need to read up on that whole thing, it is well documented from many sources. Take your hate somewhere else.
Ehud Barak was elected as Israeli Prime Minister on May 17, 1999.
What followed was a 16 month reign of peace and negotiation.
And I remember Barak offering the kitchen sink to Arafat only to be turned down. Such a shame.
Quote:
Originally posted by 709
*IT* ended the war because the leaders of Japan suddenly realized they were dealing with a nation that was, by all humanitarian accounts and unspoken rules of fair warplay, insane. Atomizing tens of thousands of people? Um, yeah, that's fair. War is hell, but the US proved itself to be Satan.
Satan vs. Satan. Satan wins. Unspoken rules of fair warplay...Japan is ever so guilty of not adhering to those. See Shanghai, Nanjing, Pearl Harbor, POWs, etc.
I wonder if Japan had the atom bomb at the time, would they have used it on Pearl Harbor? I think they probably would have.
But you don't know what groups are attacking what in Iraq. There are a bunch of groups attacking various targets for various reasons. So you are claiming to have knowledge you simply don't have.
The fact is that according to the definition as you've laid out, there have been terror attacks. But that certainly doesn't mean any of the attacks on US troops are executed by the same groups, nor does it make the attacks on troops or political figures (with 'collateral damage') terrorist attacks, according to your definition.
Not only that, some of the civilian deaths have been the result of attempted attacks on military targets or political figures, which you've specifically designated as accidents that do not count as terror attacks.
Please support this because I think you're approximately 100% wrong. I hope I'm wrong, but I think you are.
There was an offer of roughly 98% of the land the Palestinians wanted but the 2% that was left out was a dealbreaker to them. They offered them everything BUT the land they REALLY REALLY wanted. I have a feeling it was just a PR move.
But you don't know what groups are attacking what in Iraq. There are a bunch of groups attacking various targets for various reasons. So you are claiming to have knowledge you simply don't have.
The fact is that according to the definition as you've laid out, there have been terror attacks. But that certainly doesn't mean any of the attacks on US troops are executed by the same groups, nor does it make the attacks on troops or political figures (with 'collateral damage') terrorist attacks, according to your definition.
Not only that, some of the civilian deaths have been the result of attempted attacks on military targets or political figures, which you've specifically designated as accidents that do not count as terror attacks.
I love your twisting it is very entertaining.
Who are the entities that are attacking the troops, civilians?
If we are to believe the Pentagon, and I do, these are former SH loyalists, terrorists out-of-towners on vacation, and a handful of insurgents. They may or may not be working together to one extent or another. If there is any cooperation then they are all terrorists. If former loyalists are shooting at troops then they are just waging war with our troops. Either way they will be killed or captured.
Why do you have to complicate the whole thing? What are you digging for?
The sources are referenced. And if tonton really took the time to research the revisionist arab propaganda that he tired to push here, he would know where the truth lies. Sorry tonton. Those are the facts.
The sources are referenced. And if tonton really took the time to research the revisionist arab propaganda that he tired to push here, he would know where the truth lies. Sorry tonton. Those are the facts.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
See, I knew you were baiting me into something.
The attack on the pentagon was not, a terrorist attack IMO. It was an act of war. (...)
Well, had it been merely a bomb or a missile, sure. But unfortunately it was a plane full of civilians. That equals terrorism.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The attack on the pentagon was not, a terrorist attack IMO.
Well, according to NaplesX, you are wrong. They used a hijacked plane full of civilians.
But this is good, because I'll remember to point this discussion out if you ever say that the attacks on US troops in Iraq are terrorist attacks.
Originally posted by johnq
Well, had it been merely a bomb or a missile, sure. But unfortunately it was a plane full of civilians. That equals terrorism.
Right
Originally posted by 709
*IT* ended the war because the leaders of Japan suddenly realized they were dealing with a nation that was, by all humanitarian accounts and unspoken rules of fair warplay, insane. Atomizing tens of thousands of people? Um, yeah, that's fair. War is hell, but the US proved itself to be Satan.
Hate the US much?
You need to read up on that whole thing, it is well documented from many sources. Take your hate somewhere else.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The attack on the pentagon was not, a terrorist attack IMO.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Originally posted by johnq
Well, had it been merely a bomb or a missile, sure. But unfortunately it was a plane full of civilians. That equals terrorism.
Right
So which is it?
Originally posted by giant
Well, according to NaplesX, you are wrong. They used a hijacked plane full of civilians.
But this is good, because I'll remember to point this discussion out if you ever say that the attacks on US troops in Iraq are terrorist attacks.
What attack on us troops are you talking about?
The people that were attacking the troops there are now attacking their own countrymen and fellow muslims, they are terrorists.
Are you going to defend their actions?
Originally posted by tonton a long time ago
Ehud Barak was elected as Israeli Prime Minister on May 17, 1999.
What followed was a 16 month reign of peace and negotiation.
And I remember Barak offering the kitchen sink to Arafat only to be turned down. Such a shame.
Originally posted by 709
*IT* ended the war because the leaders of Japan suddenly realized they were dealing with a nation that was, by all humanitarian accounts and unspoken rules of fair warplay, insane. Atomizing tens of thousands of people? Um, yeah, that's fair. War is hell, but the US proved itself to be Satan.
Satan vs. Satan. Satan wins. Unspoken rules of fair warplay...Japan is ever so guilty of not adhering to those. See Shanghai, Nanjing, Pearl Harbor, POWs, etc.
I wonder if Japan had the atom bomb at the time, would they have used it on Pearl Harbor? I think they probably would have.
Originally posted by giant
So which is it?
It was a terrorist attack. Come on, man. I made that clear.
edit: I realize that I neglected to mention the plane and the civilians, but an attack on the pentagon, in itself would be an act of war.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The people that were attacking the troops there are now attacking their own countrymen and fellow muslims, they are terrorists.
Wow. You should share your sources with the pentagon.
Originally posted by giant
Wow. You should share your sources with the pentagon.
Ok:
Attn: Pentagon.
All the news networks are showing attacks now focusing on civilians.
Please forward to all personnel.
The fact is that according to the definition as you've laid out, there have been terror attacks. But that certainly doesn't mean any of the attacks on US troops are executed by the same groups, nor does it make the attacks on troops or political figures (with 'collateral damage') terrorist attacks, according to your definition.
Not only that, some of the civilian deaths have been the result of attempted attacks on military targets or political figures, which you've specifically designated as accidents that do not count as terror attacks.
Originally posted by Eugene
And I remember Barak offering the kitchen sink to Arafat only to be turned down. Such a shame.
Please support this because I think you're approximately 100% wrong. I hope I'm wrong, but I think you are.
Originally posted by NaplesX
...but an attack on the pentagon, in itself would be an act of war.
I have to agree with this statement.
Originally posted by bunge
Please support this because I think you're approximately 100% wrong. I hope I'm wrong, but I think you are.
There was an offer of roughly 98% of the land the Palestinians wanted but the 2% that was left out was a dealbreaker to them. They offered them everything BUT the land they REALLY REALLY wanted. I have a feeling it was just a PR move.
Originally posted by giant
But you don't know what groups are attacking what in Iraq. There are a bunch of groups attacking various targets for various reasons. So you are claiming to have knowledge you simply don't have.
The fact is that according to the definition as you've laid out, there have been terror attacks. But that certainly doesn't mean any of the attacks on US troops are executed by the same groups, nor does it make the attacks on troops or political figures (with 'collateral damage') terrorist attacks, according to your definition.
Not only that, some of the civilian deaths have been the result of attempted attacks on military targets or political figures, which you've specifically designated as accidents that do not count as terror attacks.
I love your twisting it is very entertaining.
Who are the entities that are attacking the troops, civilians?
If we are to believe the Pentagon, and I do, these are former SH loyalists, terrorists out-of-towners on vacation, and a handful of insurgents. They may or may not be working together to one extent or another. If there is any cooperation then they are all terrorists. If former loyalists are shooting at troops then they are just waging war with our troops. Either way they will be killed or captured.
Why do you have to complicate the whole thing? What are you digging for?
Originally posted by tonton
One hint: they weren't Muslim.
And you would know because.. ?
Originally posted by tonton
Google the terms "Irgun" and "Stern" and the word "terrorism".
Ok. Give me a date.
Originally posted by tonton
See above re: Irgun
As for Stern, check here.
Now who invented terrorism, then?
A couple of places you might want to check out:
1/ http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/
2/ http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_ar...41&x_context=2
Hope that helps with your general ignorance on this issue..
Originally posted by DeManON
The sources are referenced. And if tonton really took the time to research the revisionist arab propaganda that he tired to push here, he would know where the truth lies. Sorry tonton. Those are the facts.
Hi Mika!