www.btinternet.com/~scuzi...Kills.mpeg (http://www.btinternet.com/~scuzi/224Helicopter_Kills.mpeg)

cool? watching 3 people die is fun. Sick fuck.

Where exactly did I say "cool" or "fun" Take your attempted flames elsewhere.

Waah waah. Piss off.

Have you seen the AC130 gunner footage from Afghanistan? Came out about a year or so ago I believe.

Its posted in the "Nuggets" Thread

Seen something fun? Heard something fun? Have someone been nice to you?

Wrong section, or you sick fuck. Your decision.

omg that was ...



cant think of words for that :(

I didn't understand everything there were saying, basically some officer giving the gunners order as of what to shoot at ?

That looked more like a simulation to me then an actual 'mission' of sorts.

That was no simulation. If anything, it was a training tape to remind the gunners they need to check their range before engaging.

The first shots they didn't have range set properly, so their shots were short. The officer tells the gunner to use auto range. Then the gunner says "Fuck."

All the rest is targeting the movement (3 men) and trucks.

Watch the "rounds" counter in the lower right of the screen.

Weapons technology can be pretty amazing.

The guy seemed kind of reluctant when he was told to finish the wounded guy crawling away from the truck.

I like how you can hear the gun and the operators, but you can't hear whir of the helicopter blades, or the loud ass chugging of the diesel motor.

I am thinking it was a simulation exercise.

Disturbing.

The noisy ones were the UH-1 and AH-1s. Apache helicopters are pretty quiet until they are almost right on top of you- then you can hear the rotor and the jet. Even then most of the noise is from the jet engine (ie: from behind).

Wouldn't surprise me if the cockpit area was a sonic dead zone so the gunner and pilot could hear the radio.

The real truth revealed!

Everyone knows Bush is the devil, steals elections, taps phone lines, detains civilians without trials, and invades poor harmless countries that mean no harm to anyone! So, this is just Bush hijaking an AH64, being the cockey pilot we all know he is, flies it in the night and takes out some left wing radical liberal farmers out in Iowa to send his "message" to anyone who dares defy his cowboy superpowa!

akipt, That was just retarded.

I agree with Akipt. Thats what it was.

Well shrug this is war, what did people expect? paintball?

They are all for war, until they see somebody die.

It's fine and dandy to say "I hope they die for blah blah", but to see it is another thing all together,

Don't like watching 3 people being murdered? Don't vote for a war monger. :D

I didnt.

I can't even begin to tell you how much that pleases me.

I can't even begin to tell you how much that pleases me.

HAHAHA.. The video or the voting comment? For some reason that comment made me giggle pretty good. For what it's worth I don't think those persons on the ground felt to much. Other then the guy who got a burn truck on top of him. Pretty much instant mashed potatoes.

voting comment was pleasing.

I personally didn't care that people got shot on some movie.. I've seen far more graphic things.

I liked how at the end he shot the truck and killed the sand nigger though.

fucking no edit is stupid..

yes, I wrote the N word... No I don't hate black people...

But people who fly planes into shit and kill thousands of people don't deserve to be treated with respect or called proper names. (I in no way feel they should be killed though)

But people who fly planes into shit and kill thousands of people don't deserve to be treated with respect or called proper names. (I in no way feel they should be killed though)


So, you are in fact saying that you condone there actions then? You, to me, are saying that anyone who uses a terrorist method of killing should only be shown a little disrespect and perhaps a lashing of the tongue with harsh words? Well how about this for you. That has to be the stupidest thing I could imagine anyone saying. Your mother must have been a crack whore to produce such a retard. Personally im glad we have dished out some whoop-ass on "those" people. Surely someone who thought terrorist actions wrong would want a little more revenge then just harsh words and hurt feelings? I mean am I right or what?

oh, I'm not denying that some action should have been taken. I somewhat agree with what has happened.. I just don't believe in mass murder like that.

I said it before in another thread.. Killing people who kill doesn't make it better. Just makes more murderers.

however, what are US troops still doing in these countries? you got 1 of your 2 men, why not just bugger off and let them kill each other in civil war?
Arm the homeless
You've trained them how to kill (yeah, americans trained these terrorists, so did Canadians), you've given them guns (I think we have too, oh well).. Why not just let the fucking shit skin fucks kill each other off? That is what they are doing, oui?

I agree let's let them kill eachother off. However, they don't want to just kill eachother anymore they also want to kill us. That is unexceptable of course. So if they want a kill or be killed world then okie dokie smokie you get videos like the apache and AC 130 Spectre Gunship videos to giggle at.

either way people get killed, you act as if you are above the average Iraq citizen, youre not.

Xanaron = Racist Pig. Nice use of words and sterotyping on entire geographical location of people.


Ibudin

yep. I'll admit, I do not agree with anything anybody from the middle east does. It's all bullshit they sit around and murder each other all day for stupid fucking reasons.
I'm a rascist, wowowowowowow.

You however, are still a fucking moron.

you act as if you are above the average Iraq citizen, youre not.

The average Iraqi citizen, No.

The brutal dictatorship pieces of trash, Yes.

Who's life is worth more? Yours, your loved ones, your childrens or some Iraqi secret police agent who jams barbed wire up someones ass for fun? How 'bout the guy in charge of gassing the Kurds?

They chose their path. Now they deal with the consequences. Be it jail, or death by 30mm rounds.

All men are created equal. This does not mean all men are equal period.

By the way, that video makes me cringe. I don't want to see people die. Those are 3 human beings, completely destroyed. BUT they are not innocent civillians or some type of collateral splash damage from an errant bomb, they are enemy combatants/soldiers/terrorists.

Coming from you? /shrug.


Fucking pond scum.


Ibudin

pond scum?

average Iraq citizen

Someone commented on the gunner hesitating before the third shooting...

He is asking where to shoot, the truck, or the person. Listen to the audio, its not that hard to make out.

Consider this your one warning Xan.

Got a little update for you Xan, the majority of people over there are just like we regular Joe's. Not everyone is out to bomb the infidel, most people just want to work, go home to their families and enjoy life. Take it from someone that's been over there.

The majority are in fact a proud, hospitable people who would give you the shirt off their backs rather than see you go without. Sure they have different customs and religon, big deal. If you want to generalize about all the middle east being terrorists, imagine what some of them might think? I'd guess they'd all think we're all BIG Justin Timberlate fans and we all watch Jerry Springer (NOT!) according to what the media feeds people. Just think about it.

Ye need to get on a plane and experience some culture bro, it'll do you good. :)

well said, Bin. Racism pisses me off.

Ummm, did no one notice the big ass fucking Anti Air gun those 3 "ENEMY SOLDIERS" were operating?

Murdered? Not a fucking chance.

Watch it again, 3 enemy soldiers, walking towards an anti-aircraft gun, realizing too fucking late to "RUN THE OTHER WAY".

We won, they lost.

So stop your bleeding heart fucking bullshit, they weren't murdered, they weren't innocent, and they weren't your "average iraqi" citizen.

I don't like see'ing people get killed as much as the next person, but destroying that gun and the three people operating most likely saved the lives of alot of people, INCLUDING your "average Iraqi" citizen.

amidget. Put the people on the ground in the helicopter, and vice versa to the anti aircraft gun. now what you have is Iraqis in the helicopter. Now you have retarded fucking Iraqis just like you saying. "WOOT WE WON, KILL THOSE FUCKERS"

See what im getting at? Noone wins in war, fuck you.

Noone wins in war, fuck you.

Course they do. We won.

Whats people's beef with use of force to solve problems?.
Violence is the ultimate answer to everything.

its a RETARD parade =/

that's like saying a match against two boxers has no winners cause they both get hurt...

Personally I say let the isralies take over our anti-terroism efforts.

/agree Liper

that's like saying a match against two boxers has no winners cause they both get hurt...
Worst...analogy...ever. :\

great philosophy.

a few extremists do something in one country, and you jump to "KILL EVERYONE IN THAT COUNTRY. How fucked up you are. If you dont think this way, then this post isnt directed at you. But it seems to me that some out there truly do.

Real Life issues.

Killing people who kill doesn't make it better. Just makes more murderers

Lets say you live in a neighborhood with 10 houses,and in each house there is 5 people,thats 50 people right?

Well,lets say a man is walking down the street killing everyone in each house.He has the POTENTIAL to kill 50 people right?


Lets say we kill him after the first house.

So 5 people + the guy with the gun (we'll just call this a murder for the sake of your argument)=6


6<50.


I think 6 deaths is better than 50. /shrug

Sure, Xyln, but the same goes on the other foot.
Fact. Innocent people died in Afghanistan.
Fact. Innocent people died in Iraq.

By that logic, lets kill all of america before they can kill more innocent people?

Food for thought.

As far as the 3 people shot by that heli,i think the problem is,it is taken WAYYY out of context.

We have no idea who these 3 guys are or what they were doing 10 hours earlier.


Keep that in mind before you call what they did wrong.


For all we know,one of those guys could have been loading the truck with Anthrax and sending it over here.

I know that is a bit extreme,but so is calling it a cold-blooded murder of some farmers.


We just don't know the story.

Innocent people would have died whether we went in or not.

a few extremists do something in one country, and you jump to "KILL EVERYONE IN THAT COUNTRY.

You managed to score zero points here. Actually, sounds like your whole life is a big fat zero so just put a bullet in your head and save us all the misery you're putting us through reading your drivel.

Not only were there more than just a "few" but we didn't make Afghanistan a parking lot after 9-11. Get a clue.

Btw, this isn't an anti aircraft gun, it's a farm tractor towing a harvestor. You're looking at the ass end of it. 0h n0s, we murdered farmers! Riight. The driver got out of the driver's seat and was the first to die.

Just my guess, they were harvesting opium or some shit to fund more Al Queda vacations to America. Bye bye shitheads.

Good work akipt, you proved the depth of your reading comprehension.

If you dont think this way, then this post isnt directed at you. But it seems to me that some out there truly do.

Why so defensive? do you really think that the whole country should pay for the actions of some extremists?

Not only were there more than just a "few"

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say 95% of Afghani people arent terrorists. At least.

Just my guess, they were harvesting opium or some shit to fund more Al Queda vacations to America. Bye bye shitheads

Again you prove you total ignorance and retardedness that you think that the only people that have lives worth living are americans, or white majorities, and that the only right path, is the american path, and that any deaths incurred along the way, and justified. I'm the one who needs a clue? Any reasonable mature person will agree with me here, Every single country has its extremists and its innocents. Because someone is from Iraq does not make them automatically doing something wrong. Thats the most short-sighted and retarded viewpoint one can have. Grow up, look around. Notice that you and your countrymen are not the only ones trying to get by in the world.

Good work akipt, you proved the depth of your reading comprehension.<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If you dont think this way, then this post isnt directed at you. But it seems to me that some out there truly do. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

So, you believe this.. no wait, you don't just in case you misunderstood his comments... but you believe it anyway just in case someone else out there really does.

Make up your mind. It's not my fault your drivel is all over the board.

And thanks for replying to my entire comment. Note I recalled we didn't nuke their ass? That was option you know.

Anyone who supported (or especially continues to support) Taliban / Al-Queda / Terrorists / Saddam Hussein / Baathists gets a 30mm chain gun up the ass. That includes the farmers growing opium, the little kid bicycling Bin Laden's messages to and from caves, or what the hell ever they're doing .. even if its going to the grocery store to feed terrorists. Again, bye bye shitheads.

Note I recalled we didn't nuke their ass? That was option you know.

You honestly believe that Nuclear weapons were even an option that was being considered?

fucking idiot gumblim, we arn't Killing ALL of iraq's and afagan's, we are killing a few innocent, well some, but not intentionaly, we are going after the terrorists, they don't just go after bush, they go after all of us, so we > them, we have deciency, we are trying to just take out the terrorists...

the stupid can be taught, but your ignorance, thats forever

Whether or not it's right or wrong, it would have been an option. Raising the daytime high of 9/12/2001 in eastern Afghanistan a few thousand degrees would've put a real good dent in the war on terrorism. But given the after effects (India and Pakistan wouldn't appreciate it surely) and unlikely ability of actually killing the sob's in their caves, no, nukes probably weren't considered a viable weapon to use.

Come on, stop being a limp wristed jack off.

I only wish the TV news would show those two airliners flying into the WTC more often... and show that above linked movie of a couple of terrorists being made into scrambled eggs while they're at it. It may wake some people up and realize we're at war whether they believe it or not.

This pansy assed shit posted here and elsewhere: "eeeuuwww, you sick bastard, you posted a link of three people dying. How dare you?!! Waah waah I want to go back and suck my mommy's tit so I don't have to worry about all this mean stuff going on. Oh yeah, Bush is evil. Waah waah. America sucks blah blah."

/smirk

Wake the fuck up.

Raising the daytime high of 9/12/2001 in eastern Afghanistan a few thousand degrees would've put a real good dent in the war on terrorism.
:lol

You misunderstand me, akipt. I'm not saying anything about general american's views. I'm saying it about your views. You are a retard.

Raising the daytime high of 9/12/2001 in eastern Afghanistan a few thousand degrees would've put a real good dent in the war on terrorism.

You cant offensively fight terror, thats a fucking fact. You kill someone, their brother gets angry. End of story. If these people are willing to die for their cause, they dont give a fuck that america has removed the evil dictatorship from their country. All they care about is that their brother was killed.

So, you believe this.. no wait, you don't just in case you misunderstood his comments... but you believe it anyway just in case someone else out there really does.

What are you trying to say here? I truly believe there are some people out there that belive this to be the case. Thats the whole background behind my statement, whatever the fuck youre reading into it has nothing to do with anything. That derogatory comment was directed at those people.

Note I recalled we didn't nuke their ass?

You fucking astound me, you think that i was somehow *in luck?* that you didnt say Nuking them was an option? How fucking retarded are you, dude? I'm not even going to begin argueing against that aspect, its plain bullshit.

Anyone who supported (or especially continues to support) Taliban / Al-Queda / Terrorists / Saddam Hussein / Baathists gets a 30mm chain gun up the ass. That includes the farmers growing opium, the little kid bicycling Bin Laden's messages to and from caves, or what the hell ever they're doing .. even if its going to the grocery store to feed terrorists. Again, bye bye shitheads.

I cant believe you. You are so ignorant of the fact that very few people are terrorists out there. So fucking ignorant. Take Binuvan's advice and go to the middle east, get a feel for the people that are "all terrorists". No you'd prefer to just sit there knee deep in your bullshit and maintain the view that "because our armies are fighting over there and some of our soldiers got shot (dont get me wrong thats sucks big time) that makes every single one of them the enemy".

Take it from their point of view, thats always a rational thing to do, or do you truly believe that they are a lesser life form than you are? Most of them are just trying to get along with their lives after a major change in lifestyle and power, but of course you dont see that on the news, do you? You see americans getting killed over there, you see iraqis getting killed over there (i'd bet you cheer.) You dont see that there are only few extremists, and to fight extremists the answer is not to wipe out the whole population.

fucking idiot gumblim, we arn't Killing ALL of iraq's and afagan's, we are killing a few innocent, well some, but not intentionaly, we are going after the terrorists, they don't just go after bush, they go after all of us, so we > them, we have deciency, we are trying to just take out the terrorists...

orange cream, i know. This is not a post against america, this is a post against akipt and his fucking retarded ideals. Just touching on the we > them thing. Again, extremists, the average person working in a supermarket isnt "going after all of you" is he, now? How dare you say that you have decency and that these people can not. I say a big fuck you to you. You can't take out terrorists, you can't. unless you mass slaughter entire places where terrorists might be suspected. You and akipt both think that there are so many terrorists around, and that every Iraqi is a terrorist, what fucking blatant bullshit, this is your justfication? We're better than them?

I only wish the TV news would show those two airliners flying into the WTC more often... and show that above linked movie of a couple of terrorists being made into scrambled eggs while they're at it. It may wake some people up and realize we're at war whether they believe it or not.

September 11th was a sad day, a real fucking sad day. It shook the whole world, dude, i'm sure even i had a tear that day, and im as far detached from america as can be (geographically). So the logical thing to do would be to search and murder the fuck out of the shit who commited this mass murder. Hence afghanistan. The time for revenge, however, is at an end. More war will only lead to more revenge, and it wont stop. Someone (generally the more mature side) has to just stop. You cant fight terrorism. You just cant. Unless again you wipe out whole populations, and the end doesnt justify the means.

This pansy assed shit posted here and elsewhere: "eeeuuwww, you sick bastard, you posted a link of three people dying. How dare you?!! Waah waah I want to go back and suck my mommy's tit so I don't have to worry about all this mean stuff going on. Oh yeah, Bush is evil. Waah waah. America sucks blah blah."

You dont seem to realise the impact death has on people, those were people's brothers, fathers, husbands. Their whole family life is now shattered. You play this down like you have no fucking idea what you are talking about. The world would be a better place without people like you, take a step out of the mountain of shit youre in that is your ignorance and open your eyes. Or just keep your fucking view inside your mountain of shit.

Woohoo now we're getting somewhere.

You cant offensively fight terror, thats a fucking fact.

No, that's what we've been doing the past few decades. We'd run everytime someone blew up a barracks or shot down one of our helicopters. No more of that shit.

If it was up to pussies like you, France would be a state of Germany. "Waah waah war solves nothing, we can't win!!!11!"

You cant fight terrorism. You just cant. Unless again you wipe out whole populations, and the end doesnt justify the means.

If you say it twice it must make it true. Not. Hmm, two nukes on Japan changed they're perspective quite nicely. Now Japan is good buds with us. Hell, I drive one of their cars.

Take it from their point of view, thats always a rational thing to do

Yeah, I should "get in the shoes" of a German around 1940 when he was filling up those railcars with Jews. I certainly couldn't understand the world like you unless I did.

...

blah blah the rest of your post is all drivel completely misunderstanding what I've posted. Here, I'll make it clearer for you:

If you're a terrorist, support a terrorist, or country that supports a terrorist - die bitch.

Comprende?

Grumblino,what you fail to realize is,once a government is in place in Iraq,and they get their feet set,it will be almost like a domino efect for the rest of the middle east.



Terrorism will not survive in the magnatude it does now with a democratic government in place.

Terrorism ONLY survies as of right now because of the corrupt leaders of these nations that aid and abet their cause.

When they have no place to call home anymore,they will slowly dwindle into nonexistence.

Sure,this will take decades,but it is going to happen.

What Xyln said too.

Thanks ;)

the huge difference between World War II and the war on terror was you know exactly who your enemy was. Germany, Japan. They both knew they were at war as well, and they funded such activities.

With the war on terror you have only terrorist extremists.

Woohoo now we're getting somewhere

You're getting nowhere, you sick fuck.

We'd run everytime someone blew up a barracks or shot down one of our helicopters

Example?

two nukes on Japan changed they're perspective quite nicely.

Because it was such a monstrocity to the Japanese people that they were afraid of america. Is that the way you want America to stay the most powerful? Through terror tactics?

If it was up to pussies like you, France would be a state of Germany. "Waah waah war solves nothing, we can't win!!!11!"

Nowhere did i say war solves nothing, i said noone wins in war. Of course you have your victor, but the losses incurred on both sides are something serious to think about. I agree sometimes violence is the only way, but revelling in the death and destruction and wontonly wishing dead upon other innocent people who may live in the same country as a terrorist is retarded.

Yeah, I should "get in the shoes" of a German around 1940 when he was filling up those railcars with Jews. I certainly couldn't understand the world like you unless I did.

Did i say gestapo agent? or person who enjoyed the fate they were sending their brothers into? I said average citizen, just like you or me, being opressed by Hitler through media and the fear of being killed in their sleep stopping them from acting against his will. Completely different things. The average person in Iraq does not support terrorism.

blah blah the rest of your post is all drivel

translation : i cant argue against the truth.

If you're a terrorist, support a terrorist, or country that supports a terrorist

If you're a terrorist, or support a terrorist, sure. But to be so consumed in your patriotism and condemn that of other people is pure hypocrisy.

Xyln, i agree totally, the only thing is that once this domino effect occurs, you will still have your people making home-made bombs bomboming US embassies, flying planes all over the world, letting off bombs there. It can never end through pure physical force. Imho, Pure physical force will just make it worse, take from that what you will.

*edit* Also, what magnitude is it at now? A few terrorist attacks in one year? It wont lower any lower than that i believe, perhaps im a pessimist.

You and akipt both think that there are so many terrorists around, and that every Iraqi is a terrorist, what fucking blatant bullshit, this is your justfication? We're better than them

where the fuck did i say that every iraqi is the terrorist...

wait i said

we arn't Killing ALL of iraq's and afagan's, we are killing a few innocent, well some, but not intentionaly, we are going after the terrorists

hell i even capitalized all before too dumbass, so that you couldn't miss the point, and somehow you did,

Apologies, orange, the point that included you was supposed to be the first part, that you think there are more than there are. the second part was directed at akipt.

*edit* Also, what magnitude is it at now? A few terrorist attacks in one year? It wont lower any lower than that i believe, perhaps im a pessimist.

A few? :) Theres like 12 a week hehe.Not here mind you,but against our friends and troops abroad.

thats not terrorism, thats war. In a warzone.

the huge difference between World War II and the war on terror was you know exactly who your enemy was. Germany, Japan. They both knew they were at war as well, and they funded such activities.

And countries that support and give safe haven.

Example?
Beirut and Mogadishu for those two.

Because it was such a monstrocity to the Japanese people that they were afraid of america. Is that the way you want America to stay the most powerful? Through terror tactics?

I'll give you a courtesy you aren't giving me, I'll answer both of your questions and not chop a statement in half and answer it out of context.

1. Is that the way you want America to stay the most powerful? Yes.

2. Through terror tactics?
Surely you're not accusing the US of being terrorists because we wanted to stop a war we didn't start are you? Terror to end a war, yes. Terrorists, no.

wontonly wishing dead upon other innocent people who may live in the same country as a terrorist is retarded.

Yes, retarded. I never said nor wished that.

blah blah the rest of your post is all drivel<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>translation : i cant argue against the truth.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

Quote my entire statement asshole.

If you're a terrorist, or support a terrorist, sure. But to be so consumed in your patriotism and condemn that of other people is pure hypocrisy.

Ok, I might see where you're misunderstanding me here. When I say "country" I really mean government, like the Baathists, or Taliban. I don't mean all the little citizens running around doing their thing.

So to restate: If you're a terrorist, support a terrorist, or a government that supports terrorists - you must die.

thats not terrorism, thats war. In a warzone.

Wtf , you get it for someone else but not me?

:rolleyes

Examples of how not to fight terrorists:

Beirut 1982, 5 moths later we left. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/23/world/main579638.shtml)

Mogadishu 1993, again within 2 months we were gone. (http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/tobia/)

I could list some more but its too late.

Hmm i begin to see where you're coming from. Your posts made me think you were just another "theyre the enemy kill them all" dude.

2. Through terror tactics?
Surely you're not accusing the US of being terrorists because we wanted to stop a war we didn't start are you? Terror to end a war, yes. Terrorists, no.


terror tactics != terrorism.

My definition of terrorism : Attacks on innocent people by an individual or organisation outside of a warzone or war times.

I will still maintain that WWII and this scenario are different completely, At that time Japan were a real threat, as a military force, as a country. So disheartening their leadership was necessary, though the brutal reality of the effect on Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly is terrible. Though perhaps unavoidable. Perhaps.

Terror Tactics. To me that has very negative connotations. Hussein used it, Hitler used it, Stalin. Now i know america is not using them, but if you agree that yes that is a good way to live, scare the rest of the world into not acting up, then perhaps my suspicions were well founded after all.

Yes, retarded. I never said nor wished that.

all part of

If you're a terrorist, support a terrorist, or country that supports a terrorist - die bitch.

misunderstanding. Welp, lets see how that turns out.

~~ Xyln, please please, space after comma =(

*edit*

Terrorism ONLY survies as of right now because of the corrupt leaders of these nations that aid and abet their cause

perhaps this is where our views differ, i believe that a lot of terrorism is seperate from the government, and that depowering these governments will only lead to more resentment from the extremists and thus more terrorism.

oh, woot 69th post.

Terrorist Suicide Bomber - Click Here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3957757/)
happened 01/14/2003

and that took 10 seconds to find, and there have been many others, they are daily, you don't hear about every single one cause they happen so often

Israel Palestine, again a warzone. Both investing time and effort into the war.

btw all your terrorist definition blabla depends very much on your point of view and focus.
fomr some other people perspective there "terrorists" are heroes , i.e. the suicide bombers in israel for instance , cause they fight for the freedom of palestine , list goes on ...

if you switch your focus for a moment and then ask what gives a israeli soldier more legitimation to kill several people or a palestine freedomfighter if he does the same.

please dont tell me now these kindergarden stories, the israeli is a soldier and the palestinian guys is a terrorist. for many arabian people its totally the opposite.

btw the big "monster of terrorism " and the " war against terrorism" is as much laughable as the " war against drugs" .
its like hunting ghosts , give the evil a name , i.e. al- quaida and then tell everybody , these are the evil.
tell that the people 100 times a day for a few years and the majority believes it no matter if there are dieing more people in carcrash per year or from cancer caused by cigarette smoke ...

anyways , what i want to say , most of you totally brainwashed and your selective consumption of media and your selective focus lead to the horrorful thought that the world is full of terrorists ;)

Apologies, orange, the point that included you was supposed to be the first part, that you think there are more than there are.

I didn't realize you were a terrorist census taker.

Hartmut=Terrorist sympathizer

the suicide bombers in israel for instance , cause they fight for the freedom of palestine

Wow...
just.
wow.....

scare the rest of the world into not acting up

Uh yeah, why not? Again, sounds to me like you're the type of person who "just wants to get along" with people like Hitler, Kruschev, Hussein, and Bin Laden.

And ...

Terrorism, by international standards, is any form of violence committed by UNLAWFUL groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.

The difference between the Israeli army and Palestinian terrorism is one is backed by an elected government and is held accountable by its self-governing laws and that of the international laws (UN). The terrorists are not, they do whatever the hell they want unlawfully without that of a government's oversight or before international law.

>anyways , what i want to say , most of you totally brainwashed and your selective consumption of media and your selective focus lead to the horrorful thought that the world is full of terrorists

this coming from a guy who makes his points by posting articles off of www.WEHATEUSA.com?

I'm a terrorist sympathizer.
I consider Britain's claim to Northern Ireland to be completely bullshit.
The IRA has from day one claimed to be an army, yet they have no nation behind them and thus they're still considered terrorists. Pleas to be treated according to the geneva convention from IRA operatives captured have been ongoing for decades.

I consider Britain's claim to Northern Ireland to be completely bullshit.
I could be wrong but London has given Dublin many opportunities to have a majority rule and leave (or drastically cut the UK's power to rule Northern Ireland as a result.)

The IRA has been a minority all along, without the popular support of the people.

The IRA has from day one claimed to be an army, yet they have no nation behind them and thus they're still considered terrorists.
Exactly, as it should be.

Majority rules in a democracy. I kinda like that.

Everyone has agendas.
Just because the agenda is that of a recognized nation doesn't make it ethically, or politically correct.
Who do you think would be the terrorists if the IRA wins, or if Israel is reduced to rubble?

There's always two sides of every story. Getting hung up on the broad and inaccurately accepted definition of "terrorism" gets you nowhere in any attempt to analyze any situation from a scientific perspective. Which was my point in its entirety, which obviously flew right by you.

Exactly, the IRA has had their chance to get their point of view across to their own countrymen and they've been rejected. Why should they be given any more "rights" just because they can kill someone?

Britain is a democractically elected government. Ok, just because it's a government (even democratic) doesn't make it moral or ethical. I understand that, but I'll take that any day over a regime of just a few fanatics with guns holding a larger portion of people hostage with their views.

And I meant to point out, it's my understanding that the IRA is a minority in Northern Ireland, not just Britain.

Maybe that helps?

Northern Ireland is a mess, and is probably a bad example to include at this point.

Back around the end of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, the IRA *was* a popular movement. The IRA also got funding from personal donations from citizens in the US.

Now... Both sides (the Catholics and the Protestants) have minority factions that want to eliminate the other. Hate (built up over centuries) is a hard thing to make go away.

Nah it's a perfect example. A small group of people cannot intimidate another group of governed people, who abide and follow their self-governing laws. That's why we make governments, to protect us from such things.

Precisely the reason the Palestinians and IRA have never succeeded in getting what they want entirely. They need to be self governed to be held accountable for what they do.

Give the Palestinians a state, get rid of the man whores like Arafat who steal all their money and let them be held accountable by their law and the international community.

That's already been offered. You're gonna have get Arafat killed off before it'll work.

Honestly, the whole Isreal thing doesnt phase me at all and I have a hard time feeling like we should take sides with Isreal. Its not that I have a problem with Jews or that Im pro-Palestine or pro-terrorist or anything.. its just... well...

Ok Im admittedly not an expert on the whole creation of Isreal and an autonomous Jewish homeland... But didnt they INSIST that they wanted the holy land? They just hhhaaaaaaaadddd to plop themselves right in the middle of 50 million people that wanted them dead. They just had to be hard-headed about it. If we had offered them a chunk of land double the current size of Israel in Canada somewhere or right in the middle of Montana, do you think they would have taken it? I seriously doubt it. If theyre so keen on being in the middle of all this shit they have to fight for religious reasons or whatever then I personally think we should just let em. Again, Im NOT an expert on everything surrounding the creation of Isreal, it just seems to me that sometimes we bring misery upon ourselves :p

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

maybe you should investige WHY israel is where it is..

It was a British Protectorate, it also had a very large jewish population already.. it was also their ancestoral homeland, tied extremely closely with their religion. (Wailing Wall, Jerusalem...)

Besides.. use your head.. the world then isnt the world of today. Where else would they have gone? You think for one second the Russians would have allowed them some place of stategic importance?

Oh and so generous about offering Land in Canada.. what? No room in the South Pole?
And Montana? Why should the United States or Canada offer a part of their soverign nation to allow a independant nation to form inside their borders?

Palestine wasnt a country, it was a parcel of land that was unique in its lack of ownership.

maybe you should investige WHY israel is where it is..

Well.. I dont care THAT much.. but maybe I should.

It was a British Protectorate, it also had a very large jewish population already.. it was also their ancestoral homeland, tied extremely closely with their religion. (Wailing Wall, Jerusalem...)

Well thats kinda my point... They are hardheaded about it, so are the people around them. Humans are too propreitarian, and its just more proof of it. Im not saying that if the tables were reversed Id be any better about it, but yeah I do like to think about that kinda thing.

Assuming we know the whole picture about human evolution some part of Africa is my ancestral homeland but you dont see me screaming to make a sovriegn nation there :p Give it up, land is pretty much the same everywhere.

Besides.. use your head.. the world then isnt the world of today. Where else would they have gone? You think for one second the Russians would have allowed them some place of stategic importance?

Who said anything about strategic importance? I didnt mention Russia anyways.. although who knows.. maybe if they had asked for a small amount of land at the time they couldve worked something out.. kinda beside the point.

Oh and so generous about offering Land in Canada.. what? No room in the South Pole?
And Montana? Why should the United States or Canada offer a part of their soverign nation to allow a independant nation to form inside their borders?

Lol *I* didnt offer anyone land anywhere :p Im just pointing out that there are places in the world that arent populated already, and if the offer HAD been made at the time, they probably would have said no.. for.. well.. the exact reasons you said. I just think its one of those things like.. they insisted on being put there so if its so important to em let em fight for it. I just personally have a hard time getting on the international pity Israel committee.

Palestine wasnt a country, it was a parcel of land that was unique in its lack of ownership.

And what Im sayin is if its worth so much to em, then let them deal with it. Its just a parcel of land.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

I love it. Tell you what, lets get rid of our weapons, any type of defense our country has, and make it widely known we want peace. Then, when other countries begin to terroize us, you fucken anti war people will be begging for some kind of counter defensive. Oh, and when someone begins to shoot at you, make sure you stand up and "Reason" with them, im sure it will work.

Who said anything about strategic importance? I didnt mention Russia anyways.. although who knows.. maybe if they had asked for a small amount of land at the time they couldve worked something out.. kinda beside the point.

Yeah, right next to the tens of millions of other Jews Stalin had killed ? Hitler wasn't the only one...

Yes I know that was beside your point but it shouldn't have been. They were getting the "You're not wanted here" sign everywhere they turned. They were tired of whichever country they were in turning on them in mass genocide.

A small group of people cannot intimidate another group of governed people, who abide and follow their self-governing laws. That's why we make governments, to protect us from such things.


Incorrect. A small minority of people (the radical Protestants and splinter groups of the IRA) have the majority of people so terrfied of what would happen if the English withdrew their military forces from the north, that making real progress is taking years and years longer than it needs to.

Also, the "minority" in this case is still about 40% of the population (I think).

Sorry, I should've said "..cannot be allowed to intimidate..."

Sorry ;)

Hypothetical Morality situation.

You are given a crystal ball. You look in the ball and it shows you that your child is going to be killed. It then shows you two men, one of these two men is going to start a chain of events that will culminate in death of your child. You have no idea how.. just that at the end, your child will die.

You are then given the option..
A. Kill one of the men. You give your child a 50/50 chance instead of a 100%

B. Kill neither.. all life is equal.. you cannot kill, and what will happen will happen.

C. Kill both. You child has a 100% chance of living.. but you have also definitly murdered an innocent person.

Whats the Moral decision?
It is to kill both, you have a moral obligation to protect your child. This overrides all other considerations.

Do innocents die? Yes.. it is tragic. But the situation is not one of our making.

If someone wants to come kill me, you'll be damn sure I'll try and kill him first and not run unless I'm outgunned. But on the same note I won't go around blowing shit up because I have the firepower.

Sounds like a bad movie.

So, L2, the end does justify the means.

No..
Your overriding duty to protect those that depend on you is the sole morality that exists in such cases as these.. Any other action than one that does not live up to that moral imperative is thereby actually immoral.

So what you're saying is that it's every individual's duty to override morals, ethics and principles in certain situations?

Aka... the ends do justify the means.

Prance around it all you want. You're saying that if the cause is noble (hi perspective, lets go blow up some israeli), it justifies unethical actions.

I'm not arguing against you here. But take a step back and look at exactly what you're saying. You're saying it's ok to take innocent lives in order to protect innocent lives. Basically it's "my people over your people". Shit, on a basic level most everyone agrees with you. I'd prioritize my own. I'd probably even kill to preserve the life of someone I love. But there's no way I can argue it's morally correct. I'm placing my emotions over someone elses' life.

The video's gone, damnit!

I want to see what all the hubbub is about. :(

--Cen

Here's link Cenaden,




www.prismnet.com/~chet/22...Kills.mpeg (http://www.prismnet.com/~chet/224Helicopter_Kills.mpeg)

heh L2....

You just explained Minority Report without have to sit through it for 2 hours :\

Prance around it all you want. You're saying that if the cause is noble (hi perspective, lets go blow up some israeli), it justifies unethical actions.

No, he is saying that the ONLY ETHICAL action is to kill both of them.

It is oversimplified, but the basic logic holds true.

I'd suggest you don't confuse morals with ethics, Amhorach. It's easilly done, but in this kind of discussion it's a key distinction.

If one of those men would've been his brother, and he didn't know the intended victim... what would his actions be like then? Kill his brother? I doubt that. His actions are guided by his emotions - feelings of love and duty, and emotions aren't even close to logical. The logical part of that is that he safeguards himself, but that doesn't make his choices ethically correct.

His scenario is the age old "kill one to save many", except that it's reversed. Kill many to save one.

Its not about emotions.. its about Duty.

What is your imperative in this life as a Man, as a Father?
Who is your responsibilty to? It is not to yourself, you do not get to mold the world to conform to one that allows you to a self pleasing morality. Duty goes beyond that.. duty may REQUIRE you to do things that are horrible. Yet to not do them is even worse. To allow actions harmful to those who depend on you to occur by omission of Duty is the second highest form of immorality. The first would be to intentionally betray the trust of those that depend on you.

Now switch the focus of a Father to that of a military officer or a President.
All you can ask is that leaders make honest assements with the best possible information they can get. It is not an easy call to create orders which result in deaths, but unless those deaths are of those on whom are dependant on you, they are a distant second.

As far as Ends justifying means. No.. but the responsiblity is in the commission of means in a fashion that you honestly feel gives the ends the greatest chance of success.

I'd suggest you don't confuse morals with ethics, Amhorach.

I'm not. I stand by my statement.

In this case, we are probably using definition four of moral: Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong

We are probably using the first definition of ethical:
a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values

Under both of those, it is both ETHICAL and MORAL to kill both of them.

It is also, from a biological standpoint, the advantageous thing to do: ensure your genes are spread while reducing competition for limited resources.

A trifecta of goodness!

If one of those men would've been his brother, and he didn't know the intended victim... what would his actions be like then?
Ahhh.. but then his ETHICAL and MORAL obligation has changed. He is no longer a parent protecting a child. Different situation.

His scenario is the age old "kill one to save many", except that it's reversed. Kill many to save one

Ever read Starship Troopers? There is an excellent blurb about this very thing in there. You'd also have gotten it if you were in ROTC or an officer in the armed forces, most likely.
If to save ONE member of your troop, you had to kill TEN THOUSAND enemies, and you are reasonably sure that nobody in your troop would be killed, it is the moral thing to kill all of those people.

edit: fixed a typo to underline the book title.

A trifecta of goodness

LOL I never knew it all could be such fun! That line had me roll'n. Maybe im just odd.

Duty goes beyond that.. duty may REQUIRE you to do things that are horrible. Yet to not do them is even worse.

Agreed. But again, you're doing it because your sense of duty (an emotion) is greater than whatever moral obligations you might have. What I'm trying to point out here is that the action of killing innocents (not enemy troopers, which I think no one would consider innocent -- and yes, I've read Starship Troopers). Which is the reasoning of a soldier... be it IRA, Islamic Jihad or the US armed forces.

The original point was that the same emotions that drives someone to take up arms against percieved threats to his peers are universal. You're both reasoning exactly like many "terrorists".

That, was my point. And my point in its entirety. I don't really have to argue with any of you, because you're both agreeing with me. My point is made. Both of your posts can be used as terrorist propaganda.

As I butt in... /hijack on!

I think the misunderstanding originated in your declaration that duty is an emotion. It's more of a motive, less emotion.

It's better to be helped by someone who feels emotionally led to do so than by someone who's doing it out of some sense of duty.

Duty is more of a replacement for the lack of need for an emotion.

Maybe I should go read my Greek philosophy again.

It's pretty clear-cut. Those who target opposing military forces are guerillas. Those who attack civilians for their cause are terrorists.

No...the problem is some limp wristed individuals want to put our military on war crimes trial because we cluster bombed their grandpa as he was repairing some enemy airstrip.

And then they want to compare that to some terrorists' right to kill our civilians.