Terrorism

[NotCranky]

Allan, I don’t think my views are extreme at all. I think status quo hogwash on these issues is perverted. That status quo includes using Christianity as a weapon perhaps not as apparently radicalized as some “brands” of Isalm but I am sure the reserve capacity and will to pervert it as such, is not stored away so deeply in history.

I don’t condone radical Islam, I just see it as part of warfare, of all people I don’t see why you can’t . The planes into the towers are a Trojan Horse. The sucide bombers are GI’s who will risk dieing so hundreds more won’t,so that their civilization won’t. The skinny guy from platoon who would run in the middle of an enemy ambush to draw fire and show positions comes to mind. Some people are not just going to capitulate and say “we’ll take your bombs, your puppets and missionaries your corporations and the full neuter job”.

[afx114]

[quote=pri_dk]The fact that he targeted military vs. civilians is not a trivial detail. It is what distinguishes “terrorist acts” from “military operations.”[/quote]

Agreed. If 9/11 was simply an attack on the Pentagon, would it have been considered a military attack or a terrorist attack? I think it would have been classified as a terrorist hijacking (civilians on board), but a military attack (target was military). It seems as if these lines have been blurred quite a bit since 9/11.

[afx114]

[quote=pri_dk]The fact that he targeted military vs. civilians is not a trivial detail. It is what distinguishes “terrorist acts” from “military operations.”[/quote]

Agreed. If 9/11 was simply an attack on the Pentagon, would it have been considered a military attack or a terrorist attack? I think it would have been classified as a terrorist hijacking (civilians on board), but a military attack (target was military). It seems as if these lines have been blurred quite a bit since 9/11.

[afx114]

[quote=pri_dk]The fact that he targeted military vs. civilians is not a trivial detail. It is what distinguishes “terrorist acts” from “military operations.”[/quote]

Agreed. If 9/11 was simply an attack on the Pentagon, would it have been considered a military attack or a terrorist attack? I think it would have been classified as a terrorist hijacking (civilians on board), but a military attack (target was military). It seems as if these lines have been blurred quite a bit since 9/11.

[afx114]

[quote=pri_dk]The fact that he targeted military vs. civilians is not a trivial detail. It is what distinguishes “terrorist acts” from “military operations.”[/quote]

Agreed. If 9/11 was simply an attack on the Pentagon, would it have been considered a military attack or a terrorist attack? I think it would have been classified as a terrorist hijacking (civilians on board), but a military attack (target was military). It seems as if these lines have been blurred quite a bit since 9/11.

[afx114]

[quote=pri_dk]The fact that he targeted military vs. civilians is not a trivial detail. It is what distinguishes “terrorist acts” from “military operations.”[/quote]

Agreed. If 9/11 was simply an attack on the Pentagon, would it have been considered a military attack or a terrorist attack? I think it would have been classified as a terrorist hijacking (civilians on board), but a military attack (target was military). It seems as if these lines have been blurred quite a bit since 9/11.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: Then, if I apply your logic, he is an enemy combatant wearing a US Army uniform, correct?

Under Geneva, that makes him a spy and subject to summary execution. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky when I say this, I’m applying your thinking to its logical end.[/quote]

Sure, why not. Go for that prosecution, if you think it will stick.

Of course different cases could be made and ALL the dots are not known. Surely you would need some sort of conspiring, which according to the CIA was not going on. Because they deemed him not a danger to bring up to the Army.

But, you really were not talking legally, though, were you Allan?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Russell]Allan, I don’t think my views are extreme at all. I think status quo hogwash on these issues is perverted. That status quo includes using Christianity as a weapon perhaps not as apparently radicalized as some “brands” of Isalm but I am sure the reserve capacity and will to pervert it as such, is not stored away so deeply in history.

I don’t condone radical Islam, I just see it as part of warfare, of all people I don’t see why you can’t . The planes into the towers are a Trojan Horse. The sucide bombers are GI’s who will risk dieing so hundreds more won’t,so that their civilization won’t. The skinny guy from platoon who would run in the middle of an enemy ambush to draw fire and show positions comes to mind. Some people are not just going to capitulate and say “we’ll take your bombs, your puppets and missionaries your corporations and the full neuter job”.[/quote]

Russ: Reading the above, I come away with a definite sense of nativism, especially as it relates to the Mideast. You mention missionaries. Why is this so bad? It would seem to be that you’re arguing that a Christian proselytizing in the ME is a bad thing and that reads to me as though you believe Islam belongs there, but Christianity doesn’t. If I’m not reading this right, please set me straight.

I bring this up because there are and have been competing religions and ideologies there for millenia (which is, in large part, the motive force behind all of this shit).

As far as capitulation goes: The “resistance” you mention is completely understandable and I would agree that it becomes almost a duty. However, Osama and his little minions aren’t “resisting” anything. To the contrary, they are actively seeking the worldwide establishment of an Islamic Caliphate, operating under Sharia law, to which all of us, regardless of faith, would submit (upon pain of death, I would add).

So, given that, 9/11 wasn’t an act of resistance, it was an act of war and delivered by an enemy utterly dedicated to our total destruction as a country, and a way of life. You may recall Osama declaring his desire to kill 4MM Americans. This isn’t “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”. If we equate Osama to Hitler, the only thing missing is his control over a country like Germany. Remarkably similar goals (world domination under a unifying “theology”) and similar wills.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Russell]Allan, I don’t think my views are extreme at all. I think status quo hogwash on these issues is perverted. That status quo includes using Christianity as a weapon perhaps not as apparently radicalized as some “brands” of Isalm but I am sure the reserve capacity and will to pervert it as such, is not stored away so deeply in history.

I don’t condone radical Islam, I just see it as part of warfare, of all people I don’t see why you can’t . The planes into the towers are a Trojan Horse. The sucide bombers are GI’s who will risk dieing so hundreds more won’t,so that their civilization won’t. The skinny guy from platoon who would run in the middle of an enemy ambush to draw fire and show positions comes to mind. Some people are not just going to capitulate and say “we’ll take your bombs, your puppets and missionaries your corporations and the full neuter job”.[/quote]

Russ: Reading the above, I come away with a definite sense of nativism, especially as it relates to the Mideast. You mention missionaries. Why is this so bad? It would seem to be that you’re arguing that a Christian proselytizing in the ME is a bad thing and that reads to me as though you believe Islam belongs there, but Christianity doesn’t. If I’m not reading this right, please set me straight.

I bring this up because there are and have been competing religions and ideologies there for millenia (which is, in large part, the motive force behind all of this shit).

As far as capitulation goes: The “resistance” you mention is completely understandable and I would agree that it becomes almost a duty. However, Osama and his little minions aren’t “resisting” anything. To the contrary, they are actively seeking the worldwide establishment of an Islamic Caliphate, operating under Sharia law, to which all of us, regardless of faith, would submit (upon pain of death, I would add).

So, given that, 9/11 wasn’t an act of resistance, it was an act of war and delivered by an enemy utterly dedicated to our total destruction as a country, and a way of life. You may recall Osama declaring his desire to kill 4MM Americans. This isn’t “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”. If we equate Osama to Hitler, the only thing missing is his control over a country like Germany. Remarkably similar goals (world domination under a unifying “theology”) and similar wills.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Russell]Allan, I don’t think my views are extreme at all. I think status quo hogwash on these issues is perverted. That status quo includes using Christianity as a weapon perhaps not as apparently radicalized as some “brands” of Isalm but I am sure the reserve capacity and will to pervert it as such, is not stored away so deeply in history.

I don’t condone radical Islam, I just see it as part of warfare, of all people I don’t see why you can’t . The planes into the towers are a Trojan Horse. The sucide bombers are GI’s who will risk dieing so hundreds more won’t,so that their civilization won’t. The skinny guy from platoon who would run in the middle of an enemy ambush to draw fire and show positions comes to mind. Some people are not just going to capitulate and say “we’ll take your bombs, your puppets and missionaries your corporations and the full neuter job”.[/quote]

Russ: Reading the above, I come away with a definite sense of nativism, especially as it relates to the Mideast. You mention missionaries. Why is this so bad? It would seem to be that you’re arguing that a Christian proselytizing in the ME is a bad thing and that reads to me as though you believe Islam belongs there, but Christianity doesn’t. If I’m not reading this right, please set me straight.

I bring this up because there are and have been competing religions and ideologies there for millenia (which is, in large part, the motive force behind all of this shit).

As far as capitulation goes: The “resistance” you mention is completely understandable and I would agree that it becomes almost a duty. However, Osama and his little minions aren’t “resisting” anything. To the contrary, they are actively seeking the worldwide establishment of an Islamic Caliphate, operating under Sharia law, to which all of us, regardless of faith, would submit (upon pain of death, I would add).

So, given that, 9/11 wasn’t an act of resistance, it was an act of war and delivered by an enemy utterly dedicated to our total destruction as a country, and a way of life. You may recall Osama declaring his desire to kill 4MM Americans. This isn’t “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”. If we equate Osama to Hitler, the only thing missing is his control over a country like Germany. Remarkably similar goals (world domination under a unifying “theology”) and similar wills.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Russell]Allan, I don’t think my views are extreme at all. I think status quo hogwash on these issues is perverted. That status quo includes using Christianity as a weapon perhaps not as apparently radicalized as some “brands” of Isalm but I am sure the reserve capacity and will to pervert it as such, is not stored away so deeply in history.

I don’t condone radical Islam, I just see it as part of warfare, of all people I don’t see why you can’t . The planes into the towers are a Trojan Horse. The sucide bombers are GI’s who will risk dieing so hundreds more won’t,so that their civilization won’t. The skinny guy from platoon who would run in the middle of an enemy ambush to draw fire and show positions comes to mind. Some people are not just going to capitulate and say “we’ll take your bombs, your puppets and missionaries your corporations and the full neuter job”.[/quote]

Russ: Reading the above, I come away with a definite sense of nativism, especially as it relates to the Mideast. You mention missionaries. Why is this so bad? It would seem to be that you’re arguing that a Christian proselytizing in the ME is a bad thing and that reads to me as though you believe Islam belongs there, but Christianity doesn’t. If I’m not reading this right, please set me straight.

I bring this up because there are and have been competing religions and ideologies there for millenia (which is, in large part, the motive force behind all of this shit).

As far as capitulation goes: The “resistance” you mention is completely understandable and I would agree that it becomes almost a duty. However, Osama and his little minions aren’t “resisting” anything. To the contrary, they are actively seeking the worldwide establishment of an Islamic Caliphate, operating under Sharia law, to which all of us, regardless of faith, would submit (upon pain of death, I would add).

So, given that, 9/11 wasn’t an act of resistance, it was an act of war and delivered by an enemy utterly dedicated to our total destruction as a country, and a way of life. You may recall Osama declaring his desire to kill 4MM Americans. This isn’t “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”. If we equate Osama to Hitler, the only thing missing is his control over a country like Germany. Remarkably similar goals (world domination under a unifying “theology”) and similar wills.

[Author]

Posts