The War on Terror

LEAD with LEAD

Lead and the rest of the world will follow! The following is from The American Dream, What Is It?

"The rest of the world has watched us become the driving force for the whole human race. They know freeing the individual and making the government serve at the consent the governed has established us as the worlds leader."

We can not wait for the rest of the world to agree, they will follow when we are successful. :m16shoot:
 
Big_Z said:
True, but that quote is a good reason why most countries dont like the US.
Click to expand...

I remember a really important history lesson about this matter. As WWII formed, the US made sure to keep out of world affairs by practicing isolationism. "Let the world deal with its own problems" was the motto of my country. I will save the details, but the world could not solve its own problems and the US was dragged into a life and death struggle to save the world. With the help of our allies, we were able to win the war.

The world did not have the spine to deal with Hitler and Japan then nor does the world have much of a spine for terrorism today. Thank God for our allies for sticking it out with us. There is an old army saying, "Lead by example."
 
Haganah staged attacks on British troops (among others) stationed in what is now Israel.
Better call them insurgents or combatants then hey?
Click to expand...


Huh? Attacking troops is not terror. PLO insurgents shooting at IDF troops and killing them is not terror. Its Gurrila Warfare. And I see nothing wrong with it. However, when you attack civilians on purpose in order to achieve political goals, than its terror. The Jewish underground that attacked civilian targets is ETZEL. Even they did it only on a few occasions, and always warned before the explosives were detonated. Still, they were terrorists. And if I may remind you, the Jewish population and the Hagana did notaproove of these actions, and even gave up some ETZEL members to the Brits.

This is offtopiic. If you wish to further discuss it, Im very willing, but open a new topic in Military History...
 
Often it is just too hard to distinguish Civilians from Military personel.

Can you call a Soldier without military uniform a Civilian?

Or you mean: When a soldier is not on uniform and is not holding his weapons then he is civilian and nobody is allowed to kill him?

Also, without support of Civilians there will not be any military operations possible at all.

The point is:
When a nation is at war, both her Civilians and Military personel are at war at the same time.
 
I disagree 100% with your reasoning.

Civilian Targets

The World Trade Centers
Cafes in Isreal
Schools in Russia
Theaters in Russia
Trains in Spain
Subways in Japan
Airliners

Military Targets

The Pentagon
All troops
Govnerment buildings
Warships
Military aircraft.

"Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol"

That is straight from the Geneva convention

In war, civilians are going to die. It is the specific targeting of civilians that is illegal
 
Geneva convention, yes, Geneva convention says this and that.

But in practices, during Korea and Vietnam wars, USA troops simply killed A LOT OF civilians, they simply said: they cannot distinguish civilians from militaries, maybe they don't care at all.

The issue is (again):
Your nation is at war, so both your civilians and militaries are ONE, supporting your nation's war, if not ALL of the people, at least the majority of the people.

Also, in "democracies", civilians have RIGHT to stop wars, don't they?

Also, if your nation wins the war, your civilians will benefit from this winning, if your nations loses the war, your civilians will pay for the price too.

Also, fact is: many civilians PRODUCE or HELP to PRODUCE the weapons for their militaries to KILL enemy.

SO: if you want nobody to suffer from the war, better stop the war.
 
hmm well the way i see it a combatant can be identified from a non-combatant easily...

If they have a gun in their hand..they are a combatant.

if the people were found in the war area unarmed..and the guns been been found a few feet away..well i guess they would be unarmed combatants.

if they had no weapons at all..found in a war zone where they could be shot or killed..well either they are a non-combantant that couldn't move very fast..wouldn't move very fast...weren't where they belonged...or were totally in the dark about what was going on.

personally..i find the asian or eastern people to very intelligent and knowledgable. so the last answer ain't in the equation.

i believe that in this case of korea..there were absolutely no innocent people on either side Flying Frog.
 
What our disagreement comes down to is the definition of a civilian.

The Geneva Convention says "a civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian."

I agree with this definition.

Your definition is everyone and their mother is a "target" during a time of war.

As a soldier, I do not agree with that. I can live with the fact that I may kill civilians during combat operations. As I said, civilians are going to die in combat. As long as I do my best to prevent civilian casualties, I have done my duty. I WILL NOT kill civilians because they support soldiers or just because they are on the battlefield. You have to be out of your mind to do such a thing.

History has proven that Governments that use your form of warfare do not last as long as governments who DO NOT terrorize civilians. Russia, Germany, the Balkans, and Eastern Block states are just a few of those examples.

Yes, I will admit that American troops have deliberately targeted civilians in the past and it will happen again. The difference is that the American military does not have a standing order to kill civilians like many other armies have had.
 
Sorry FF, unacceptable. Im not at war with 3 year old Palestinian children, and my 3 years old niece is not at war with Arafat. She dose not know who he is....My mother is a retired LTC. However, when she is unarmed and not in uniform, she is not a combatent. She poses no threat to anyone when she drinks coffee in a coffee shop. I am a Police Volunteer. When I am armed and on duty, I am an acceptable target. When I take a bus to school, I am not. A soldier on leave, with out his weapon, is not a legitemet target, unless you can say 100% that he is a soldier. This is impossible. Attacking unarmed people outside of the area of combat, in hope of acheiving political rather than military objectives, is terror. Its wrong morally and leagaly. The 9/11 attacks were not acts of war. Neither was the attack on the Russian school in Baslan, or the attack on the resorts in Sinay. These are acts of Terror and evil.
 
The definition of "civilian" is good.

I doubt any government in this world NOW allows its troops to kill civilians, including the most "dictatorship" countries's governments.

I never said "civilians" should be treated as targets, my point is: civilians are more or less ASSOCIATED with the militaries, without support of civilians there can not be a war conducted at all.

SHERMAN:

First don't misunderstand my points. See my words above.
Second: how about USA dropping A-bombs in Japan? Isn't that bombing japans civilians a tool to achieve a better goal? Of course it is.
 
Then I guess those mass graves in Iraq are from soldiers. Even the bodies of little girls holding dolls...

I would advise you do look into the Sudan conflict a bit more. The specific targeting of civilians is still being practiced today.

I am going to take a brake from this topic since I am quite irritated at the moment. Off to the pool to work off some aggression!!!!!
 
FF, many govs allow their soldiers to kill civilians. As to the A-Bombs, that was a horrible war, and all sides commited horrible thing. And by my book, that was a war crime.
 
On my opinion,terror in world is part of big new world order plan to keep
men dying and factories working,so in that case theres not pretty much u can do about it
 
As öong as the Arab nation doesn't take care of the problem themself inseide there own countries we will always have muslim terrorists targeting US or western interests. The problem must be taken care of att the root. Kids in daycare in some muslim countries are tought that US are evil and that the white men will come and kill there parents.

Again as long as the muslim countries deal with this problem for real we will have terrorists and it will not matter if the US do like what you do in Iraq it will only stop the terrorists for a short period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top