[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by E.T [/i]
[B]I think Clancy put it pretty well about terrorism in Patriot Games.
(page 461, at least in english paperpack edition published by HarperCollins) [/B][/QUOTE]
Is that the quote which roughly states; "the only appealing thing about a terrorist's mind would be a Smith and Wesson 10mm jacketted hollow-point entering it at high velocity"?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Morden279 [/i]
[B]Is that the quote which roughly states; "the only appealing thing about a terrorist's mind would be a Smith and Wesson 10mm jacketted hollow-point entering it at high velocity"?
That might be Rainbow Six, I can't be sure.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, that one is from Rainbow Six. (And If I'll remember right it was expressed by "Ding" Chavez)
Well, here it is: (I dropped lines to get it shorter)
[QUOTE]They can fight their kind of war, but we can't recognise it as such without giving up something our society needs. If we treat terrorists as politically motivated activists, we give them an honour they don't deserve. If we treat them as soldiers, and kill them as such, we both give them legitimacy and violate our own laws.
Terrorists could fight a war and be protected by the democratic processes of their enemy. If those processes were obviated, the terrorists would win additional political support, but so long as those processes were not obviated, it was extremely difficult for them to lose. They could hold a society hostage against itself and its most important precepts, daring it to change.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Captain,Simmonds [/i]
[B]Its depends on who writes the history books. [/B][/QUOTE]
Simmonds, if Usama Bin Laden or the ETA or whoever is responsible for this wrote the history books, how the hell can they possibly make an attack on civilians like this NOT look cowardly?
What, are they going to say that their great heroes secretly planeted bombs to destroy the evil civilians, including children, who where powerful and mighty with their briefcases and purses, and stood in the way of their most noble of causes, whatever the hell that would be? Are they going to brag about their inability to wage a proper war, so they send in terrorists to deliberately target and murder civilians?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Captain,Simmonds [/i]
[B]Shit Happens[/B][/QUOTE]
Simmonds, Kiss my fucking ass you insensitive fucktard! If thats the best you can come up with, then you should just fucking leave and not even bother coming back.
If someone you cared for had been there and died, how the fuck would you feel if some asshole online said "Ohh well, shit happens!"? Why don't you try thinking before typing in the future....thats if there is something under that thick skull of yours.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Captain,Simmonds [/i]
[B]Its depends on who writes the history books. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm going to chime in, eventhough what I say will most likely be redundant, as a large majority of what you say can be considered ignorant rambling.
Terrorism is always cowardly. No matter who writes the history books. The killing of innocent people can never be justified, no matter if your cause is Allah, God, your own country, or your sandwich that got stolen last week. Terrorism is [i]always[/i] cowardly.
Heh... and at one stage I wondered why you guys really hated Simmonds...
*addresses Simmonds* Dude... my advice to you, get an editor. Ask someone you trust to review your posts. I'm sure you often mean to say something and I'm not exactly sure by what action but you totally screw it up and it comes out wrong.
Other times yes... you are a wanker. Colourful but still a wanker. Maybe you should try putting some positive stuff into FO to compensate.
I pay for my rants with Wingart I guess... not such a bad trade off I guess..:D
can someone screen Simmonds posts ? give him a 'moderated' voice. it would save alot of angst for everyone if he finds someone to 'filter and clarify' the stuff he says.
~~~~
And onto the scum...
correction to the numbers at the protest rallies... EIGHT million Spaniards...
lessee 8,000,000 against maybe 50
can you say a terrorist head on a pike every 20 miles around Madrid ?
fuckers...
....blow up the innocent = instant irrevocation of your human rights...ergo... you are no longer a person... if you're lucky someone will make sure you are put down humanely...
... if you're unlucky you'll end up in a room filled with the loved ones of the people you killed...
...and you will know suffering...
there might be enough left of you to put into the compost heap
And one last little clarifcation...
'it depends on who writes the history books'
I think you may be confusing guerilla fighters with terrorists... guerillas are in open conflict with thier opressors/government/enemy, and they target military, not civilians. Guerillas rely on populist and grass roots support. A terrorist rarely ever has that... and if they do, its either from fear or its money... and it seldom lasts too long.
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
yup i agree with all ur points there SB. dunno what Simmonds was meaning, but i wasnt really refering to terrorists when i posted my opinion, more conflict in general.
as for an editior for Simmonds........would they get hazard pay?:p
I really must say that if Simmonds wasn't playing as an opposing force, this kind of threads would be awfully monotonous "oh that's just horrible, my condolences" conversations.
Without a good contrast you wouldn't appreciate your own opinions as much as you do now. Feeling of superiority nearly always makes people happier and more confident so actually you should thank Simmonds for his effort.
Edit: oh yea, when they get the bastards who did the bombing, what kind of punishment should they really really use?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Eclecticonaut [/i]
[B]Without a good contrast you wouldn't appreciate your own opinions as much as you do now. Feeling of superiority nearly always makes people happier about themselves so actually you should thank Simmonds for his effort. [/B][/QUOTE]
[i]Contrast?[/i]
Yeah, well thought-out, considered, and socio-politically aware comments like "shit happens" have *really* contributed to the spectrum of opinions brought forward in this discussion.
Morden
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
yeah, but it got a reaction, which i think was the whole point of why he said it
What kind of reaction but a very negative one can anyone expect from what he posted? That said, what kind of idiot posts merely for that sort of reaction. There's no point, no need, and no benefit for anyone. Nothing useful is contributed.
People that do things simply to get a reaction are usually university level, leftist op-ed writers that think that as long as what they write gets people talking, they've done something right. It seems like a smart thing to say when people criticize you, but it really isn't. Who the hell cares that you've provoked thought and discussion? Anyone can do that. If you say something that no one can really write against effectively, THAT is an achievement. Writing simply to provoke thought, however, is what idiots claim they've done when they need a way to get out of something retarded they've said.
But with even that said, I think you give him too much credit.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ShadowDancer [/i]
[B]yeah, but it got a reaction, which i think was the whole point of why he said it [/B][/QUOTE]
My friend, there's a difference between getting a reaction from posting something stupid, and getting a reaction from posting something progressive and constructive.
Here we go... "Black people are scum."
If I *meant* that, I'd get a negative response.
If you're not going to say something intelligent, then there's no point in saying it. What's more, if you post something like that, you're going to get a negative response.
Simmonds' posts comments like "shit happens" for a negative response, and because it'll piss people off, nothing more.
I know I really shouldn't waste my breath on the guy, but I think this needs clarification.
Regards,
Morden
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
i know, i was making an observation about his motives not a statement of support
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CurZ [/i]
[B]Terrorism is always cowardly. No matter who writes the history books. The killing of innocent people can never be justified, no matter if your cause is Allah, God, your own country, or your sandwich that got stolen last week. Terrorism is [i]always[/i] cowardly. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's right and it is also needed to remind, that the attack in Iraq was no different in the end. Lots of civilians were killed there as well due to the attack and those responsible knew, that many innocent civilians, including children who don't even understand why all that was happening, would definitely get killed. But they thought that it would be justified! They thought that those civilians can be sacrificed for "a greater good"! Those kind of people are NO better than any terrorists. NO ONE has right to decide of ANYONE'S life no matter how much good it would do to some other people. No matter what the cause is.
THE ONLY justified way to use a weapon against another human being, is to defend oneself or other people when someone else attacks first. That was NOT the case in Iraq war.
Sorry to bring up this Iraq war again, but it is necessary. We must not forget it. We must keep reminding people about it as long until everybody understands this.
Saddam Hussein attacked the Iraqi people, so we defended them.
The difference between Operation Iraqi Freedom and these terrorist attacks is that the war was waged to destroy the Ba'th Regime and oust Saddam Hussein. If we never went to war just because we were aware that civilians would unintentinally be the victims of our attacks, the world would be a screwed up place.
The terrorist attack was launched to kill civilians. Any "greater good" they may have in mind would most assuredly display their mental depravity and nothing more.
And how many terrorists invest any money in precision weapons? We, for example, are crazy about them. The terrorists that attacked the train station obviously couldn't care less about such things.
Also, remember that a lot of Iraqis (people who had it good under Hussein obviously excluded) wanted the war. How many Spaniards do you think wanted to have 200 of their civilians murdered?
I found Simmonds comments insensitive, but I can also agree with what SD and Eclecticonaut said even more so after reading nasty comments about Simmonds posts which are equally as upsetting. Does there have to be so much hatred?
As for cowards. When they caught Saddam he was such a coward he couldn't even shoot himself liked he'd vowed to if he got caught since they believe in sacrificing themselves is a great honour.
Please guys lets not go into politics right now. All that matters right now is condeming what those people did.
there is plenty of room on another thread for Iraq. Although in an interesting turn of events the Spainish in response to the attacks have elected the party which was set to loose prior to 3-11. It may be thats exacly what the terrorists wanted, Aznar's government supported the U.S in Afganistan, and later in Iraq. People are blaming them for what happend.
Elections from now on all over could be very different, terrorist could see this as a victory and may try this again. Very disturbing
Which if you figure the 7 degrees of separation every one in the country of Spain knew someone that was either killed or maimed in these attacks....
I feel for them.....
As for Simmonds, I wish you were over the age of 18, cause I would personally get on a plane, find you, and slap the shit out of you....more than once...you lousy incompetent fucktard....get banned and never come back.
Ok, first of all I would like to say I resent actions like this, and do not sympathise with Al Quadia. But if you want something to react to how about this:
The actions in Madrid is not much different from the way war is waged. The big difference is that these are not countries fighting among each other, these are groups fighting against other groups.
'Al Quaida' against 'America sympathisers' and, according to Al Quadia, these america sympathisers are found among civilians everywhere. Kinda like the tactics fought by Sharon by dropping missiles into civilian areas of Palestine, or by Bush Sr. during the pause between Iraq 1.0 and Iraq 2.0. Civilians die in every war. I do not have time to post more, but will when I get home.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by MT [/i]
[B]If we never went to war just because we were aware that civilians would unintentinally be the victims of our attacks, the world would be a screwed up place.[/B][/QUOTE]
If all goverments would take "justice" to their own hands world would become bad place very quickly.
Hell, if everyone would be unwilling to start war because people die in those world would be much better place.
[QUOTE][B]Saddam Hussein attacked the Iraqi people, so we defended them.[/B][/QUOTE]
In that case why Bush senior didn't kick out Hussein after Gulf War "episode one"?
He encouraged kurds and other Hussein's opponents to rise against him promising support but then immediately betrayed them by allowing Hussein's army to slaughter them.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Eclecticonaut [/i]
[B]Without a good contrast you wouldn't appreciate your own opinions as much as you do now. Feeling of superiority nearly always makes people happier and more confident so actually you should thank Simmonds for his effort. [/B][/QUOTE]
Umm....so by your logic, we should thank Simmonds for being a trolling asshole? You realize how stupid that sounds.....right?
What it comes down to, to me, is that Saddam Hussein was killing Iraqis and denying them all that good stuff America is so proud of, so we came in and stopped him. Of course civilians died in the process, it's a sad fact of war, but no longer will Saddam's regime murder anyone and everyone opposed to their rule.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Vertigo1 [/i]
[B]Umm....so by your logic, we should thank Simmonds for being a trolling asshole? You realize how stupid that sounds.....right? [/B][/QUOTE]
I know, I couldn't get my head around it either. :rolleyes: Some people just have too much tolerence...
Comments
(page 461, at least in english paperpack edition published by HarperCollins)
[B]I think Clancy put it pretty well about terrorism in Patriot Games.
(page 461, at least in english paperpack edition published by HarperCollins) [/B][/QUOTE]
Is that the quote which roughly states; "the only appealing thing about a terrorist's mind would be a Smith and Wesson 10mm jacketted hollow-point entering it at high velocity"?
That might be Rainbow Six, I can't be sure.
Regards,
Morden
[B]Is that the quote which roughly states; "the only appealing thing about a terrorist's mind would be a Smith and Wesson 10mm jacketted hollow-point entering it at high velocity"?
That might be Rainbow Six, I can't be sure.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, that one is from Rainbow Six. (And If I'll remember right it was expressed by "Ding" Chavez)
Well, here it is: (I dropped lines to get it shorter)
[QUOTE]They can fight their kind of war, but we can't recognise it as such without giving up something our society needs. If we treat terrorists as politically motivated activists, we give them an honour they don't deserve. If we treat them as soldiers, and kill them as such, we both give them legitimacy and violate our own laws.
Terrorists could fight a war and be protected by the democratic processes of their enemy. If those processes were obviated, the terrorists would win additional political support, but so long as those processes were not obviated, it was extremely difficult for them to lose. They could hold a society hostage against itself and its most important precepts, daring it to change.[/QUOTE]
[B]Its depends on who writes the history books. [/B][/QUOTE]
Simmonds, if Usama Bin Laden or the ETA or whoever is responsible for this wrote the history books, how the hell can they possibly make an attack on civilians like this NOT look cowardly?
What, are they going to say that their great heroes secretly planeted bombs to destroy the evil civilians, including children, who where powerful and mighty with their briefcases and purses, and stood in the way of their most noble of causes, whatever the hell that would be? Are they going to brag about their inability to wage a proper war, so they send in terrorists to deliberately target and murder civilians?
[B]Shit Happens[/B][/QUOTE]
Simmonds, Kiss my fucking ass you insensitive fucktard! If thats the best you can come up with, then you should just fucking leave and not even bother coming back.
If someone you cared for had been there and died, how the fuck would you feel if some asshole online said "Ohh well, shit happens!"? Why don't you try thinking before typing in the future....thats if there is something under that thick skull of yours.
[B]Its depends on who writes the history books. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm going to chime in, eventhough what I say will most likely be redundant, as a large majority of what you say can be considered ignorant rambling.
Terrorism is always cowardly. No matter who writes the history books. The killing of innocent people can never be justified, no matter if your cause is Allah, God, your own country, or your sandwich that got stolen last week. Terrorism is [i]always[/i] cowardly.
*addresses Simmonds* Dude... my advice to you, get an editor. Ask someone you trust to review your posts. I'm sure you often mean to say something and I'm not exactly sure by what action but you totally screw it up and it comes out wrong.
Other times yes... you are a wanker. Colourful but still a wanker. Maybe you should try putting some positive stuff into FO to compensate.
I pay for my rants with Wingart I guess... not such a bad trade off I guess..:D
can someone screen Simmonds posts ? give him a 'moderated' voice. it would save alot of angst for everyone if he finds someone to 'filter and clarify' the stuff he says.
~~~~
And onto the scum...
correction to the numbers at the protest rallies... EIGHT million Spaniards...
lessee 8,000,000 against maybe 50
can you say a terrorist head on a pike every 20 miles around Madrid ?
fuckers...
....blow up the innocent = instant irrevocation of your human rights...ergo... you are no longer a person... if you're lucky someone will make sure you are put down humanely...
... if you're unlucky you'll end up in a room filled with the loved ones of the people you killed...
...and you will know suffering...
there might be enough left of you to put into the compost heap
And one last little clarifcation...
'it depends on who writes the history books'
I think you may be confusing guerilla fighters with terrorists... guerillas are in open conflict with thier opressors/government/enemy, and they target military, not civilians. Guerillas rely on populist and grass roots support. A terrorist rarely ever has that... and if they do, its either from fear or its money... and it seldom lasts too long.
as for an editior for Simmonds........would they get hazard pay?:p
Without a good contrast you wouldn't appreciate your own opinions as much as you do now. Feeling of superiority nearly always makes people happier and more confident so actually you should thank Simmonds for his effort.
Edit: oh yea, when they get the bastards who did the bombing, what kind of punishment should they really really use?
[B]Without a good contrast you wouldn't appreciate your own opinions as much as you do now. Feeling of superiority nearly always makes people happier about themselves so actually you should thank Simmonds for his effort. [/B][/QUOTE]
[i]Contrast?[/i]
Yeah, well thought-out, considered, and socio-politically aware comments like "shit happens" have *really* contributed to the spectrum of opinions brought forward in this discussion.
Morden
People that do things simply to get a reaction are usually university level, leftist op-ed writers that think that as long as what they write gets people talking, they've done something right. It seems like a smart thing to say when people criticize you, but it really isn't. Who the hell cares that you've provoked thought and discussion? Anyone can do that. If you say something that no one can really write against effectively, THAT is an achievement. Writing simply to provoke thought, however, is what idiots claim they've done when they need a way to get out of something retarded they've said.
But with even that said, I think you give him too much credit.
[B]yeah, but it got a reaction, which i think was the whole point of why he said it [/B][/QUOTE]
My friend, there's a difference between getting a reaction from posting something stupid, and getting a reaction from posting something progressive and constructive.
Here we go... "Black people are scum."
If I *meant* that, I'd get a negative response.
If you're not going to say something intelligent, then there's no point in saying it. What's more, if you post something like that, you're going to get a negative response.
Simmonds' posts comments like "shit happens" for a negative response, and because it'll piss people off, nothing more.
I know I really shouldn't waste my breath on the guy, but I think this needs clarification.
Regards,
Morden
[B]That said, what kind of idiot posts merely for that sort of reaction.[/B][/QUOTE]
It's commonly known as trolling.
[B]i know, i was making an observation about his motives not a statement of support [/B][/QUOTE]
Ok, as long as everything's cleared up.
Regards,
Morden
[B]Terrorism is always cowardly. No matter who writes the history books. The killing of innocent people can never be justified, no matter if your cause is Allah, God, your own country, or your sandwich that got stolen last week. Terrorism is [i]always[/i] cowardly. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's right and it is also needed to remind, that the attack in Iraq was no different in the end. Lots of civilians were killed there as well due to the attack and those responsible knew, that many innocent civilians, including children who don't even understand why all that was happening, would definitely get killed. But they thought that it would be justified! They thought that those civilians can be sacrificed for "a greater good"! Those kind of people are NO better than any terrorists. NO ONE has right to decide of ANYONE'S life no matter how much good it would do to some other people. No matter what the cause is.
THE ONLY justified way to use a weapon against another human being, is to defend oneself or other people when someone else attacks first. That was NOT the case in Iraq war.
Sorry to bring up this Iraq war again, but it is necessary. We must not forget it. We must keep reminding people about it as long until everybody understands this.
- PJH
The difference between Operation Iraqi Freedom and these terrorist attacks is that the war was waged to destroy the Ba'th Regime and oust Saddam Hussein. If we never went to war just because we were aware that civilians would unintentinally be the victims of our attacks, the world would be a screwed up place.
The terrorist attack was launched to kill civilians. Any "greater good" they may have in mind would most assuredly display their mental depravity and nothing more.
And how many terrorists invest any money in precision weapons? We, for example, are crazy about them. The terrorists that attacked the train station obviously couldn't care less about such things.
Also, remember that a lot of Iraqis (people who had it good under Hussein obviously excluded) wanted the war. How many Spaniards do you think wanted to have 200 of their civilians murdered?
As for cowards. When they caught Saddam he was such a coward he couldn't even shoot himself liked he'd vowed to if he got caught since they believe in sacrificing themselves is a great honour.
there is plenty of room on another thread for Iraq. Although in an interesting turn of events the Spainish in response to the attacks have elected the party which was set to loose prior to 3-11. It may be thats exacly what the terrorists wanted, Aznar's government supported the U.S in Afganistan, and later in Iraq. People are blaming them for what happend.
Elections from now on all over could be very different, terrorist could see this as a victory and may try this again. Very disturbing
Which if you figure the 7 degrees of separation every one in the country of Spain knew someone that was either killed or maimed in these attacks....
I feel for them.....
As for Simmonds, I wish you were over the age of 18, cause I would personally get on a plane, find you, and slap the shit out of you....more than once...you lousy incompetent fucktard....get banned and never come back.
The actions in Madrid is not much different from the way war is waged. The big difference is that these are not countries fighting among each other, these are groups fighting against other groups.
'Al Quaida' against 'America sympathisers' and, according to Al Quadia, these america sympathisers are found among civilians everywhere. Kinda like the tactics fought by Sharon by dropping missiles into civilian areas of Palestine, or by Bush Sr. during the pause between Iraq 1.0 and Iraq 2.0. Civilians die in every war. I do not have time to post more, but will when I get home.
[B]I found Simmonds comments insensitive....[/B][/QUOTE]
Mate, if you post stuff like that, you should *expect* a bad reaction. We wouldn't be in this situation if those things hadn't been said.
Regards,
Morden
[B]If we never went to war just because we were aware that civilians would unintentinally be the victims of our attacks, the world would be a screwed up place.[/B][/QUOTE]
If all goverments would take "justice" to their own hands world would become bad place very quickly.
Hell, if everyone would be unwilling to start war because people die in those world would be much better place.
[QUOTE][B]Saddam Hussein attacked the Iraqi people, so we defended them.[/B][/QUOTE]
In that case why Bush senior didn't kick out Hussein after Gulf War "episode one"?
He encouraged kurds and other Hussein's opponents to rise against him promising support but then immediately betrayed them by allowing Hussein's army to slaughter them.
[B]Without a good contrast you wouldn't appreciate your own opinions as much as you do now. Feeling of superiority nearly always makes people happier and more confident so actually you should thank Simmonds for his effort. [/B][/QUOTE]
Umm....so by your logic, we should thank Simmonds for being a trolling asshole? You realize how stupid that sounds.....right?
[B]Umm....so by your logic, we should thank Simmonds for being a trolling asshole? You realize how stupid that sounds.....right? [/B][/QUOTE]
I know, I couldn't get my head around it either. :rolleyes: Some people just have too much tolerence...
Regards,
Morden