Beawulf Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 I think it is only normal for people to take action if they are being attacked or oppressed. If an alien race were attacking earth and we had no miliatary left would we just give up and be oppressed? no! We would fight.....for our freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 bet when you started this pole you never thought it would turn into a political debate about real life huh Elderbear................. lmao actually trek does tend to refect what is happening in our world actually in many ways a good example is star trek: the undiscovered country being similar to the fall of the eastern block. Thats whats so good about star trek as it does tend to refect sometimes moral issues that are happening today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 You make a good point, and what I say next is in no way meant to be offensive......................I don't know enough about the situation to be accurate, but as far as I'm concerned, waring for any reason what so ever is in my opinion primitive and child like, for instance fighting over land is just plain Stupid, it's a bloody chunk of dirt, I hardly think it's worth Killing over, and yes I know what you might say.....What if someone tried to take your land from you, well I cirtainly wouldn't kill them over it, nothing in this world is worth ending anothers life, not land, not religion, not Money..............NOTHING..................... Yeah loosing land isnt the end of the world, but what if they are trying to take something else from you, like your freedom, or your life, or the lives of your family, what if they want to put your sons into slavery and your daughters into prostitution...would you fight to stop that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted June 9, 2005 Author Share Posted June 9, 2005 I think your mistaked, there is a huge difference between a war and terrorism, the "shock and awe" was a punchline for the start of the airal war in iraq, as a bombing campaign the deaths where very light. In a war a army does not delibrately target civilians and is against international law as well against the rules of engagement Bill Maher lost his show, Politically Incorrect, for saying that it's more cowardly to drop bombs from the air than it is to blow yourself up and take your enemy with you. The allied carpet bombing in WWII frequently destroyed civilian neighborhoods. The bombing of Dresden was deliberately done to create a firestorm - one that did not discriminate between strategic and civilian targets. The nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't discriminate between strategic and civillian targets either. "Terrorism" is what "armies" without nation states backing them must turn to in order to succeed. Doesn't make it right - but I don't see any real difference. They use the weapons they have, nation states use the weapons and forces they have. In the end, lots of people die. What was the point of invading Afghanistan, you ask? Bush certainly argued it was a defensive strike - supposed to knock out al Queda and capture Bin Laden. Tonight, the local ABC station broadcast an al Queda recruiting tape, mostly filmed at a training camp in Pakistan. We failed to meet our objectives. In Kosovo, it was an attempt to save the populace from ethnic cleansing - but it was too little, too late. The EU should have deployed immediately to stop the butchery and ethnic cleansing, long before Clinton got NATO involved. But, as with the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and Rwanda, nobody did a thing until it was too late for a lot of people. EDIT: See - I've got a lot of "evolving" to do until I even get close to being like Gandhi - but without a dream ... your stuck with the way things are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 I think your mistaked, there is a huge difference between a war and terrorism, the "shock and awe" was a punchline for the start of the airal war in iraq, as a bombing campaign the deaths where very light. In a war a army does not delibrately target civilians and is against international law as well against the rules of engagement Bill Maher lost his show, Politically Incorrect, for saying that it's more cowardly to drop bombs from the air than it is to blow yourself up and take your enemy with you. The allied carpet bombing in WWII frequently destroyed civilian neighborhoods. The bombing of Dresden was deliberately done to create a firestorm - one that did not discriminate between strategic and civilian targets. The nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't discriminate between strategic and civillian targets either. "Terrorism" is what "armies" without nation states backing them must turn to in order to succeed. Doesn't make it right - but I don't see any real difference. They use the weapons they have, nation states use the weapons and forces they have. In the end, lots of people die. What was the point of invading Afghanistan, you ask? Bush certainly argued it was a defensive strike - supposed to knock out al Queda and capture Bin Laden. Tonight, the local ABC station broadcast an al Queda recruiting tape, mostly filmed at a training camp in Pakistan. We failed to meet our objectives. In Kosovo, it was an attempt to save the populace from ethnic cleansing - but it was too little, too late. The EU should have deployed immediately to stop the butchery and ethnic cleansing, long before Clinton got NATO involved. But, as with the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and Rwanda, nobody did a thing until it was too late for a lot of people. Sorry but that was a all out war a simple us or them situation, Yeap was horrible the german city had been bombed and a firestorm was the end cause which caused alot of casulties, BUT hadnt the germans been bombing ours for a good 2 or 3 years. end of the day this was in the days when "pin point accracy" was not there. I say its a dog eat dog world and on that occasion we had bigger teeth. America dropping 2 nukes on japan, the japs can only blame themselfs for this, USA was right at the time to drop the bombs on them, if they hadnt it would of cost a hell of alot more lifes fighting the japs of ever inch they gained in a invasion. "Bill Maher lost his show, Politically Incorrect, for saying that it's more cowardly to drop bombs from the air than it is to blow yourself up and take your enemy with you" well maybe he wants to volenteer to do it next time lmao.... [/b]"Terrorism" is what "armies" without nation states backing them must turn to in order to succeed. Doesn't make it right - but I don't see any real difference. They use the weapons they have, nation states use the weapons and forces they have. No nations armies if there professional should follow the genva convention, TERRORISTS dont, I dont think people in Omagh or New york would agree about that actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jawa Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Well why are people terrorists, they fell they have nothing to loose. the best way to destroy your enimies is to give them what they want, then when everything calms down. Do nothing, and lets face it half the things the USA does they call defensive strikes, to prevent more terrorism. what the don't understand is they can stop all the terrorism if they just say the following: "We are so very sorry, we will stop exploiting your nations and people. We will never again invade a country to remove a "Dictator" and blow up half your country in the prosses, only so we can build it up again and make a lot of cash. We will stop making days of our lives and force paramount to restart star trek. We are sorry fore all the pain we have inflictet, We can't help it we are Greedy. We have descided to pay our dept to the world, including the UN. We are going to destroy all our military bases outside our own nation.." If the US does all this, what will the terrorist have to fight for?? And tell me why do americans (sorry if i offend anyone here) want to give their jobs away to small children in thailand so they become poor, the children become dead and the richest men and women in america become richer?? that is plain stupidity. Sorry if i was a litle anti-usa here, was not my intention. I love the states, but i really dislike the people running the nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juhan Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Where would US be without war? Where would anyone be without war? When Shih Huang Di waged war on different parts of China, was he doing a just thing? Sacrificing the lives of many and promoting chaos for a short span of time, for the sake of a unified China? Its like curing the illness by killing the patient, but war has been the movers and the carvers of the modern society we live in. I personally advocate the ST:Insurrection way of life. If Gene were still alive he would've been proud of the message of that movie. But the truth is, we're only happy now because of the people that died for us in the past, waging a war that at one time people thought were digusting. Though the Insurrection way of life is the way to go, i think First Contact got it right too. It'll take WW3 to get us back to our roots. We're morally filthy as it is. Its gonna get dirtier and dirtier till some big cause unites us all. Maybe we need a common enemy. Someone beatable, but only by the united strength of the people. No point if its the Borg coz we'd all be drones then. Either that or a modern day Confucius needs to be born. If only.... if only... =Han= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Bill Maher lost his show' date=' [i']Politically Incorrect[/i], for saying that it's more cowardly to drop bombs from the air than it is to blow yourself up and take your enemy with you. I actually agree with him, it takes a lot more courage to walk right up to and next to an enemy and blow him to pieces than what it takes to blow him to pieces 10000m high in the air. The simple reason why the 'Arabs' do this, is because they are desperate indeed, they have no other means to defend themselves and the suicide bomber turn out to be the most effective way of dealing with the enemy. Unfotunately they have a knack for finding the wrong targets. In a 'true' war however their tactics would not at all be effective, since they would not be able to approach 'the enemy' close enough to do damage this way. They would be blown to bits long before. A 'true' war is when 2 nations decide to go to war and fight it out. I don't mean when one is forced into a war, but when they both have a lot to lose and both are willing to risk it. WW2 is an example of such a war, at least partially. The US was not forced into the war, they decided for themselves that they wanted to fight to get rid of the humiliation of the Pearl Harbor defeat and to help the Engish. It would be possible that they would have been forced into the war, but not at the time they actually joined in. If they had waited for, say another 2/3 years, they might have been forced into it, but they joined early on, just to make sure they weren't forced into it, and they were still in a good enough position, not to become desperate. Further, there seems to be some probelm defining terrorism and war. I'll tell you my perspective: Terrorism is when civilian targets are hit, I don't mean factories here, I mean homes. Just for the reason to manipulate the people into fear so that they might effect pollitical change. War is never terrorism when the violence is directed against soldiers, this is exactly what soldiers are supposed to do and get paid for: to undergo 'terror' so that all other people should not have to undergo just that. The war on terrorism does not fall under my personal definition of war. And the war in Iraque and Afghanistan don't fall under that definition either, to me they look more like neo-colonial action against untrustworthy individuals. When you look at my definition of 'true' war, even Vietnam and the Gulfwar don't fall under that definition, although I would call them war, they were no 'true' wars. About the use of the atomic bomb during WW2, at the time the real effects of the bomb were known, but not on a deep enough level, therefore that military action can be excused, but if any nation were to ever use it again, it surely could not be excused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Though the Insurrection way of life is the way to go, i think First Contact got it right too. It'll take WW3 to get us back to our roots. We're morally filthy as it is. Its gonna get dirtier and dirtier till some big cause unites us all. Maybe we need a common enemy. Someone beatable, but only by the united strength of the people. No point if its the Borg coz we'd all be drones then. Either that or a modern day Confucius needs to be born. If only.... if only... =Han= I agree that a common enemy will unite us. What does that say for us as humans though, that we need conflict to become better as people? if this is the case where will it end. I fear we may never get over our differences. I certainly cant see it happening so long as religions exist. as for a modern day Confusius....I doubt enough people would listen. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 BTW, I am not against an individual being spiritual. I just believe that organised religions around the world are leading people astray, forgetting what the basis for all the teachings are and widening rifts between cultures even further and I know this saying is getting worn but, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If there is a god out there, I doubt any of this fits into the vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beawulf Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 I just noticed that the majority of people have voted that the marquis are "misguided but understandable". to get back to topic, i'm curious what methods if any should they be pursuing in their situation? personally i voted freedom-fighters. viva la resistance! :) but I am curious to hear about the alternatives in their specific situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frodoxxx Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 In my opinion the question is moot. After all is said and done the winners write the history books and then intellectuals who were never there sit around and endlessly debate the decisions made. With hindsight we can say that the minute men were terrorists, after all they wore civilian clothes and murdered representatives of the legitimate goverment. Hmmmmm sounds a lot like what the Palestines are doing' never mind what the Isralies did to the British. The simple truth is conflict is never a cut and dried situation and the only thing that is constant is mans inhumanity to man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frodoxxx Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 The maquis are just like a futuristic version of the scumbags called the IRA. Perhaps there wouldn't have been a need for a so-called scumbag I.R.A. if the enlightened British goverment had enforced some democratic principals in Northern Ireland instead of letting the Protestant ascendancy get away with there repressive regime for so many years. It is a maxim that even a cowed dog will one day bite an abusive master. The only surprise was it took so long for the inevitable backlash by the Nationalist population TIOCFAIDH A'R LA' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverick Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 i didnt vote. they ARE all of the above. a real life situation would be to ask the same question about the IRA. though the motivation is different the effect is the same. what does that make them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 The maquis are just like a futuristic version of the scumbags called the IRA. Perhaps there wouldn't have been a need for a so-called scumbag I.R.A. if the enlightened British goverment had enforced some democratic principals in Northern Ireland instead of letting the Protestant ascendancy get away with there repressive regime for so many years. It is a maxim that even a cowed dog will one day bite an abusive master. The only surprise was it took so long for the inevitable backlash by the Nationalist population TIOCFAIDH A'R LA' Sorry but i wouldnt think twice in shooting a know IRA terrorist and the IRA are scumbags (and thats to put it polite), granted we shouldnt of took Northern Ireland many years ago (way before all of our times), so would you say its right to plant a bomb in the centre of a market town like Omagh which clearly wasnt not aimed at the british forces but the irish people they say they are fighting for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted June 9, 2005 Author Share Posted June 9, 2005 bet when you started this pole you never thought it would turn into a political debate about real life huh Elderbear................. :innocent: Never! ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elderbear Posted June 9, 2005 Author Share Posted June 9, 2005 Sorry but that was a all out war a simple us or them situation, Yeap was horrible the german city had been bombed and a firestorm was the end cause which caused alot of casulties, BUT hadnt the germans been bombing ours for a good 2 or 3 years. end of the day this was in the days when "pin point accracy" was not there. I say its a dog eat dog world and on that occasion we had bigger teeth. America dropping 2 nukes on japan, the japs can only blame themselfs for this, USA was right at the time to drop the bombs on them, if they hadnt it would of cost a hell of alot more lifes fighting the japs of ever inch they gained in a invasion. "Bill Maher lost his show, Politically Incorrect, for saying that it's more cowardly to drop bombs from the air than it is to blow yourself up and take your enemy with you" well maybe he wants to volenteer to do it next time lmao.... [/b]"Terrorism" is what "armies" without nation states backing them must turn to in order to succeed. Doesn't make it right - but I don't see any real difference. They use the weapons they have, nation states use the weapons and forces they have. No nations armies if there professional should follow the genva convention, TERRORISTS dont, I dont think people in Omagh or New york would agree about that actually. Wow! I had no idea this poll would turn out to be so educational. In WWII, America was involved - Great Britain was committed. We didn't have the Luftwaffe bombing us every night. We didn't face an imminent invasion from the Nazis, just across the channel. Your last paragraph is a sad indictment of the American military under Rumsfield/Bush. Our politicos have encouraged behavior forbidden by Geneva ... and some of our "professionals" have carried that behavior out. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daffydk Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Pure sense of the word 'terrorism' implies that there is some kind of terror trust upon people. That TERROR wether it comes from an individual, a rogue group or an established government/army is Stil Terror. And for the same matter, Terror wether its against civilian or against an army base is stil terror. From reading some of the posts above, it seems some people are saying that causing terror against military installation, like what maquis did not really terrorism. But it is terrorism if it is against civilians. Remember the words "shock and Awe"? well another word for that is Terror!! Terror against Saddam and his loyalist but also Terror against the more than 100,000 iraqis that died. but to make it look good, we call that collateral damage and we show some Cleaned up images, black and white of missiles hitting some building. And we proudly present it saying look how accurate we are in hitting that building. I guess my point is the same as what Yammichi said, War in general is TERROR. You can justify it anyway you like it. You can justify it by saying we are bringing freedom to a country. You may even be right. You can justify it by saying its fighting for the freedom of the land or whatever else. War is ugly and it should be avoided at all cost..unless it comes to your doorstep and u have to defend yourself. I think your mistaked, there is a huge difference between a war and terrorism, the "shock and awe" was a punchline for the start of the airal war in iraq, as a bombing campaign the deaths where very light. In a war a army does not delibrately target civilians and is against international law as well against the rules of engagement Terrorists dont see the different and will attack either miltary or civillan targets, without compasion or regret for the causalties. What i would like to ask if you think that a war should only be used as self defence, was our was in Kosovo and Afganistan right? or would you see that as defence? Your question about a war being right or wrong is really a tough one. Its really hard for me to say but I just have a feeling it. And that feeling is that the reasons for the wars were right. Saddam had to go, the taliban had to go and the Serbs certainly had to go--especialy in light of the recent videos of the massacrs they committed. My main point was that Terror is Terror whether it is done by an army or an individual. And war is a vehicle to deliver terror and it should be avoided. As far as self defense, you could say getting rid of the taliban was an act of self defense because if they were allowed to continue, they would be training more alieqieda in camps. And they did find thousands of hard core fighters there. And they did bring the war to our doorstep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daffydk Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 bet when you started this pole you never thought it would turn into a political debate about real life huh Elderbear................. :innocent: Never! ;) That was the exact point :) Funny how I was just watching one of the episodes of DS9, season 5.."Darkness and the light". In that Major Kira says that when she was a 'freedom fighter', she used any means to bring down the cardassian rule.. and it didnt matter if the person she killied was a soldier or not, they were all complicit in the Occupation. Thats a paraphrase by the way.. It just reminded me of this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daffydk Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 The allied carpet bombing in WWII frequently destroyed civilian neighborhoods. The bombing of Dresden was deliberately done to create a firestorm - one that did not discriminate between strategic and civilian targets. The nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't discriminate between strategic and civillian targets either. by firestorm you mean spread Terror and this act of spreading terror is in its pure form Terrorism. Everyone uses terrorism as it is definied to us in press conferences by the generals or in the media. They even stopped using resistance fighterse becuase the generals told them that 'insurgents' is a better term and now whatever media news I read, even non US/brit, they use 'insurgents' . I dont really know if that is a fitting term in this case but I Do know that they are the ones defining the words for us!! In Kosovo, it was an attempt to save the populace from ethnic cleansing - but it was too little, too late. The EU should have deployed immediately to stop the butchery and ethnic cleansing, long before Clinton got NATO involved. But, as with the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, and Rwanda, nobody did a thing until it was too late for a lot of people. Werent there the dutch forces looking shamelessly looking on when a whole town was being massacred? What good would EU forces do? But I do agree with your point and it is very tragic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts