Terrorism

**General of the Army** Joined: 24 Mar 2006 Posts: 532

ask her husband. si that freedomo worth her wife's and kid's life? i can never condone this.

Private Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 17

But you gotta remember, there's going be bloodshed in EVERY war.
It's unavoidable.
And it's the betterment of those left alive.
You seem to disagree with the war simply because people were hurt, but that's like saying no one was hurt in the World War.
On top of that, it's not like we even have a enscription like we did during the World Wars.
These people VOLUNTEERED for the army.
They knew what they were getting into.
But, they took that risk, anyway.

**General of the Army** Joined: 24 Mar 2006 Posts: 532

what about iraqis? world war was in a way must (not exctly must but till hitler was there there was no other option for allied forces.) here saddam wasnt doing anything. when he attacked kuwait, he had already given signs of attacking long back. but other countries didnt responded with any warning. they just said nothing. now i am not saying that iraq's attack was justified but america should have first responded with warnings. also everyone agree's that saddam was not muslim fundamentalist. he never harboured terrorists. so i dont think it was must to eliminate saddam. and another thing why dosent usa do anything with mynmar? pakistan? in both countries there is dictatorship, no freedom of speech( esp in mynmar). its cause there is no oil there.

Quote:

And it's the betterment of those left alive.

give this argument to yourself and your family. upliftment should never be done at someone's cost. atleast not at cost of someone's life. if you cant make life then you cant take one. and what did that women do that she deserved to die.

Quote:

there's going be bloodshed in EVERY war.

ok you say there is war between alqaida and america.
when osama attacks it is terrorist attack
when bush attack it is retaliation.
so i take 7/7 as retaliation but no it is termed as terrorist strike? may i know why?
when in attack 7000 are killed in wtc then it is killing of innocents. but when more than 100000 are killed in iraq it is collateral damage.
i am not at all saying that osama is right but i am saying bush has gone to even worse level. just chk osama vs bush in silly polls in here.

Private Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 17

shanky wrote:

what about iraqis? world war was in a way must (not exctly must but till hitler was there there was no other option for allied forces.) here saddam wasnt doing anything.

Say that to the Shiite Muslims who were being persecuted.
And the Shiite's are the majority, but the Sunnis were in power.
Technically, it's alot like Hitler was doing except on a smaller scale.

Quote:

when he attacked kuwait, he had already given signs of attacking long back. but other countries didnt responded with any warning. they just said nothing. now i am not saying that iraq's attack was justified but america should have first responded with warnings. also everyone agree's that saddam was not muslim fundamentalist. he never harboured terrorists.

Again, I never said Bush's reasoning isn't/wasn't shady.
The end result was still a good thing.

Quote:

so i dont think it was must to eliminate saddam. and another thing why dosent usa do anything with mynmar? pakistan? in both countries there is dictatorship, no freedom of speech( esp in mynmar). its cause there is no oil there.

I agree.
There are other places we need to go.
But, again, one step at a time.

Quote:

give this argument to yourself and your family. upliftment should never be done at someone's cost. atleast not at cost of someone's life. if you cant make life then you cant take one. and what did that women do that she deserved to die.

So, it's better the Shiite's be persecuted?
It's better these people live in bad conditions?
It's better these people be oppressed?

Quote:

ok you say there is war between alqaida and america.
when osama attacks it is terrorist attack
when bush attack it is retaliation.
so i take 7/7 as retaliation but no it is termed as terrorist strike? may i know why?
when in attack 7000 are killed in wtc then it is killing of innocents. but when more than 100000 are killed in iraq it is collateral damage.
i am not at all saying that osama is right but i am saying bush has gone to even worse level. just chk osama vs bush in silly polls in here.

And you'll never hear me say Bush was in the right.
Never.
Saddam needed to go.
Yeah, 100,000 died. as collateral damage.
Deaths that should'nt have been.
True.
But, terrorist use guerilla warfare.
There's no real way to know when it's a terrorist and when it's a civilian.
Yeah, we should've handled it better.
I know, I agree.
But, I still feel that, eventually, it had to be done.
(BTW What's your nationality out of curiousity?)

Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:58 am

A few days ago 17 terrorist suspects were arrested here in Ontario, Canada. They had plans to blow up the CN Tower, the worlds largest building. Also, they had plans to storm the Parliament and take hostages and then behead the Prime Minister of Canada. There is reported to be around 300 more home grown terrorist suspects in Canada, and hopefully they all get captured before they can do what they plan to do.

**General of the Army** Joined: 24 Mar 2006 Posts: 532

well i am from india. also for removing saddam they could have used diplomatic power. they have lots of it. sanctions are useless against such poeple like saddam but things like improving the condition of opposition etc would have been better. beacuse wherever there is a government there is a opposition. it may be subduded by force but it can be revived. whatvere i cant accept killing of such large number of humans. unless the human himslef initiated the war. deaths of gurellias in iraq is of no concern. they themselves came to attack. but of civillians no way. and would you even justify the atomic bombs by us?

Quote:

Say that to the Shiite Muslims who were being persecuted.
And the Shiite's are the majority, but the Sunnis were in power.
Technically, it's alot like Hitler was doing except on a smaller scale.

in any country wherever there is opression there will be a rebel force. sooner or later. and that would be more or less peaceful. in india when british after 1850 became opressors then there turned out to be the biggest non violent overthrow of the government. in nepl king was turning into dictator and people rebeled. he used his whole army but people won. cause army is of people only. army is not composed of nobles but of common man. and if common man is suffering then the rule will surely end. its just people may have different limits of tolerence. but i can never condone killing of so many humans. our recent government did this thing in 1999 kargil war. pakistani army caputer himalyas during winter when due to convention all armies retreated. so when indian army went to posts in summer they were killed. so it was a war. but our government in name of dignity of the nations ordered army to march over the hills even though pakistani army is on top of hill and have so much strtegic help. but they made soldiers climb up hills in line of fire. better strategy would have been to either go from the back(this wasnt done so as not to displease usa) or bomb the mountains for quite a time(this wasnt done cause this would have taken time and it was matter of dignity). so the war was won but there were many unnecessary casualties. this can never be justified. atleast i cant. i dont believe in this stupid things like dignity or that. first thing is survival. unless survival is really useless like someone's slave its better to survise than believe in sham like dignity.

**General of the Army** Joined: 24 Mar 2006 Posts: 532

Quote:

A few days ago 17 terrorist suspects were arrested here in Ontario, Canada. They had plans to blow up the CN Tower, the worlds largest building. Also, they had plans to storm the Parliament and take hostages and then behead the Prime Minister of Canada. There is reported to be around 300 more home grown terrorist suspects in Canada, and hopefully they all get captured before they can do what they plan to do.

home grown? cant believe that people who are in good economic conditions will go for terroism. well these are the people who should be punished.

Private Joined: 30 May 2006 Posts: 17

shanky wrote:

in any country wherever there is opression there will be a rebel force. sooner or later. and that would be more or less peaceful. in india when british after 1850 became opressors then there turned out to be the biggest non violent overthrow of the government. in nepl king was turning into dictator and people rebeled. he used his whole army but people won. cause army is of people only. army is not composed of nobles but of common man. and if common man is suffering then the rule will surely end. its just people may have different limits of tolerence. but i can never condone killing of so many humans. our recent government did this thing in 1999 kargil war. pakistani army caputer himalyas during winter when due to convention all armies retreated. so when indian army went to posts in summer they were killed. so it was a war. but our government in name of dignity of the nations ordered army to march over the hills even though pakistani army is on top of hill and have so much strtegic help. but they made soldiers climb up hills in line of fire. better strategy would have been to either go from the back(this wasnt done so as not to displease usa) or bomb the mountains for quite a time(this wasnt done cause this would have taken time and it was matter of dignity). so the war was won but there were many unnecessary casualties. this can never be justified. atleast i cant. i dont believe in this stupid things like dignity or that. first thing is survival. unless survival is really useless like someone's slave its better to survise than believe in sham like dignity.

You say that as if it's a good thing...