Allah's Wrath Strikes Again

Gato_Solo said:
Once again, they were fighting a standing army wearing uniforms...and...Those 'hiding in the trees' did not intentionally target civilians...
Click to expand...


that wasn't the point. The point was, someone was fighting against the established method of war. They changed the rules of war, and won. In a stand up, classic war, the colonies never could have won. Well, these cats couldn't win a stand up war either, so they changed the rules too.

Sounds a lot like the gay husband complaining because his neighbour wants to marry his Irish Setter. If you're willing to allow the rules to be changed, don't be suprised when someone comes up behind you and does you one better.
 
Using the terrain vs. intentional targetting of ciivilians....hmm....

Yeah, that seems like a crappy comparison to me.
 
I'm sure hiding behind bushes seemed equally outrageous. In fact, I'd say that (from their point of view) they're not targetting civilians at all. Any more than, say, the english did while bombing ball bearing factories in Germany. As far as they're concerned, they're targetting infrastructure and support. You don't need to blow up a highly secure factory if noone will work there.

Would you honestly classify a civilian trucker hauling supplies of food and oil to a military base as a non target? How about the seller who sold the food, which will go to feed the army? How about the farmer who grew it? Of the migrant workers who harvest the crop?

It's all a matter of where you draw the line. The Geneva conventions was written to protect innocents for a reason. But just because you've signed it, doesn't mean you enemy will.
 
Alls fair in love and war. Not everyone plays by Marquis of Queensbury rules. Those that fight the dirtiest usually hold nothing sacred other than the victory itself. There are those that feel poisoning wells, pushing grandma down the stairs, and smashing babies heads against the wall to be a mere means to an end. We have to adapt to meet the lows that our adversaries throw at us or they will bleed us out with the 'death of 1000 cuts' every time.
 
unclehobart said:
Alls fair in love and war. Not everyone plays by Marquis of Queensbury rules. Those that fight the dirtiest usually hold nothing sacred other than the victory itself. There are those that feel poisoning wells, pushing grandma down the stairs, and smashing babies heads against the wall to be a mere means to an end. We have to adapt to meet the lows that our adversaries throw at us or they will bleed us out with the 'death of 1000 cuts' every time.
Click to expand...

One Word. Hiroshima. That's the only place that philosophy will ever lead. What needs to happen is that the teachers, the leaders of the silent majority need to take a hand.

Oddly enough, that's what science did to Christianity, and take a look at the damage that's caused.
 
BeardofPants said:
Why are you even bothering to debate with this fanatic? Just let him live in his own delusional world. I'm sure he'll be on the news shortly for terrorist attack against muslims. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Your picture kinda looks like Janean Garofalo--
But that's not a compliment
 
Another screwy attempt to hijack Islam:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/10/90140.shtml

A new television series being broadcast around the Middle East tells the story of Arabs living in residential compounds in Saudi Arabia and the militant Islamists who want to blow them up so they can collect their rewards in heaven - 72 beautiful virgins.

The show's message: terrorism is giving Islam a bad name, and Muslims are suffering because of the actions of a few.

The critics are demanding the Saudi-owned and Dubai-based Middle East Broadcasting Corporation, a popular Arabic satellite television station that bought the show and broadcasts it across the region, cancel it.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech in the Middle East

Quite telling that some have no desire for the truth to be revealed....
 
The critics are demanding the Saudi-owned and Dubai-based Middle East Broadcasting Corporation, a popular Arabic satellite television station that bought the show and broadcasts it across the region, cancel it.
Click to expand...


And PETA protested school kids eating live goldfish. Give any idiot with half a brain and an itch to scratch a microphone and a soap box and they'll happily make idiots of themselves.
 
Professur said:
I'm sure hiding behind bushes seemed equally outrageous. In fact, I'd say that (from their point of view) they're not targetting civilians at all. Any more than, say, the english did while bombing ball bearing factories in Germany. As far as they're concerned, they're targetting infrastructure and support. You don't need to blow up a highly secure factory if noone will work there.
Click to expand...

Infrastructure? Like a primary school in Beslan? You're stretching waaaay too hard. I still think it's a bullshit comparison.
 
Perhaps, but it's not mine, so don't take it out on me. I'm just pointing out how they might justify it to themselves. Bomb a school, the parents don't go to work.

Just out of curiosity, do you know why the military uses jacketed bullets instead of hollow points? Because it was discovered that shooting an enemy soldier and leaving him alive, but wounded costs your enemy resources. Doctors, nurses, corpsmen, ambulances, medicine, recovery time, food, etc. Shooting him dead costs the enemy half an hour's time for two corpsmen to bury him.
 
The Other One said:
Your picture kinda looks like Janean Garofalo--
But that's not a compliment
Click to expand...
I don't see why it isn't - she's really pretty... but we look nothing alike. Is that the best you can do ... 'insult' how someone looks? :lol2: :p
 
MrBishop said:
*My appologies to SnP and other practicing Christians on here, just borrowing methodology to prove a point.*


You know what...I know that the Bible is more than a book of slaughter and mayhem and the whole point is love they neighbour and peace... but then again, I've read it several times.

I havn't read the Qu'ran...but I'd bet that those who create the sites that TOO is so fond of quoting haven't either. Those that pick and choose selected bits from the Qu'ran to prove that Muslims make for good enemies and paint all Muslims with the brush of extremist drive me nuts....as much as those who paint all black people with the brush of a few looters in New Orleans. It's small minded and promotes violence and hatred. The exact same thing that terrorist recruiters do.

Ya getting the point now, TOO?
Click to expand...


Chances are they did read it but only the parts that suit their needs. They ignore some of the other parts such as the idea of Jihad being an internal struggle, The fact each chapter is started with Allah being beneficious and merciful etc. And again they take the Qu'aran out of context to make their arguments. I never considered the Bible a book of slaughter but that it was based on myths and legends and that there were some moral ideas and some incest,slaughter,rape etc in it as well
 
Professur said:
that wasn't the point. The point was, someone was fighting against the established method of war. They changed the rules of war, and won. In a stand up, classic war, the colonies never could have won. Well, these cats couldn't win a stand up war either, so they changed the rules too.

Sounds a lot like the gay husband complaining because his neighbour wants to marry his Irish Setter. If you're willing to allow the rules to be changed, don't be suprised when someone comes up behind you and does you one better.
Click to expand...

Considering that those tactics used were the same tactics the British army used during the French and Indian war, I don't see how you can make that comparison at all. Just because we chose to use those tactics....which were fine and dandy when it suited the crown...instead of letting ourselves be butchered by charging stupidly into the blocks employed at the time is not terrorism.
 
BeardofPants said:
I don't see why it isn't - she's really pretty... but we look nothing alike. Is that the best you can do ... 'insult' how someone looks? :lol2: :p
Click to expand...
I tend to agree...she was the prettier of the two in "The truth about cats and dogs" IMHO

Oh...and that pic :)
:eek:mfg:
 
unclehobart said:
Shes looks more like Rene Zellweger.
Click to expand...
Yeah...I can see that
gosip189.jpg


or Reese Witherspoon
51531.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top