Originally Posted by August

I justify nothing. I just see a vast difference between one side who targets enemy combatants and causes civilian casualties as an unwanted side effect of that and another side who deliberately attacks enemy civilians, while avoiding direct contact with their forces by hiding behind his own women and children.

War is a terrible, ugly thing and civilians have been caught in the crossfire of every war man has ever fought. As the human population grows this will continue, but to fail to make the distinction between unintentional civilian casualties and using civilians as a sort of human sandbag is the real crime.

Originally Posted by SkvyWvr

To Scandium
Why are you whining so much over sad but accendental death of 8 Canadians when the very org. that started all this killed 200+ Americans in the Marine barracks bombing in the early 80s. I helped pull body parts out of the ruins for a week, oh and by the way, 18 Canadian soliders died there as well.

Originally Posted by scandium

Fine, I really shouldn't have to answer a stupid question like this, but I'll humour you anyway. If we're going to go back 20 years and use your logic:

Why were Americans "whining" when 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11? After all the guy who was responsible for that, Bin Laden, was your "freedom fighter" in Afghanistan 20 years ago when you were providing him with weapons, financing, and training right? Not only that, but most of the hijackers lived in the U.S. for months and months before hand and even got their flight training there. So why "whine" when the mastermind you train turns on you using Jihadists living in your own country and who received their flight training from American instructors? I mean really, its been years now and you and still bitch and moan about 9/11 and act as if it it were the first act of terrorism in the world and are oblivious of your own complicity in it; so using your logic: GET OVER IT.

And why were Americans "whining" 4 years ago about Saddam Hussein's WMDs and humanitarian record when 20 years he was America's man in the ME, a "stabalizing force" in the region who you were so fond of that Saint Reagan sent Rumsfeld to Baghdad to begin the process of normalizing relations with Iraq - a normalization that allowed him to purchase the necessary chemical weapons precursors that were then used on the Kurds - which at the ttime, the US not only turned a blind eye to, but made it a point to kill a resolution in the UN condemning the act.

Where were we during 9/11? We were securing American airspace in cooperation with our US allies at NORAD and diverting the inboud flight traffic that was judged too dangerous to land in the US to Canadian Airports. Then we went to war with you in Afghanistan where we've been ever since.

What is disgraceful is your willingness to use your damned ignorance to morally equivocate on Canadian deaths while trying to bludgeon us over 9/11 when we were actually the first to come to your aid from the moment it happened (which we did again during the NOLA catastrophe and on and on).

Originally Posted by Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense

the same way that Ghandi preserved the peace when the English were slaughtering unarmed Indian civilians over there not too long ago...

the same way that the peace was achieved in the Catholic/Protestant violence in the UK not that long ago...

history is repleat with examples of men who were soild enough to see that the differences between men pale in comparison to the things that we all have in common...

if you can't see this, then you are indeed blind to the reality that your very own god professes to you...

and you are all doomed...

--Mike

Originally Posted by Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense

1- Tim McViegh was a born and bred, all american boy...
2- What about the 'terrorists' in Northern Ireland... same thing apply to them?
3- who exactly are these terrorists... can you identify and target any one of them in particular... as opposed to bombing civilian urban areas... so far, the civilian penalty has by a large degree exceed the number of actual combatants... this you see as correct??!!

don't mistake my viewpoint as support for terrorists... if you do, then you surely don't know me...

a few highly motivated men... that's all you need... all this would be over before you know it...

--Mike

Originally Posted by scandium

You don't have a point.

1. I do not support terrorism anywhere, in any form. Never have, never will. Accusing me of such is simple ad hominem attack, nothing more.

2. Collateral damage is such a nice cuddly way of of referring to killing civilians, including children, isn't it? That aside, it can be avoided, or at least minimized. Did the IDF take such measures when it began bombing and shelling Lebanon? It doesn't look that way to me given that their attack came without warning of any kind, and that by blowing up the airport, bridges, and roads, they trapped a hundred thousand or so foreign nationals there, preventing them from getting out, and making them an unwitting victim of a conflict they had no hand in.

3. You musn't know what the NORAD accronym I mentioned refers to. Here, from their website:

"The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a bi-national United States and Canadian organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. Aerospace warning includes the monitoring of man-made objects in space, and the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, utilizing mutual support arrangements with other commands. Aerospace control includes ensuring air sovereignty and air defense of the airspace of Canada and the United States."

"NORAD is a bi-national combined Canadian and American military command, with an integrated mix of Canadian and American personnel at all levels. The commander of NORAD is an American officer who is responsible to the Canadian and U.S. governments through the Canadian Chief of the Defence Staff and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States. The appointment of the Commander of NORAD must be approved by both the Canadian and U.S. governments. The current Commander is U.S. Navy Admiral T.J. Keating, who also commands the United States Northern Command. The Canadian Deputy Commander of NORAD is Lieutenant-General Eric A. Findley.

There are three NORAD regions: Canadian NORAD Region (CANR), Alaskan NORAD Region (ANR) and Continental U.S. NORAD Region (CONR). Each of the three NORAD regions has a similar structure. ANR and CONR have American Commanders and Canadian Deputy Commanders. CANR has a Canadian Commander and an American Deputy Commander."

Is that clear enough for you, or do I need to parse it out for you sentence by sentence? Now a history lesson for you: at 9:45 AM on 9/11 the FAA grounded all American flights and closed its airspace. At that point about 500 flights were en route to the US, and the Canadian Transport Minister shut down our own airspace but gave permission for US bound International flights to land here. Many flights were able to return to their original departure point, but in all 255 flights were diverted to 15 diifferent Canadian airports where we safely landed them at the rate of about 1 or 2 per minute. NORAD also was involved by intercepting and escorting certain flights, using both US and Canadian fighters, including one that had been bound for Anchorage Alaska and was believed to have been hijacked.

But that's just facts and history, don't let it get in the way of your righteous ignorance and hypocracy.

Originally Posted by Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense

the same way that Ghandi preserved the peace when the English were slaughtering unarmed Indian civilians over there not too long ago...

the same way that the peace was achieved in the Catholic/Protestant violence in the UK not that long ago...

Originally Posted by Skybird

Scandium,

when you fight against an enemy that is intentionally hiding in civilian infrastructure, you cannot avoid collateral damage then. You then only have the choice to fight, or not to fight at all. for certain reasons, that may have to do with the fact that Israeli civilians do not fall victim to collateral damage since years, but are intentionally targetted, Israel seem to be determined to let itself not get hindred by the presence of civilians to shoot at it's enemies in an attempt to weaken them and drive them off. the sideeffects of this - collateral damage, the killing of civilians and the destruction of the infrastructure - may be sad and grim and ugly - the alternative would be not to fight at all. So is war. Fairness has nothing to do with. There is no way to fight a war in a human way.

Or do you have a realistic recipe how to disarm Hesbollah and make them stopping to attack Israeli civilians time and again? Israel is about trying to destroy as much of Hezbollahs weapons stockpiles as possible, and drive them away from it's borders. That is the real goal of this operation, the kidnapped soldiers are just a "cover-up". Diplomacy has failed since years and decades. economical and diplomatic deals have failed. EU's wishful thinking has failed. Good will has failed. Willingness for compromises has failed. Offers of land, and coexistence have failed. Now they try it by war, in self-defense. 1100 Israelis have been murdered on their own streets since the beginning of the second intifada. I think that is reason enough not to ignore the murderes anylonger, showing tough reactions, and then, finally, war. It's self-defense, by the motto: "Better them, then us." I cannot criticise them for that attitude.

The alternative would be "business as usual", leave things as they have been during the last plenty of years. And that may only be a tempting option as long as one does not live in Israel.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Scandium,

when you fight against an enemy that is intentionally hiding in civilian infrastructure, you cannot avoid collateral damage then. You then only have the choice to fight, or not to fight at all. for certain reasons, that may have to do with the fact that Israeli civilians do not fall victim to collateral damage since years, but are intentionally targetted, Israel seem to be determined to let itself not get hindred by the presence of civilians to shoot at it's enemies in an attempt to weaken them and drive them off. the sideeffects of this - collateral damage, the killing of civilians and the destruction of the infrastructure - may be sad and grim and ugly - the alternative would be not to fight at all. So is war. Fairness has nothing to do with. There is no way to fight a war in a human way.

Or do you have a realistic recipe how to disarm Hesbollah and make them stopping to attack Israeli civilians time and again? Israel is about trying to destroy as much of Hezbollahs weapons stockpiles as possible, and drive them away from it's borders. That is the real goal of this operation, the kidnapped soldiers are just a "cover-up". Diplomacy has failed since years and decades. economical and diplomatic deals have failed. EU's wishful thinking has failed. Good will has failed. Willingness for compromises has failed. Offers of land, and coexistence have failed. Now they try it by war, in self-defense. 1100 Israelis have been murdered on their own streets since the beginning of the second intifada. I think that is reason enough not to ignore the murderes anylonger, showing tough reactions, and then, finally, war. It's self-defense, by the motto: "Better them, then us." I cannot criticise them for that attitude.

The alternative would be "business as usual", leave things as they have been during the last plenty of years. And that may only be a tempting option as long as one does not live in Israel.