Have any been charged for destroying the road and sub-station transformer or do they get a freebie on that too.
Thread on Caledonia?
- Thread starter BlahBlah
- Start date
It has been brought to my attention that some people found the word I was using to describe the terrorists in Caledonia offensive. Boo Hoo, when they behave properly and live by the same laws that apply to us, pay taxes and don't cost me money then maybe they may move up a notch.
I will repeat the question have any of these kept terrorists been charged for the vandalism they inficted.
I will repeat the question have any of these kept terrorists been charged for the vandalism they inficted.
Terrorists, terrorists everywhere!LancsLad said:It has been brought to my attention that some people found the word I was using to describe the terrorists in Caledonia offensive. Boo Hoo, when they behave properly and live by the same laws that apply to us, pay taxes and don't cost me money then maybe they may move up a notch.
I will repeat the question have any of these kept terrorists been charged for the vandalism they inficted.
danmand said:Terrorists, terrorists everywhere!
They caused a disruption to the lives of all those taxpayers ( people and businesses) nd should be treated as such. Lets just cut off the tap to their free money.
You have your definition of terrorist, I have mine. We can live in peace with that.LancsLad said:They caused a disruption to the lives of all those taxpayers ( people and businesses) nd should be treated as such. Lets just cut off the tap to their free money.
PS: What word would you use to describe the marines, that in the marines own words "in cold blood" killed 19 civilians?
Soldiers doing their job. I have a problem with all this media scrutiny and hooplah every time civilians get killed. During WW2 the Germans killed tens of thousands of British civilians and we gave it back to them in spades. that is the nature of war. I would rather the civilians die in an airstrike than an American or Canadian soldier die trying to root out the enemy. We must learn to use our weaponry or else what is the point of having it.danmand said:You have your definition of terrorist, I have mine. We can live in peace about that one.
PS: What word would you use to describe the marines, that in the marines own words "in cold blood" killed 19 civilians?
You have now established that someone who you disagree with, who disrupts traffic, is a terrorist, while someone you agree with, who kills innocent civilians in cold blood, is doing a good job.
Your mother would slap you, if she was reading Terb.
Your mother would slap you, if she was reading Terb.
danmand said:You have now established that someone who you disagree with, who disrupts traffic, is a terrorist, while someone you agree with, who kills innocent civilians in cold blood, is doing a good job.
Your mother would slap you, if she was reading Terb.
No a stalled car or flat tire inan intersection disrupts traffic. What those expensive overindulged group of thugs did wa to block a highway, tear part of it up and destroy a transformer belonging to the Hyro grid. That action deserves harsh treatment and even you would have to agree that if it was 30 Terb members doing the same thing on the DVP the police would have acted a lot differently.
The event is question appears to be a planned reprisal mission to avenge the death of a marine killed by a anti personel device. The result of this mission appears to be the death of a number of unarmed Iraqi civilians. The nature of the mission was to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy (kinda like terrorism) with no clear military objective -- just a simple "don't fuck with us" statement.LancsLad said:Soldiers doing their job. I have a problem with all this media scrutiny and hooplah every time civilians get killed. During WW2 the Germans killed tens of thousands of British civilians and we gave it back to them in spades. that is the nature of war. I would rather the civilians die in an airstrike than an American or Canadian soldier die trying to root out the enemy. We must learn to use our weaponry or else what is the point of having it.
While you can agree or disagree as to whether this objective is worthwhile it is dishonest to it compare to an airstrike and catagorize the deaths as "collateral casualties" -- these people were selected to be executed in an act of reprisal. Even US military commanders are having a hard time defending this one.
Civillians caught in the crossfire is completely different from civilians murdered for reprisal. The military should take all the precautions they can to try and prevent civillian casualities. That said, in war there will be some inncoent civillian deaths. The attitude they did it so I can do it too is never an excuse. If you're using your enemy's moral and ethical standards to judge yourself what does that say about you?LancsLad said:Soldiers doing their job. I have a problem with all this media scrutiny and hooplah every time civilians get killed. During WW2 the Germans killed tens of thousands of British civilians and we gave it back to them in spades. that is the nature of war. I would rather the civilians die in an airstrike than an American or Canadian soldier die trying to root out the enemy. We must learn to use our weaponry or else what is the point of having it.
In any case I fail to see how the label "terrorist" applies to the Natives. They are not using systematic acts of terror or violence on civilians. While some may argue this is simply semantics I disagree. If you begin to use a word for purposes it was not meant then it loses its meaning. If we describe everyone who disagrees with the government as a "terrorist" then how do we describe the true terrorists?
Okay so maybe in the international sense this bunch of ( insert expletive) are not true terrorists but they have some similar characteristics: unlawful,destroy public property, threaten violence to get their way, cost us money.
Those descriptors can be applied to far too many groups on all sides of the spectrum these days.LancsLad said:Okay so maybe in the international sense this bunch of ( insert expletive) are not true terrorists but they have some similar characteristics: unlawful,destroy public property, threaten violence to get their way, cost us money.
Actually true terrorists target innocent civilians to cause death or severe casualties. Destruction to public property is a bi-product.LancsLad said:Okay so maybe in the international sense this bunch of ( insert expletive) are not true terrorists but they have some similar characteristics: unlawful,destroy public property, threaten violence to get their way, cost us money.
Public disobedience, pushing and shoving, or the odd profanity can hardly be call terrorism.
The incident(facts yet to be determined) that caused the civilian deaths in Haditha was not a 'mission'. It is apparently a reprisal outside of the mission by 4 to 9 marines against civilians for the death of their comrade in a roadside bomb attack. No determination as of yet has been made as to types of charges that will be laid. Stress of the hostile enviornment in which the marines operate no doubt was a main contributing factor to stepping outside their 'mission. Days and days, weeks and weeks, months and months of being subjected to roadside bomb attacks, small arms fire etc and all of it apperently occurring with the express and tacit approval of civilians could lead many, many normal men to snap when their comrade is killed. Take note that these civilians are almost to a person aware that an attack on marines is about to occur and yet, they remain silent and do nothing to prevent the attacks by informing security forces. This is what the marines are facing day in and day out. Tacit and overt support from civilians for the killing of marines. Even the most normal man could snap.lenharper said:The event is question appears to be a planned reprisal mission to avenge the death of a marine killed by a anti personel device. The result of this mission appears to be the death of a number of unarmed Iraqi civilians. The nature of the mission was to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy (kinda like terrorism) with no clear military objective -- just a simple "don't fuck with us" statement.
While you can agree or disagree as to whether this objective is worthwhile it is dishonest to it compare to an airstrike and catagorize the deaths as "collateral casualties" -- these people were selected to be executed in an act of reprisal. Even US military commanders are having a hard time defending this one.
It was not a 'terrorist mission' as you state and it was not made with intent to install fear with a 'don't fuck with us mindset' as you stated. It most likely was the enormous stress caused by the hostile environment that the marines operate in on a daily basis that caused them snap when their comrade was killed by a road side bomb. The rules of engagement for the marines put them in such a tenuous postion and expose them to such physical harm from attacks while limiting their ability to fully protect themselves. Their enemies pay no heed, follow no rules, and have no conscience in killing indiscrimminately and thus have a huge advantage in this type of urban warfare.
Of course it is terrorism for a group of soldiers to go to 2 houses and kill all inhabitants. Even the Marine commander and the senate arms commitee members call it murder in cold blood.Anbarandy said:The incident(facts yet to be determined) that caused the civilian deaths in Haditha was not a 'mission'. It is apparently a reprisal outside of the mission by 4 to 9 marines against civilians for the death of their comrade in a roadside bomb attack. No determination as of yet has been made as to types of charges that will be laid. Stress of the hostile enviornment in which the marines operate no doubt was a main contributing factor to stepping outside their 'mission. Days and days, weeks and weeks, months and months of being subjected to roadside bomb attacks, small arms fire etc and all of it apperently occurring with the express and tacit approval of civilians could lead many, many normal men to snap when their comrade is killed. Take note that these civilians are almost to a person aware that an attack on marines is about to occur and yet, they remain silent and do nothing to prevent the attacks by informing security forces. This is what the marines are facing day in and day out. Tacit and overt support from civilians for the killing of marines. Even the most normal man could snap.
It was not a 'terrorist mission' as you state and it was not made with intent to install fear with a 'don't fuck with us mindset' as you stated. It most likely was the enormous stress caused by the hostile environment that the marines operate in on a daily basis that caused them snap when their comrade was killed by a road side bomb. The rules of engagement for the marines put them in such a tenuous postion and expose them to such physical harm from attacks while limiting their ability to fully protect themselves. Their enemies pay no heed, follow no rules, and have no conscience in killing indiscrimminately and thus have a huge advantage in this type of urban warfare.
It is worth noting, that it is exactly the same scenario Saddam Hussein is being tried for.
Hey Anbar
I guess I'll give you points for stating the bloody obvious. Everything you said in your post is correct. But you know what, it doesn't matter...
Split all the semantical hairs you want but the fact remains, either out of "revenge' because their "tender psyche was damaged" or because they were pissed because one of their own was killed, a group of marines took it upon themselves to kill a number of unarmed civilians.
I was trying to give them some credit by saying it was to instill fear in the civilian population because at least there would be some point to that.
I was also responding to your fellow Neandrathal who was stating that this was a result of "soldiers doing their job". I believe this action, if it is found to be true, falls well outside a soldier's job description.
I guess I'll give you points for stating the bloody obvious. Everything you said in your post is correct. But you know what, it doesn't matter...
Split all the semantical hairs you want but the fact remains, either out of "revenge' because their "tender psyche was damaged" or because they were pissed because one of their own was killed, a group of marines took it upon themselves to kill a number of unarmed civilians.
I was trying to give them some credit by saying it was to instill fear in the civilian population because at least there would be some point to that.
I was also responding to your fellow Neandrathal who was stating that this was a result of "soldiers doing their job". I believe this action, if it is found to be true, falls well outside a soldier's job description.
Neamderthal speaking
lets just give it a rest Len. we all sit here at our computer keyboards nice and safe, maybe with a coffee or cool beverage and rant away. You and the others are too quick to judge these young men. There is no possible way for you to imagine what their life is like, the stress of never knowing who will take a shot at you next is a whole new phase of warefare.
It must be difficult for young men, many younger than my son, to be trained to engage and kill then sent out to act like police and goodwill ambassadors. As they walk down a street the child smiling at them one minute may just as easily trigger a body bomb the next. It is not cut and dried.
During my time in the military the "enemy" was a very clearly defined Soviet Union and warsaw Pact. All of our training was in the sphere of a conventional engagement with uniformed opposition that you could identify. Even though we and the Warsaw pact were opposed to each other the basic rules of war that had existed for centuries applied. The combatants wore uniforms and non-combatants didn't. There were always exceptions but that was generally the case. Sure we had the twists like learning to function in those damned CBW and radiation suits. Looking back I can't imagine that they would have made any difference. Bullets and shrapnel sort of defeat the seal. First aid training for nuclear blasts seems almost funny now but was deadly serious at the time. But the point was we were taught it is kill or be killed. The idea was to make the other guy a hero who died for his country. You tend to loose your individuality and function as a unit. You, your buddies, squad,platoon, company etc. Any urban training that we did was again based on the premise of fighting a regular army with uniforms and similar training to us. That was then.
Now it is radically different. While it is unfortunate , in a way, that these collateral casualties happen, they have always happened in war and that will not change.
So you can call me a neanderthal all you want but unless you have been in the position these young men are in then STFU.
lets just give it a rest Len. we all sit here at our computer keyboards nice and safe, maybe with a coffee or cool beverage and rant away. You and the others are too quick to judge these young men. There is no possible way for you to imagine what their life is like, the stress of never knowing who will take a shot at you next is a whole new phase of warefare.
It must be difficult for young men, many younger than my son, to be trained to engage and kill then sent out to act like police and goodwill ambassadors. As they walk down a street the child smiling at them one minute may just as easily trigger a body bomb the next. It is not cut and dried.
During my time in the military the "enemy" was a very clearly defined Soviet Union and warsaw Pact. All of our training was in the sphere of a conventional engagement with uniformed opposition that you could identify. Even though we and the Warsaw pact were opposed to each other the basic rules of war that had existed for centuries applied. The combatants wore uniforms and non-combatants didn't. There were always exceptions but that was generally the case. Sure we had the twists like learning to function in those damned CBW and radiation suits. Looking back I can't imagine that they would have made any difference. Bullets and shrapnel sort of defeat the seal. First aid training for nuclear blasts seems almost funny now but was deadly serious at the time. But the point was we were taught it is kill or be killed. The idea was to make the other guy a hero who died for his country. You tend to loose your individuality and function as a unit. You, your buddies, squad,platoon, company etc. Any urban training that we did was again based on the premise of fighting a regular army with uniforms and similar training to us. That was then.
Now it is radically different. While it is unfortunate , in a way, that these collateral casualties happen, they have always happened in war and that will not change.
So you can call me a neanderthal all you want but unless you have been in the position these young men are in then STFU.
it is difficult? there is no doubt about that. war criminals? bullshit. did they contravene standing orders and the military code of justice? thats for the investigating officer to decide and prefer charges. Can there be mitigating circumstances? yes. Can such circumstances absolve them? again- without knowing the facts- no determination can be made. But if they did commit a criminal act, then they must be punished. The standards and responsibilities in the military are high and in many cases unfair. but they are important to be upheld nonetheless.LancsLad said:lets just give it a rest Len. we all sit here at our computer keyboards nice and safe, maybe with a coffee or cool beverage and rant away. You and the others are too quick to judge these young men. There is no possible way for you to imagine what their life is like, the stress of never knowing who will take a shot at you next is a whole new phase of warefare.
It must be difficult for young men, many younger than my son, to be trained to engage and kill then sent out to act like police and goodwill ambassadors. As they walk down a street the child smiling at them one minute may just as easily trigger a body bomb the next. It is not cut and dried.
During my time in the military the "enemy" was a very clearly defined Soviet Union and warsaw Pact. All of our training was in the sphere of a conventional engagement with uniformed opposition that you could identify. Even though we and the Warsaw pact were opposed to each other the basic rules of war that had existed for centuries applied. The combatants wore uniforms and non-combatants didn't. There were always exceptions but that was generally the case. Sure we had the twists like learning to function in those damned CBW and radiation suits. Looking back I can't imagine that they would have made any difference. Bullets and shrapnel sort of defeat the seal. First aid training for nuclear blasts seems almost funny now but was deadly serious at the time. But the point was we were taught it is kill or be killed. The idea was to make the other guy a hero who died for his country. You tend to loose your individuality and function as a unit. You, your buddies, squad,platoon, company etc. Any urban training that we did was again based on the premise of fighting a regular army with uniforms and similar training to us. That was then.
Now it is radically different. While it is unfortunate , in a way, that these collateral casualties happen, they have always happened in war and that will not change.
So you can call me a neanderthal all you want but unless you have been in the position these young men are in then STFU.
