How dare you say Mr Coward has got 20 pounds of explosives around his waistOriginally Posted by stewart38
For the sake of accuracy ...
.. it's about 80 pounds but it's only slightly flammable
27 civilians killed in Iraq yesterday by USA bombing hardly gets a mention n(is it over 10,000 now ?)Originally Posted by Dance Demon
100 'ghost prisoners' held in Iraq by USA which is against the Geneva convention that was on pg2 of daily mail (so it must be true)
Lets not pretend any country follows the Geneva convention at all times
If someone straps "20lbs of explosives around their waste" and blows themselves up are they a cowered ? Dont know
Will USA bomb Iran ? maybe ?
Is there a SOLUTION ? Dont know.
We have bias news reporting I know that much
How dare you say Mr Coward has got 20 pounds of explosives around his waistOriginally Posted by stewart38
For the sake of accuracy ...
.. it's about 80 pounds but it's only slightly flammable
It depends.hiding behind innocent children is not being cowardly...
Man murders wife, but is trapped in his house by the police. Desperate, and scared of prison, he takes his daughter hostage, and threatens to shoot her if the police enter the house. Dominant emotion: fear. Coward.
Contrast the militants in Beslan. Happy to risk prison or death for beliefs. Hostage-taking part of plan to get fellow militants released. Dominant emotions: hatred, revenge. Not cowards.
Why does it matter? Well, if we think terrorists are cowards, we might tailor our tactics around that. For example, creating a death penalty for terrorism, as cowards are scared of dying. Since terrorists aren't cowards, our tactics won't be as effective as they could be. I am in favour of dealing with terrorism effectively, so I am against inaccurate descriptions of terrorists.
So if they are happy to risk prison or death for their beliefs, why do they have to use innocent children as shields to try to prevent themselves being killed. If they are happy to die for thier belifs they dont need protection.........so the description of terrorists who do such things is not inaccurate IMO.....Originally Posted by MartinHarper
As I stated before, defenseless people--especially children-- are a very easy target..........you very rarely ever hear of terrorists trying to take armed soldiers as hostages. Why ? .....because they are scared to do this as it is too dangerous.......Dominant emotion:......fear I think........
From what I read, they wanted to do a "prisoner exchange" with some militants who had been captured by the Russian authorities. Thus they would capture the children, and then trade their release for the release of the captured militants. Similar operations occur from time to time in other conflicts. Clearly, if they had let everybody go, this would not have made for a very successful operation.why do they have to use innocent children as shields to try to prevent themselves being killed
The secondary objective, if they failed to achieve the primary objective, was to get revenge against "the Russians" by killing lots of adults and children (and themselves). Again, if they had let everyone go, it would have been difficult to achieve this secondary objective.
Well, since you ask... to capture armed soldiers you need overwhelming superior local firepower, and terrorists don't have that, so such a mission would not be successful. The same logic applies to other asymmetric warriors, including our own special forces when they get behind enemy lines, and "good guy" guerillas like the French Resistance.you very rarely ever hear of terrorists trying to take armed soldiers as hostages. Why ?
Mind you, it can work if the enemy soldiers have very low morale. One example (IIRC) of that was in the invasion of Italy at the end of WW2, where several occasions saw a handful of Allied soldiers capturing whole regiments of demoralised Italians.
Although understandable, this kind of extreme emotional language is not going to help the situation one bit. I think it's true that there can be no justification for what they have done but I don't think that lets us off trying to gain some insight into the motivation of terrorists (in general). Words like "evil" and "sick" are readily chosen to express extreme abhorrence but don't explain in any way the complex events that led to an atrocity. I'm more interested in why any group of people should FEEL that such actions are justifiable- and why huge swathes of people in the Muslim world should, if not actively support them, at least fail to actively oppose them.Originally Posted by Dance Demon
Partly due to the Germans that were flooding in from the North of Italy. I mean who do you surrender to ?Originally Posted by MartinHarper
....wouldnt the Germans be on the same side as the Italians at that point ?Originally Posted by stewart38
Mussolina was put under house arrest 25th July 1943Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe
Italy was then looking for peace with the allies and Germans were not too happy
there was some token resistance but bit like in Iraq loads 'gave themselves up'
I see the threat of the USA bombing Iran has been mentioned again today if they carry on re nuclear development ?
..and not North Korea - wasnt there a suspect explosion there ? On another note, has anyone ever met an American who says 'If it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking German!' thats always amusingOriginally Posted by stewart38
Now we have London bombs and the same nos dying EVERY DAY in Iraq it seems we are further way then ever
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks