Lestat wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 10:51pm:


Terrorism is an element of war. War is the use of violence to achieve a political goal. It is the condition that exists between two oponents, usually but not always States. ALL WAR IS TERRIBLE.


Lestat wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 10:51pm:


Yes? Is that a problem? The civilians were not specifically targeted. It was a demonstration of intent, will and ability. It's meant to be demoralising when you remove a State's ability to field an army. This can in fact save a huge number of casualties on both sides. Hence we saw one of the most successful and efficient invasions in human history.

Lestat wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 10:51pm:


Yes some people do think that. I expect that our soldiers, wearing our uniform are held accountable when they commit atrocities and war crimes. A soldier that arbitrarily blows up a cafe, killing the patrons, merely to cause terror is guilty of a crime.

locutius wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 12:50pm:


And how do you know what the intent was, and why a certain target was targetted. These extremists groups don't really have a PR voice in the west do they, and even if they did, do you think they would tell the world what their intent was. Do you think the western militaries would ever state what they're intent was. When the civilian shelter in Baghdad was bombed killing 29 civilians...lets say that it was deliberatly done by a looney pilot, or worst, ordered...do you truly think that the US military would call a press conference and admit 'intent'.

So how do you know what their motives or intent was? You don't know...you get told by the western media...and quite frankly..they don't know either.

I know for a fact that shortly after the Mariot Hotel bombing, Al-Zahrwawi released a video (which was reported in the western media...however, the contents were not revealed)..I read a transcript of the video, and he states clearly that the Mariot was targetted due to the CIA using it as a base of intelligence.

Are we to take his claims at face value. Of course not...and this also applies to the US spokesman who is trained for this job..probably in advertisingi..cause yes...they are selling a product...a lie which they want us to buy.

You don't know what the intent or reasoning for the targets being selected were...you are making assumptions based on the fact that they are muslims and many civilians died.

How can you possibly know 'intent' in times of war...you don't, not many do. Remember, in war truth is the first casualty.

So my point still stands. If you believe that those in Pakistan bere responsibility due to the killing of its civilians..then the same logic must apply to S11 and Mariot Hotel.

If you believe that those in Pakistan bere responsibility due to the killing of its civilians..then the same logic must apply to S11 and Mariot Hotel.

Wrong again Les. The Americans don't give terrorists money to go overseas and kill people randomly. They control their military.

Saying that people need to control extremists is not the same as saying that any country that has an army deserves to have it's civilians killed in random attacks. A bit of common sense wouldn;t go astray here.

Quote:


He accepts it I think, he just thinks it's justified that's all. Civilians in Muslim countries deserve to die, because they don't 'rein in their extremists'.

When Westerners are attacked, they're fully justified in responding with deadly force, when Muslims are attacked they have to have Gandhist patience and suffer it, this is freediver's theory anyway.

Quote:


He's not even in denial, he's openly admitted to being an apologist for these crimes in many threads, he just thinks they're justified, as I'm sure apologists on the other side do as well.

Lestat wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 9:35pm:


Are you talking about Haqqani or the Trade Towers? If Haqqani then my ASSUMPTION is that it was he that was targeted, based on what was suggested in the original post. Maybe the school was targeted. If that was the case maybe there was good reason. Others here have suggested that it was not a school for children. The US have not issued a statement according to the article.

As to what I KNOW. I KNOW I need to read between the lines, not believe everything I read and be a student of history and cultural psychology to decipher the information that comes my way. To make an estimate on the way certain peoples or groups consistantly behave.

WHAT DO YOU KNOW? I will gladly apply whatever formulea that you have for omniscience.

Lestat wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 9:35pm:


Garbage. They do have a voice. Everytime they do something news worthy they have a voice. Everytime they lay claim to an act they have a voice. There are plenty of critics of Western behaviour from inside the West that give them a voice. There are large populations of Muslims and middle eastern people living in western societies that have a considerable voice and presence in the media.

If they then choose not to express their intent for certain acts, who's fault is that. And if they claim an intent along the lines that the attack on the World Trade Towers was to take out military offices please excuse me if I don't believe them.

Lestat wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 9:35pm:


Yes, they do, all the time. I'm also sure there are times when they lie. I'm perfectly happy when they are caught out.

Lestat wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 9:35pm:


I don't know. Factors would include whether they were caught or the incident was exposed. How they could believably distance themselves from the individuals actions etc. I expect that individual actions that are deemed and the proven to be intently criminal suffer the consquences. This HAS happened.

Lestat wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 9:35pm:


Why don't you become a journalist since you know everything.

Lestat wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 9:35pm:


I already answered this.

Lestat wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 9:35pm:


Yes? I treat all information that arrives to me from the modern media with suspicion. Particularly information that provides someone with political or monetary gain. I know what spin doctoring is. I always try to identify liars.

Lestat wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 9:35pm:


Ahh....Nope It's based on the fact that I find it reasonable that a high value target was targeted and that a missile went astray. You are the one that is making assumtion based on the fact that they were Muslim.

Lestat wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 9:35pm:


Intent, Intent, Intent ad nauseam I think I was pretty clear in the way I used intent, and applied it fairly to determine the culpability of certain actions. Truth is a casualty of war; for both sides.

Lestat wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 9:35pm:


My points still stand. Was it not fair enough for you?

Taliban suicide attack kills at least five in Afghan capital

Quote:


Don't see no wrong killing mad dogs and this sort of "students".