HighlandFP

Cowardly xian bombers drop depleted uranium bombs from 20,000 feet,
hitting men, women, children, hospitals, schools, wedding parties, kindergartens, then fly away.

__________________
WARNING: By reading or downloading this post you may be committing an offence under some or all of these Terrorism Acts.
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/securit...m-and-the-law/

EU = Ein Volk ~ Ein Reich.

BonnieDundee

I don't think coward is the right word when you blow yourself up as well. Nutter is more accurate.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

The Bear

But the difference is that the men and women who conduct military attacks do so because they are the military wing of a government acting under legitimate instruction as part of a military campaign and not simply out of religious conviction. Very often what they are required to do runs counter to their religious beliefs.

The Muslim who ties an explosive belt to himself and goes out to kill civilians does so not because he is a part of a military wing but out of his religious convictions.

Not only that, but he is convinced that by attacking even the families and supporters of those who are confronting the pernicious advancement of Islam he is striking a blow for Allah and so he is a martyr with all that involves.

Not for nothing are these “people” called “homicide bombers” by people who understand their foul thinking rather than the almost complimentary description of “suicide bombers”.

__________________
I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.

BonnieDundee

Being part of a gov't gives you no legitimacy to attack civilians. In fact gov'ts have always been the worst terrorists and usually to their own people.

So? The only difference in my view is that one is not representing the people but on the other hand when the West attacks Islamic counties it isn't representing their people, which is what matters, anyway.

The Bear

Very true, in fact the Geneva Conventions address the requirement to avoid civilian casualties, but governments do have the right to declare war and in such circumstances they make use of their armed forces.

My point is that members of the armed forces have no option under military law other than obey legitimate orders.

If the order was to “go bomb this holiday resort” then it would be an illegal order unless it could be shown to be reasonably suspected to be hiding a military installation.

On the other hand if the order was “go bomb X city because it’s got a significant number of enemy combatants there then that would be a legitimate order. In such a case the military forces would have to undertake the task.

When a democratically elected government decides that an attack on a target is appropriate it IS representing the will of the people who elected the government into office.

It may be that many people neither wanted nor expected the government to engage in such activities, and that is why Parliament, as the closest thing to the will of the public as a whole in the absence of a referendum should be the deciding body when war is being contemplated.

It is by refusing to engage Parliament in the decision making process that Blair acted so disgustingly by not seeking parliaments approval for his actions within the coalition forces attacking Iraq and Afghanistan where he instructed British forces to take such an aggressive role.

The bottom line is that the military forces in the west do not use their religion as an excuse to undertake what they do.

Muslims use their religion as the reason to undertake what they do when they individually strap on The Belt and deliberately target civilians.

__________________
I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.

BonnieDundee

Who says? If it is aggressive war, and for it to be declared it suggests it is, I sy they don't. And so I believe does the Kellogg-Brand pact of 1928 which outlawed the concept of war. A pact which was applied at Nuremburg.

Well they can always stand up for their morals and to attack civilians doesn't really qualify as a legitimate order.

Actually that would also be illegitimate. You cannot carpet bomb a city or even bomb when their is significant risk to many civilians.

It is not representing the will of the people it is bombing. The Iraqis did not vote for the legitimacy of the Bush regime.

Well representative "democracy" on the scale of the UK is a joke but I was talking about them not representing the people they are bombing. The Americans who attacks Afghanistan or Iraq did not have the votes of the people they attacked.

The West seems to use excuses like WMD's which turn out to not exist. And it isn't many Muslims just a very small minority.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

John Cooper

Good playing of the man rather than the ball.
However you have not proved that Islam is not violent.

John Cooper

Two points :-
1) Please call religions by their proper name - after all I don't call you a pedophile worshipper.
2) Any evidence for your claim that allied forces deliberately as opposed to accidently try to kill civilians ?

g hall

Was it John Wayne who said

Kill em all let God sort em out

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."