Madrid Bomb Blast

[paulyoung666]

i hope this thread isnt going where i think it is

[El Diablo]

Originally Posted by Graham

Once again I remind people of the US's policy in Gulf War I of bombing power stations, water treatment plants and other such *CIVILIAN* facilities under the guise of them being redefined as "military targets".

Whilst such facilities may have civilian workers, they remain a military target - and quite rightly. How else can the military be expected to impact an offence on a country unless they take out a large proportion of the utilities that are in place to support the running of that country? Should phone systems really remain in place when they can be taken out, thus leaving the lines of 'normal communication' open? Surely this doesn't help to break communication between the regimes, which is what was needed in order for them to fall. Should electricity still be in common supply? Without electricity, a lot can be gained from a military perspective. Such attacks are not simply so that civilians can be killed! It's all about tactics. So, there's no electricity in a region - "where's all that light coming from?" - "well, it must be the opposition. "

A military traget is not *always* property that belongs to or is operated by the enemy. Military targets are are identified as being important to the military cause and are neccessary in order for the troops to fulfill the requirements that their governments, and overall their compatriots, expect of them

Civillian casualties are never nice but if it's a better means of assisting the longevity of life amongst *our* troops, and thus increasing the means of effectiveness available to them, then surely it's not such a bad thing?

[El Diablo]

Originally Posted by paulyoung666

i hope this thread isnt going where i think it is

I'm sure it is!!

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Revelations says that once all the non-christians have been killed off (and the christians brought back) this would ensure that christianity or whatever post apocalyptical form it takes (assuming a new set of instructions may be given afterwards to live happy in the new world order) is the one true way.
Ego my statement.
Incidentaly, muslims have a similar view on the end of days, being that they follow the third book from the god of abraham.

As I said, Christians will not be the ones putting anyone to death.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Russ D

As I said, Christians will not be the ones putting anyone to death.

Graham never suggested they were.
But by being a christian, and believing that the predictions of god's deeds in revelations are rightious, then christians must think that the way to *ensure* it is the "one true way" is by killing off everyone who disagrees.

Anyway, as has been mentioned, people don't want us to have a discussion on that part of the topic

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Graham never suggested they were.
But by being a christian, and believing that the predictions of god's deeds in revelations are rightious, then christians must think that the way to *ensure* it is the "one true way" is by killing off everyone who disagrees.

Anyway, as has been mentioned, people don't want us to have a discussion on that part of the topic

well said , i wonder if these so called train marshalls would make any difference , at the end of the day there is no way all the railway lines can be patrolled all the time , what is to stop a bomb being planted at the entrance to a remote tunnel

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Graham never suggested they were.
But by being a christian, and believing that the predictions of god's deeds in revelations are rightious, then christians must think that the way to *ensure* it is the "one true way" is by killing off everyone who disagrees.

Yes I know. Graham appeared to be saying that although some Muslims believe they should be the ones to kill off non-believers or those contrary to their faith, this is not a view shared by the majority of peace-loving followers of that faith. I was merely pointing out that in Christianity, we do not believe that we should kill off non-believers either. What you said in post 71 seems to contradict this, apologies if I misread it

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by hairy_mick

got to add my twopenith what has been said by the new goverment of spain has given the terrorist what they wanted now we will all suffer as they go on the rampage trying to kill inocent pepole. As one of the bombers was quoted as saying "you love to live we love to die".

Well put, the terrorists are gonna see the Spanish pulling their soldiers out of Iraq a consiquence of their bombings.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Russ D

As I said, Christians will not be the ones putting anyone to death.

One word 'Crusades'.

[downquark1]

Hans Blix on the subject - brought to you by Fox News (fair and balanced) Briefly at the beginning.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

Except she says that "This is not easy; we must not allow our core values to be overturned, but at the same time we must not allow those values to bring about their own annihilation. For common-sense to be stymied at such a time by the alien †˜human rightsââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ culture is just plain crazy."

Since when are Human Rights *ALIEN* to our culture???

She probably means when they are dictated by an Authority outside our own country.

Originally Posted by Graham

And if, under the guise of common sense, we manage to *give away* our "core values" (which, of course, *include* human rights) then that is most certainly just "plain crazy".

Unfortunately, the security world doesn't work that way, which is one reason it is shrouded in secrecy. I'm sure if you could find the location of a bomb saving 500 lives, or even 2, by interrogating someone outside of international law, then you wouldn't let your principals become clouded on the issue, but myself and i'm sure others, would. You have to weigh up the options. Dispense with the human rights of a terrorist in order to save lives, or protect his human rights and let 500 die.

I doesn't get any better i'm afriad. I know it is from a movie, but the saying is an old one, and one i'm sure that a lot of governments swear by: "To protect a nation, and it's freedoms, whatever the cost". It is part of self-preservation, to protect yourself, your family, your city, your country, however you can.

Of course, this leads to the morality issue, which falls outside of common sense.

Originally Posted by Graham

Well, no it wasn't a war that was declared upon us. But neither was the Second World War. Remember *WE* declared war on Germany.

They started this. Way past 9/11 western countries have felt the wrath of islamic fundamentalism. I don't see the US asking to run a miltary base in Saudi Arabia, and getting the permission from the Saudis as declaring war on Islam. I don't see the United Nations partioning Israel in 1948, as a declaration of war on the US' behalf against Islam. They twisted events in history to enhance their view that everyone in the west are persecuting them. They then incorrectly use the Koran to back this up, and then use this against us in the form of terrorist attack.

Originally Posted by Graham

I have to say that I find comments like this tiresomely offensive.

Some countries do believe that giving in to terrorists will mean they won't have to face their wrath. While it will lower the priority of attacks against them, I don't think it will absolve them from all blame entirely. So, I think the phrase is an apt description. Why is it offensive? You even said you dont believe in following appeasement.

Originally Posted by Graham

Just because I may disagree with a policy does *NOT* mean that I wish us to use a policy of Appeasement. I do not believe we should give in to the terrorists, but *neither* do I believe that there is only *one* solution to the problem.

I don't remember hearing anyone say there was only one way. "You're either with us, or with them", means fighting terrorists metaphorically, not necessarily literally. 'Fighting terrorism' means with rockets and guns (Afghanistan), or using political dialogue (Libya). Many don't agree with fighting fire with fire, but they agree something physically as to be done. Not necessarily appeasement, but more like apathy (Which i'm guessing is what you'd do? Out of curiousity, if you are the US president, how would you of responded after 9/11 against terrorists?

[sir_drinks_alot]

We've just gotten over years of IRA terrorism, now we have to put up with Al Quida.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by zendawn

One word 'Crusades'.

Three words - "They were Catholics".

Plus several hundreds of years ago and it's not something Christians believe in.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by sir_drinks_alot

We've just gotten over years of IRA terrorism, now we have to put up with Al Quida.

Eh? I seem to have read that somewhere else.

[zendawn]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Three words - "They were Catholics".

Plus several hundreds of years ago and it's not something Christians believe in.

I think you'll find Richard the Lionheart was a christian.

http://www.heartoglory.com/Categories/crusaders1.htm