Debate : 13610


Off-Topic / Debate / 13610

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) after we committed against them 2 of the worst single acts of terrorism the world has known. ROSCO (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) WE? That, I suspect, was the US's doing, and the US's alone, I don't think FDR consulted ANZAC. So you're off the hook. But please explain how it was terrorism, exactly, to win a war against an evil empire with less loss of life than a (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) The allies were all fighting together. I dare say ANZAC didn't consult FDR on all movements involving US troops either. (...) The same old "it was war" excuse. Winning the war wasn't terrorism, dropping the bombs was. One was just a (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Really ROSCO, I should know better. You're just trying to spin me up as a diversionary tactic because, well, I don't know why you are doing it, except perhaps to divert attention from the thread topic? This exact debate has been held here (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek misfires. The other reply is the one I meant, it's more fully formed. Frothier for your enjoyment, even... So don't reply to this one. Not sure why the first post took, it wasn't supposed to. (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) So I ask again, why not use the same weapons now? Are we not currently at war with a fanatical, evil emp^H^H^H group (or groups), and need to win? Is it not appropriate to use those weapons to win this war? Why / why not? ROSCO (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'll discuss that if you like, but not whether using nukes in WW II was terrorism. It wasn't. (I again say shame on you for even suggesting it was). I just ran across this: (URL) it has some food for thought. I skimmed it quickly so I'm just (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) I don't think it's shameful for people to have differing opinions, so I guess we differ on that as well 8?) (...) No, no real surprise 8?) Our opinions diverge again. So be it. And I'd add that as far as the perpetrators of Sep 11 go, they (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) This is more than a difference of opinion, so brushing it under the rug by calling it that won't work. (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Horst Lehner

Hello Larry, (...) I am anxiously awaiting your reaction to my historical analysis on this issue ... will you tell me, too, that there is no room for different interpretations? If you feel you discussed this issue enough, you could also point me to (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Can you give me a link? I can't find it at the mo. But I am not sure there is much more to say. Using the proper weapon for the job against a determined, and ultimately evil, adversary is *not* terrorism. The world would have been a much (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Daniel Jassim

(...) Perhaps the proper weapon WAS used but WHOM it targeted is the issue here. It was the wrong thing to do. Eisenhower thought the same too. (...) Actually, it IS an historical fact that the Japanese were tapped out and were in the process of (...) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Do you have a cite for that? (...) Surrender to the Russians would have been unacceptable. We had set goals for this war and it is important to set goals and stick to them. Our current little war is somewhat lacking in concrete measurable (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Daniel Jassim

(...) Two articles I recall off the top of my head, one in "Time" and one in "Newsweek," as well as a lengthy documentary on the History Channel. On the web, here's a historian who has done extensive research on the matter. You actually have to take (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Kirby Warden

I really should stay out of this one, but I'm weak. I don't think that many of our wars have been against a group of people, but rather violent usurpers who somehow manage to gather dedicated supporters. If we could simply walk in and take out the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan —Scott Arthur

(...) I'm not sure we do. Yesterday's Observer: "Iraq 'behind US anthrax outbreaks'" (URL) anthrax, on its own, isn't so difficult,' one senior US intelligence source said. 'But it only begins to become effective as a biological weapon if they can (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: (citing the Guardian) (...) Thanks for the cite. Does anyone know if this stuff keeps for 10 years in powder form? Bacteria are quite resilient but 10 years is an aw'fly long time. (of course that (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

How odd ? (Re: A N T H R A X - ... ) —Scott Arthur

(...) As it uses UN data, I did not think it would show anything as far as you were concerned? Is your head out of the sand now? Larry: ==+== I have no faith in statistics that are originated by the UN unless independently corroborated, and that's a (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) The powder isn't bacteria. The powder is *spores*. And spores keep a long, long, long time--live spores nearly 8,000 years old have been pulled from ice cores in the last decade or so. (...) Apparently it's possible to get small amounts of (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan —Christopher Tracey

(...) At a California university researchers have uncovered living bacteria spores (encased in amber?) up to 135 millions years old. Incredible. -chris (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Wow. Like there aren't enough problems in the world already. Just what we need...dinosaur cooties. And I felt bad when they disinterred those Spanish Flu victims in '99... best LFB (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan —Ross Crawford

(...) Here's a link that indicates some people think they may be able to survive indefinitely (URL) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan —Scott Arthur

(...) 8000 Years! Pah, that is nothing compared to 250,000,000 years: (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Selçuk Göre

(...) ---> while Turkey was getting ready to move into Africa (was Spain (...) I really wondered where you get this info from. Selçuk (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Me too. My impression of Turkey post WW I was more of a country struggling with internal issues and being kicked around by others, than a country that was a kicker. But this isn't my area of knowledge (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I'm weak too; I can't pass up clarifying historical confusion. 'Tis an occupational hazard. (...) I've never heard that. The general consensus was that FDR (assuming you're American, of course) was particularly eager to get into the fight, but (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Kirby Warden

(...) <snip> (...) Hey, no problem. I'm the first to admit that I'm uneducated and really shouldn't be getting involved in these debates. This isn't the first time that I have been wrong about these things. Part of my problem is that I don't know (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Pedro Silva

(...) AKA "a group of people". :-) (...) Yeah, right. America is good, those who don't follow it are bad. A little simplified, perhaps? (...) Probably Stalin, but fewer deaths and not *that* lunatic: maybe send cannon fodder, but not *civilians*! (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)

Re: More on Palestine —James Simpson

(...) I have spoken to a Vietnam Vet; last night in fact; I have a special word for him; I call him Dad. And you know what? Dad *never* killed defenseless women and children in Vietnam. I take extreme umbrage with your statement. That was a horrible (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine) —Scott Arthur

(...) I agree, Dan's tarring everyone with a big sticky brush. His general comments are interesting though. I read this in the Observer yesterday about Jesse Helms's apparent Amendment to Protect Servicemen From International Criminal Court: ==+== (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I think James is reading something into Dan's comment that I don't think is there. Dan stated that there's no chivalry in killing the defenceless, and to ask a Vietnam vet if you doubted that statement. I also know a number of Vietnam vets-- (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine) —James Simpson

(...) If I've misread Dan, then I sincerely offer him an apology for implying that he believes Vietnam Vets to have acted cowardly. Dan, if you don't mind, please clarify what you meant. james (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine) —Daniel Jassim

I came across this post AFTER my reply to the previous chewing-out from James: (...) Forget about it, dude. I realize I make bitter statements that reflect my personal dissatisfaction with our government's foreign policy, and I have my reasons. I (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine) —James Simpson

(...) Dan: No reservations whatsoever, nor will I shoot from the hip in the future. james (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Daniel Jassim

(...) What?!!! You're taking my statement completely the wrong way, pal! Show me where I insulted any Vietnam vet?! I'm PRAISING the fact that many, many Vietnem vets knew something about chivalry. They detested the fact that they were put in the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —James Simpson

(...) Daniel: I apologize to you for taking your comments out of context. As I read your statement, it seemed to me that you were implying that most Vietnam vets had engaged in dishonorable warfare. Sincerely, james simpson (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) I think Horst may have been talking about this one (URL) (23 years ago, 13-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) My view, after reading your link and a few other things, is that I cannot see any situation where a mass-destruction device such as those used over Japan would be the most effective weapon. Well, OK, maybe if there was a (very) large area (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

Re: More on Palestine —Scott Arthur

(...) Big words. But I am still not clear on what you mean by "free". I have asked you before, but yoy refuse to answer: ====== ====== (...) This is a joke coming from you, in the last weeks you have shown me that you don't understand (amongst (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Horst Lehner

(...) Hiroshima, as one of the largest Japanese harbours and railway junctions, probably has been one. The question in this case is more: Couldn't the US have waited to see how the Soviet strike against Japan, started shortly before, turns out? (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Tom Stangl

(...) Really? What? If you mean the atomic explosions, you've got an awfully strange idea of the definition of terrorism. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) So what's your definition of terrorism? ROSCO (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Tom Stangl

I think the bigger question is what is YOURS? I believe most people in here can see the difference between the WTC attack and a nation trying to end a protracted war (with an enemy that had proved time and time again that it would suicide, use (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) You're probably right, Tom, and I can see the difference, too. I simply asked what your definition of terrorism is? ROSCO (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Larry Pieniazek

(...) What's yours? Did you like the one that Scott posted which he claimed was from the FBI? Where are you going with this repeating questions without being willing to answer them when they are posed back at you? (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Tom Stangl

(...) That's a good question. I don't know if I'd pin it down to a hard definition applied universally. It almost needs a case-by-case analysis. But I certainly don't see Hiroshima/Nagasaki as acts of terrorism, and DO see WTC as acts of terrorism. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) and a (...) and time (...) out at (...) minimizing the (...) applied (...) WTC as (...) Thanks, Tom. I agree that there's no single "catch-all" definition of terrorism. There's a bit of a discussion about it here (URL) quote from there: "The (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Frank Filz

(...) Hmm, I'm not sure this is a workable definition. I think this is the general purpose of most military action (just about no military action expects to eliminate much more than a fraction of the enemy forces, what it seeks to do is eliminate (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Ross Crawford

(...) a (...) in (...) Neither am I. I don't think the Terrorism Research Centre intend it to be either. As I said, I don't think there is a single "workable" definition of terrorism. (...) However most military action is directed at military (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Justifying Barbarism? (was: More on Palestine) —Ross Crawford

(...) This made me think a bit about the question: Can barbaric acts (whether terrorism or not) be justified if a. The intended overall result[1] is positive (eg. save lives, reduce poverty), and b. The actual overall result is positive, even if (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Horst Lehner

(...) Which doesn't get you off the hook ;-) Here is my definition: "The enforcement of political goals through violence against unconcerned people is terrorism". Of course, with this definition, a violent attack targeting concerned people would (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Fredrik Glöckner

(...) Some people would say that terrorism is the act of attacking civilians with the intention of reaching some kind of a (political) goal. During these discussions, the word terrorism is actually a problem. The problem is that the word is (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Scott Arthur

(...) Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. (FBI) I think this is good, (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More on Palestine —Daniel Jassim

(...) What defines terrorism? Is it the act itself or the people who do it? Or is it situational? During the Revolutionary War, George Washington was a terrorist to the British and obviously I disagree with that. Dropping nuclear weapons on innocent (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)