Different topic about London...

Those armchair generals with their brilliant plans of defeating the terrorists by tossing a nuke or two their way always give me the willies. Nuclear weapons have only one practical purpose, and that is deterrance. Beyond that they're pretty much useless because realistically speaking you can't really use them anywhere ... apart from the odd low-yield device maybe in a desolate place with no media clowns around to sell the news to CNN.

And reuben, YOU may feel that civilians have no place in war, but it should be pretty obvious that Al Qaeda and company may see that subject in a different light altogether.

 

War:

The majority of the people involved in the terrorist bombings in London, Madrid, New York AND Baghdad are not Iraqi, therefore the definition of war doesnt fit.

 

(Preface: Sometimes my politcal views are considered reactionary in the West. But I don't think I'm a reactionary: I merely desire a stable society, enforcement of the rule of law, and for individuals to have rights as described in our Constitution.)

IMHO, in the America that existed before until recently, it was not possible for
foreign terrorists to operate in America. We were a society whose majority was united by common cultural and ethnic origin, or at least by a desire to assimilate into American culture. This is no longer the case.

In the first place, no elements hostile to the US were allowed to enter or remain in the US for long, because we then had strict intelligence/immigration controls and enforced our laws. Secondly, immigrant communities in the US felt a sense of loyalty to the USA. Most families in my neighborhood were from Europe, and they were very "American" in loyalty.

Today, the US has ceased enforcement of most immigration laws. That is, the crippled bureaucracy only follows those who abide by the crippled bureaucracy's laws, and that is a minority. Example: If a person in my town is stopped for a traffic violation, the police officer is not allowed to ask if the person is legally in the United States. Even if the driver has no license, he is only given a ticket, and he is asked to appear in court (will he appear in court?). LOL How is that for security? He could be bin Laden. Some estimates say that 10,000 enter the US every day illegally. This was unacceptable in 1976. How many of those 10,000 are terrorists? No one seems to know or care...

In short, no North Korean/Vietnamese sympathizers would have been allowed to settle and remain in the US during the Korean/Vietnam Wars (excepting Jane Fonda -- JOKE) But now, anyone can enter the US, run around, and essentially be free of worry. Witness the swine who attacked us on 9/11 -- some of them had fake documents, had been previously stopped by police, etc., yet they were allowed to remain free here.

America has forgotten about law and order, except when it applies to foreign nations

OK, now everyone can tell me how terrible and intolerant I am

 

Its easier for people to move from one country to the next these days Uncles. Plus its easier for people to forge passports and stuff. International flights are ten a penny from many of the US's International airports. In the 60s, they were few and far between. The only other mode of transport in to the US was wetbacks or in the back of a truck. Trucks were fewer and farther between then.

I suppose its one of the 'benefits' of living in a capitalist society. If we dont do enough to help them, then they will come to us, by whatever means possible.

Strict immigration controls will only give a false sense of security. The West is now such a multicultural society that the threat of terrorism is coming from within. How can it be defeated? Can it? Not by the use of force, that is for sure. I cant ever recall a time in history when 'terrorism' has been defeated by use of force. I can, however, recall a time when terrorism was subdued by reason and dialogue. And it wasnt so long ago.

 

It's true that the mainstream media overemphasize attacks on us in the West. They merely list daily numbers of those slaughtered in Iraq. It's mostly because the consumers of said media are knuckle-dragging troglodytes who are incapable of comprehending that the slaughter of anyone not in their city is a horror.

Where is the political will to protect America and leave the rest of the world in peace? Why can't we simply mind our own business yet at the same time protect ourselves from hostiles entering our territory?

Neither Democrat nor Republican will do that today. Instead we must wait for further disasters and pain

 

Yes, and I have been through lots of countries and I have always followed the rules. I have been interrogated crossing borders and I do nothing but tell the truth. I am not afraid of close inspection because I am innocent; therefore I don't object to close inspection of all wishing to enter a foreign territory.

We in the US don't need to worry about air or ground vehicle ingress so much after 9/11, because those manned and official points of entry (and air control) are vigilant. But we do need to worry about the fact that we have, essentially, open borders where there are no official/manned checkpoints. This is thousands of miles, and that's why we are vulnerable every day, both on our northern and southern land borders.

TZebra will likely affirm this, as he has practical experience in these matters..

I'm not a Capitalist, by any measure. I'm a kind of socialist. But even if America were a Socialist paradise, I believe it would require a greater degree of sovereignty; i.e., if it were to be a distinct, sovereign entity, it would require borders that were enforced for the well-being of those within the entity.

Is that good, or is it our death knell? I don't know yet... But so far, from what I see, diversity is not a strength

In my mind I would love to think it is good, but what I have seen makes me think twice. Now kids raised in Britain blow themselves up with the intention of taking the lives of other British. They seem much more "foreign" to the Western ideal than the Irish radicals...

I'm always against violence, unless someone is trying to kill me. But if someone tries to kill me, I hope I don't go down without a fight. (One thing that I'm not afraid of is dying for is the nearly universal conception of what is GOOD and moral, in the universal sense, because I'm not a relativist.)

Now we often don't know who our enemies are. But if I have a reasonable suspicion of who the enemy is, I will at the very least make them unwelcome. And if I positively identify another as one who wishes to indiscriminately kill me or my family, then I will defend myself. Because all too often, people really do mean what they say. If some freak says he wants to kill you, he will likely try to kill you. Look into his eyes.

Again, I am a peaceful person who has many friends from many cultures. But if any of them said they wanted to destroy my family, I would take action.

That's normal, isn't it?

Well, I've been drinking, so I hope I haven't offended anyone here...

 

How nice you are Example: WW2, Britain, some N.S.D.A.P lovers on the British soil, but British citizens. They have contacts, funding, tactical and logistical support from SD. They blow something to smithereens. Any comments?

 

Dear Perdomo, you are so brilliant and intelligent person... At least you think you are... Have you counted already, how many times have you called me stupid and an idiot? And all I have -- just a point of view, that differs from your own. Is that you, who wanted to kill me? Any attempts to explain the basics of terror-handling practices that proved to be effective force you to show me those that proved to be NON-effective. Reminds me the situation: I explain you how to nail up properly, you explain me how to bend the nail, smash the wall, break the picture and fuck up all your fingers Well, up to you, I wash my hands...

 

Dear Perdomo, do you have any problems with memory or logics? I told you exactly that: NOT WITHDRAW, but ATTACK!!! Spain HAS WITHDRAWN...

 

Spanish government behaviour in common life translation: A street fight. Two groups participate. In one of them is Spain, providing some backup for the main fighters. Spain says to others: "I don't like that. Perhaps, I better go." Suddenly some wise guy from the opposing side makes a jump and kicks Spain in the balls... Spain goes away silently NOW ALL TELL ME, WHAT DO THINK ALL AROUND?

 

Yes, and the same as the bombers, the NSDAP were a minority who instead of following the majority or even trying to convince the majority of point of view using diplomatic means instead resort to violence to highlight there cause.

Didn't work then and dosn't work now.

UK has several recognised far right or far left political groups, one of which is the BNP, the policies include sealing the British boarders, ejecting all immigrants and asylum seekers from the country etc. They recognised early on that violence is not the way to win and entered the political forum and whilst they are not a mojority they do have a few seats in parliament and seem to gain ground each election (albeit slowly).

Mal

 

Dear Vadim, I don't think to be brilliant nor intelligent, at least, not above the average person. Yes, I have called you stupid, asshole... and I really think you are. I would say the same to anyone "pollutin" the memory of the victims of Madrid the way you did.

Your point of view is not a point of view that deserves respect, because all you promote is hatred, violence and totalitarism, and I have had relatives imprisoned for fighting against that, and some of them died (back in our civil war). The memory of those people is what pushes me to want to fight you.

And yes, it's me who wanted to kill you. But I'm an individual, thus I have emotions, as you said in another post, however, states are not individuals, they shouldn't have emotions, so they should follow rights, laws... and I, as a citizen, am against death penalty, even if I can understand and accept that the father of a girl raped and killed attacks the criminals who did that to his daughter and torture and kills them. Individual. Estate. Do you know the difference? What is acceptable for an individual to do in a moment of emotion, is not acceptable for the Estate.

 

You are such a demagogic... by saying that about WWII and UK, I proved that attacking civilians doesn't affect their democratic governments, as you were trying to say, thus proving that you were wrong saying that only totalitarian regimes can win a war. That has nothing to do with what you are saying now. Dumbass (ooops, i did it again ).

 

For dumbasses only: street rules aren't the rules in politics. Maybe such fascist as Vadim may think that the tough guy in a street fight can rule people, states... but that has only worked that way with Attila and the such. And it didn't las long. Real modern politics are about making alliances and using diplomacy. Read my previous comments on individuals and estates. I as an individual, would maybe leave that fight and come back later with a gun, maybe, don't really know. I would find silly that an estate did that.

And, btw, real men don't need to fight to prove they are right. They know they are right and act accordingly, as Spain has done. Only people who don't feel confident about themselves try to fight everyone, because they NEED to prove they can. Real fighters know.

 

does civilian come from civilization?

interesting topics...

it could be worth to research and draw curves of 'progressive enragement in hot-topic-threads'?

anyway, it came to my mind how definitions (meant as a basic, but unproven point to start from) and laws are built on contemporary social ethics and how much they are questioned by nowadays... what is questioned in general (eg for an overcome definition) and what is adapted gradually (so that, for example, some definitions have become unquestionable)?

in concrete, how much is the meaning of 'civilian' chained to 'war'? which were the reasons for defining the manners, habits and rules of 'war' in geneve and by whom? which languages know the word 'civilian' and what words are related to 'war' by their basic meanings in other languages?
to stay with cultures: how physically may a reaction in consecution become, which results from the wish (or need) of a culture to protect it's moral values? how fast is a 'civilian' allowed to change to a member of war then?

i personally will never agree to any violence, legalized by society. neither to individual acts of agression (but literature and tv have weakened me in that opinion a bit by some really heartbraking examples).
though i fear, this my basic understanding is not definitely enscribed in human's nature - and this in general, independant of social and cultural level.
furthermore i try to understand, that timelines of history are absolutely critical (even dangerous), when they aren't used for getting knowledge of nowadays hidden ethics, meaning behaviour which is regarded immoral at this time and that place. history can show how fast ethics change and societies without scripted history may know that better just by listening to old men.
these times are fast, so we probably all know examples of how single events rapidly change ethic views and values, and if the underlying 'definitions' are not adapted fast enough (how many new words are out there today...), the infected syntax easily becomes a battle-cry! the majority of some country goes united to lynch a child-murder, some other tries to relate the source of terrorism with writing from right to left.

however, before i get violently boring by diffusion...
i found it quite fascinating to read in a standard work about human-ethology, that nearly all small societies or tribes, which live as nomads, have no word for 'war'. some very isolated ones also don't, which seems logical.

 

that does only deserve one answer: You don't know a shit of how things go.
Now, go to hell and keep living in your self-confidence, your ignorance and your smartass role. You're the cannon meat for future wars, and pricks like you are the one that causes so many disasters around the wall, with such a closed mind and being sure of knowing all about everyone and everything. Ok, go ahead, dear Vadim, but, once again i tell you: You're a fucking ignorant. Wtg

 

non·com·bat·ant Audio pronunciation of "noncombatant" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nnkm-btnt, -kmb-tnt)
n.

1. A member of the armed forces, such as a chaplain or surgeon, whose duties lie outside combat.
2. A civilian in wartime, especially one in a war zone.

 

Wait a second, it's only a war if Iraqis are involved?

 

@uncles: I don't know about intolerance, but I think that with underlined sentence you hit the point. Western countries are kind of too open and tolerant. When minorities are allowed to boss majorities (f.e. basic education in schools with "refugees" own language), it creates a situation where minorities (here as a foreign people, not gays like broz) don't have to assimilate to where ever country they are. No need of language education, or no need to learn local habits. That creates a small communities, which are sort of "out" of society. Of course, it also affects their abilities to get jobs, education or contacts with other people.

And that it's exactly when and where the recruites of terrorists organizations come in. We make their job easier by not forcing our own ways to emmigrants.

IMO US border control is tougher now, than it was. F.e. turning an Air France plane because in it sat a relative of suspected terrorist....

 

I moved to another country. One quite similar to mine. I'm not going to accuse it, and I think that most immigrants to Spain may tell the same experiences that I had in France. Nearly nobody knew how laws had changed the situation inside the U.E., so, for example, one day I wanted to buy a costume for the wedding of one of my french friends, I went to this big shop (galeries lafayette), and they told me about the great advantages of obtaining some "fidelity card", I agreed and then they ask me for the document in which the government allows me to stay in their country. I tell them it is no more necessary (this was back in 2003, schengen has been working for a while...) and they didn't believe me, even telling me: "but... even swiss people need it!" yes, switzerland is not part of the union.... anyway; not even after showing them the green card (social security, given by the administration), they let me had their fidelity card. So finnally I didn't buy there. That's only a detail, but soime others happened, as people who tells you (even at the Human Ressources of my company, when complaining about the fact that I was payed less than people with the same level of education) "if you don't like this, go back to your country". From the very first moment, when I entered France, I stayed far from any spaniard, didn't come to their clubs, nor try to meet them, and from the very first moment I adopted french time to eat, and most common habitudes. I tried to integrate, but two years later I knew it would really take much more than that to really integrate.

I must say that I speak french since I was 9, and that a lot of french people thinks I have an accent "mediterranean", but from Marseille, not Spain. They are surprised when I tell them I'm spanish. Even with that favouring me, it was hard to integrate. I guess for a real foreigner, one who doesn't speaks the language, and whose culture is really different, and with no laws on his side because he is not part of the U.E. ... THAT must be really hard. And from my experience I must say that I really understand why some of this people only stays with people from their countries.

Of course this is not an excuse for terrorism, but it is not that easy to integrate, and we are not that open.