Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Still waiting to see the quote.
Here are some of the most recent ones I found quickly. The other ones I haven't found time to look up yet.
#33 in the thread Muslim attitudes towards terror & the US
Arte -
Please post honestly.
I don't personally find the issue of strikes against military targets as controversial or as disputed as strikes against non-military targets, so that was what I focused on.
#35 in the thread Muslim attitudes towards terror & the US
I thin terrorist attacks against military targets are less of an issue for most of us than attacks against civilian targets.
Terror attacks against military targets may be, in some cases, something I would consider completely abhorent. In other cases, they may be something I would consider a fairly legitimate act of self defense.
Ok, fine.
So do you know accept that I have never said that I support attacks against US troops, or anything even remotely close to that?
Arte -
In other threads on this topic too you have defended the point og view that terrorist attacks against US forces in Iraq or in the Gulf are not terrorism according to you.
Then produce the quote.
How many times I am going to have to ask?
Following on from a few other threads where the subject of terror has arisen, I thought it might be interesting to consider whether any kind of terror attack can ever be acceptable.
To my way of thinking, no attack against civilian targets is ever acceptable for any reason.
I am also opposed to most attacks against government buildings, such as the 9/11 strike on the Pentagon, the King David Hotel bombing, etc, because I think most of the casualties often end up being civilians as well.
But what about resistance against oppression?
Here's one case I often think of - that of Max Manus...his attacks would fit most peoples definition of terror, but was he really evil?
Max Manus, a Norwegian resistance leader whose Oslo Gang sank so many German warships, blew up so many German planes and kept Norwegian spirits so high during the Nazi occupation in World War II that he became a national hero, died on Friday, The Associated Press reported. He was 81.
Once he and a countryman had parachuted safely into the countryside outside Oslo and been supplied with hundreds of pounds of explosives and other provisions in follow-up air drops, there was hardly a day that the Germans did not feel their sting.
Although his chief target was German shipping in the Oslo harbor, Mr. Manus, who sometimes spent days under stinking piers waiting for cargo ships to tie up and who claimed even a battleship among his prizes, blew up virtually any German military or industrial target he encountered, including more than 100 German warplanes.
Max Manus, 81, Dies - Fought Nazis in Occupied Norway - Obituary; Biography - NYTimes.com
Arte -
You've produced nothing at all so far that even mentions US forces, and you certainly haven't produced anything which comes within a thousand miles of suggesting I would support attacks on any particular group.
So far the only thing you have found is that I refuse to be drawn into making childish and simplistic blanket statements.
I really think at this point you might consider being a man and apologising for your behaviour.
Following on from a few other threads where the subject of terror has arisen, I thought it might be interesting to consider whether any kind of terror attack can ever be acceptable.
To my way of thinking, no attack against civilian targets is ever acceptable for any reason.
I am also opposed to most attacks against government buildings, such as the 9/11 strike on the Pentagon, the King David Hotel bombing, etc, because I think most of the casualties often end up being civilians as well.
But what about resistance against oppression?
Here's one case I often think of - that of Max Manus...his attacks would fit most peoples definition of terror, but was he really evil?
Max Manus, a Norwegian resistance leader whose Oslo Gang sank so many German warships, blew up so many German planes and kept Norwegian spirits so high during the Nazi occupation in World War II that he became a national hero, died on Friday, The Associated Press reported. He was 81.
Once he and a countryman had parachuted safely into the countryside outside Oslo and been supplied with hundreds of pounds of explosives and other provisions in follow-up air drops, there was hardly a day that the Germans did not feel their sting.
Although his chief target was German shipping in the Oslo harbor, Mr. Manus, who sometimes spent days under stinking piers waiting for cargo ships to tie up and who claimed even a battleship among his prizes, blew up virtually any German military or industrial target he encountered, including more than 100 German warplanes.
Max Manus, 81, Dies - Fought Nazis in Occupied Norway - Obituary; Biography - NYTimes.com
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I would differentiate between defensive action vs. offensive.
a quote from one of our discussion regarding terrorist attacks on US forces in which you literally qualify these as fairly legitimate acts of self-defense.
Terror attacks against military targets may be, in some cases, something I would consider completely abhorent. In other cases, they may be something I would consider a fairly legitimate act of self defense.
Arte -
So still no quote?
a quote from one of our discussion regarding terrorist attacks on US forces in which you literally qualify these as fairly legitimate acts of self-defense.
No, I didn't say that either. Not even close, and not by a hundred miles.
I doubt I have actually ever referred specifically to attacks against US forces.
What I said was:
Terror attacks against military targets may be, in some cases, something I would consider completely abhorent. In other cases, they may be something I would consider a fairly legitimate act of self defense.
Again - I think if you are an honest poster, you will now admit that you have this wrong.
You haven't found a quote, and you must realise that no quote exists.
Arte -
No, you have not. You have produced nothing at all.
And I think we can be fairly sure that you know this yourself. I don't even mention the US in that statement - and deliberately so.
The only thing you have is that I refuse to make a chldish, simplstic catch-all statement covering all armies, all wars.
I just don't think that stands up to reason.
I really would have respected you for manning up and admitting that I have never said that I accept terrorist attacks on anyone - but it seems I overestimated you.
When we and our allies were dropping bombs on DRESDEN, a town with NO military or industrial targets, the purpose was simply to kill civilians and to break the spirit of the German people?
Was that an example of state sponsored terrorism?
Of course it was, kiddies.
Time to grow up and face reality.
Following on from a few other threads where the subject of terror has arisen, I thought it might be interesting to consider whether any kind of terror attack can ever be acceptable.
To my way of thinking, no attack against civilian targets is ever acceptable for any reason.
I am also opposed to most attacks against government buildings, such as the 9/11 strike on the Pentagon, the King David Hotel bombing, etc, because I think most of the casualties often end up being civilians as well.
But what about resistance against oppression?
Here's one case I often think of - that of Max Manus...his attacks would fit most peoples definition of terror, but was he really evil?
Max Manus, a Norwegian resistance leader whose Oslo Gang sank so many German warships, blew up so many German planes and kept Norwegian spirits so high during the Nazi occupation in World War II that he became a national hero, died on Friday, The Associated Press reported. He was 81.
Once he and a countryman had parachuted safely into the countryside outside Oslo and been supplied with hundreds of pounds of explosives and other provisions in follow-up air drops, there was hardly a day that the Germans did not feel their sting.
Although his chief target was German shipping in the Oslo harbor, Mr. Manus, who sometimes spent days under stinking piers waiting for cargo ships to tie up and who claimed even a battleship among his prizes, blew up virtually any German military or industrial target he encountered, including more than 100 German warplanes.
Max Manus, 81, Dies - Fought Nazis in Occupied Norway - Obituary; Biography - NYTimes.com
Following on from a few other threads where the subject of terror has arisen, I thought it might be interesting to consider whether any kind of terror attack can ever be acceptable.
To my way of thinking, no attack against civilian targets is ever acceptable for any reason.
I am also opposed to most attacks against government buildings, such as the 9/11 strike on the Pentagon, the King David Hotel bombing, etc, because I think most of the casualties often end up being civilians as well.
But what about resistance against oppression?
Here's one case I often think of - that of Max Manus...his attacks would fit most peoples definition of terror, but was he really evil?
Max Manus, a Norwegian resistance leader whose Oslo Gang sank so many German warships, blew up so many German planes and kept Norwegian spirits so high during the Nazi occupation in World War II that he became a national hero, died on Friday, The Associated Press reported. He was 81.
Once he and a countryman had parachuted safely into the countryside outside Oslo and been supplied with hundreds of pounds of explosives and other provisions in follow-up air drops, there was hardly a day that the Germans did not feel their sting.
Although his chief target was German shipping in the Oslo harbor, Mr. Manus, who sometimes spent days under stinking piers waiting for cargo ships to tie up and who claimed even a battleship among his prizes, blew up virtually any German military or industrial target he encountered, including more than 100 German warplanes.
Max Manus, 81, Dies - Fought Nazis in Occupied Norway - Obituary; Biography - NYTimes.com
HOW would that qualify as terror?
An ENEMY invader in time of war should be given a free pass because ships containing war supplies and materials may be (nominally) "civilian?"
No. The OP "questions" is founded on abject ignorance. It is clearly not even remotely akin to "terrorism."
HOW would that qualify as terror?
An ENEMY invader in time of war should be given a free pass because ships containing war supplies and materials may be (nominally) "civilian?"
No. The OP "questions" is founded on abject ignorance. It is clearly not even remotely akin to "terrorism."
HOW would that qualify as terror?
An ENEMY invader in time of war should be given a free pass because ships containing war supplies and materials may be (nominally) "civilian?"
No. The OP "questions" is founded on abject ignorance. It is clearly not even remotely akin to "terrorism."
I don't think it is terror either - that being my point.
I read the obituary on Mr. Manus. I see no direct reference to him murdering unarmed German civilians. He was basically harassing the German military. I think of the Germans bombing Coventry, England, and then the resultant massive attacks on German cities like Dresden. Or the firebombing of Tokyo. Those attacks were meant to terrorize and demoralize. That was a form of terrorism in my opinion. Mr. Manus was no terrorist. Terror is a fact and part of what war IS. But then there is that other form of terrorism. I have to admit, when it comes to terrorism, I think of the mass shootings at schools like Columbine or what happened in Oklahoma City in the same regard as 9/11, Al queda or Hezbollah. Desperate acts of individual savagery by people with a death wish, lots of rage and no clear intelligent agenda.
