Israel blows up bus full of Jews in Bulgaria

I was thinking of wars like those involving Genghis Khan:

 

Notwithstanding the cleansed picture we get when people romanticize previous eras, war has pretty much always been bad news for the civilian population in the theatre. Even in mideaeval times there were villages pillaged and torched and such. The tradition of selling the vanquished into slavery as needed goes back quite a ways too.

Here's a book on that period often known for chivalry: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7558202-by-sword-and-fire

 

No, it's you that need to try again pal. You seem to think that there is some kind of difference between killing 10 people with a bomb and killing 100 with a bomb. Mandela was a member of a terrorist organisation and supported acts of terror against civilian targets. Read his autobiography and live with it pal.

 

Mandela supported the armed resistance of the ANC. That is why his release from prison was denied...because he would not renounce violence. A bus full of tourist in another country has nothing to do with it...that's just you desperately clutching at straws.

The facts:
1. Mandela was at the head of an organisation that engaged in acts of 'terrorism' that resulted in deaths and injury to civilians.
2. Mandela was often offered his freedom if he would renounce violence. He refused to do so.

Now go buy the book and read it.

 

Obamanation follows the opinion of the minute. If it was 30 years ago or the white were still in power in South Africa then he would still call Mandela a terrorist but since the power to be idea about Mandela has changed, so has his opinion.

 

I'm glad o be an American!!! Ex-Soldier!! ARMY 31st! 1-1 ADA

 

I am sure the day the Talibans get their Air force, your experience will be very useful.

 

Amazing. So far down the thread and you still haven't answered the question. In your world, all things are equal. The cops kill civilians so its ok if civilians kill civilians. Civilians die in military bombings so paramilitary bombings specifically targeting civilians outside of the combat zone, or even the theater of battle are no different.

You strike me as the kind of guy who, after being bit by a dog when he was young,might find it reasonable to kill his neighbors dog as if it had some meaning. Its funny. Stupid. But funny.

By the way, need I say it again? Nice justification. Al queda appreciates your support.

 

Your question has been answered. Whether or not Mandela would support terrorist acts by his organisation carried out in another country is totally irrelevant and nothing more than face-saving attempt by you. The fact is that the ANC WAS classed as a terrorist organisation, Mandela WAS part of it and he DID support attacks on civilian targets.

You really do have problems don't you? Perhaps it's time you went back through the threads again to read my views. I understand that, with you being an extreme right-wing neo-con, your ability to read what is written is somewhat hindered but you should at least try to understand.

I won't tell you what you strike me as. I'd likely be banned. Why am I discussing anything with you anyway, I know what you're like from the last time you lied and misrepresented my views. Best we don't speak to each other.

 

Quite so......! I'm sure that when bin Laden was fighting the Russians, Obamamouth was cheering him on from the side-lines...seeing him as a 'freedom-fighter'. As soon as bin Laden fights America he becomes a terrorist.

 

More absurd equivalence from you, and again, Al Queda thanks you for your support. Hey folks, any act of murder anywhere on the planet can be justified so long as you claim to be a member of the resistance. Want to string up a black guy? Join the KKK resistance. Want to kill some Jews? Join Mikael's Islamist Resistance movement. Want to kill some women and children? Same story. Tim McVeigh blows up a federal building killing hundreds of innocent people? Its all part of the resistance, and therefore completely legit. I think we can go so far as to say the Manson slayings were really just part of a resistance movement against "The Man".

 

Ok but he wasn't European nor was he around during the middle to late mediaeval period. Barbarians will always be barbarians. Read up on European battles during this time.

Killing prisoners, while considered a war crime by modern day standards, such as at the Battle of Agincourt as you mentioned rob is still the killing of combatants, not civilians. I don't "romanticise" of past warfare and of course I know of siege warfare, I just realise the differences before total war which did hold more chivalry regardless of degree, there's no denying that.

Rules of warfare during that time always were at the whim of the commander, of course, but my point was that you don't see designated battlefields at all any more, which regardless of past frequency still makes a very interesting reflection of warfare at the time.

I suppose modern technology could be considered the main cause of change in the rules. Being able to bomb a city wasn't an option before the 1940s.

 

No offense BRUm but "kill them all , burn their villages and rape their women" was the motto of almost every army before the Renaissance . It's one of the reasons war is so feared by civilians . War will never be between two armies , war is between two countries . Given todays population numbers and the numbers of collateral damage victims I'd say war is almost too civilized . The transition from carpet bombing to precision guided munitions changed the face of warfare yet again .

 

In some places more than others. In countries considered more "civilised" i.e. Western and Northern Europe during 14th to 17th centuries this was not really the case. I'm not sure if what I've mentioned previously is specific to my country but the battles were mostly fought on designated fields or military strongholds, not deliberately against peasant towns and villages - at least after the 11th century and unification of England.

Hm this again depends on the nations involved. I wouldn't say this applied to the Balkans during the 90s for example, but I agree, just that only the more developed nations can afford that moral "luxury".

Good point about the renaissance. If more civil than the previous era bring back those times!

Anyway, this isn't the thread's topic so I'll stop now.

 

I believe there where quite a number of raiding attacks on civilians during the Roses War, also after sieges the tradition to plunder the city by force was still in place . Also the Renaissance started in the 14th century and it's ideas spread like wildfire .

As for the Yugoslavian conflicts of the '90 they just showcase what happens when the intensity of the war escalates . The military keeps it all nice and civil until all hell breaks loose , when that happens pure rage is what controls the troops . The written laws have no effect on those that are in imminent danger .

 

Now you're just losing it pal. Go take a tablet.

 

He lacks the ability to distinguish between events putting all acts on the same moral level. He equates a whole religion and society teaching hate to that of a few members pretending that is the same thing. He equates intentional attacking of civilians as targets with civilians being injured unintentionally while trying to go after legitimate military targets. He bends over backwards to show that any wrong by one side is matched by some event on the other. But also does something else that is funny. When someone insults Islam he thinks to make things fair he should insult Jews. He is so lost in trying to feign objectivity that he actually goes out of his way to show his prejudice. I much prefer people who are honest in their opinions and positions.

 

I don't know if people know how we disagree on most issues. Some people know that I will still vote for Obama and never liked the Republican Party (Sorry Rob and Obamanation). I never liked Bush and his Iraq invasion. But I will never side with psychos like Mikael.

 

...and you lack the ability to realise that whether you steal a penny or you steal a pound....you're still a thief. The other problem is that the right-wing neocons here see any act of aggression against Israel as 'terrorism' whilst attacks by Israel against Palestine are seen as 'self-defence'.

 

Nice film of you at work!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcQra7PJu78