Why terrorist whacks Russia instead of USA?

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

I heard this morning that suspicious substance has been found...

...something that has also been found in apartment bombings...

Lends more credence to what I figured.

 

[GJW]

Explosives Found in Russian Jet Wreckage

 

[gtwace]

Don't worry, I won't support war of any kind, I would rather spent my money on lights /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleye11.gif. I respect all fighters who fight for their causes, even not so honorable ones, but those that targets civilians and innocents are not respectable any more. Just like the Vietnam war where US blows up so many civilian targets that they would never win the war. When will people learn that they could only win a war with respect.

 

[James S]

More info in the Australian press today about this HERE and more info According to our initial investigation, at least one of the air crashes, the one in the Rostov region, came as a result of a terror attack,

[ QUOTE ]
When will people learn that they could only win a war with respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would that be our respect for them? Or their respect for us?

I certainly can't support the ideal of war, but I can certainly support specific ones...

 

[Sub_Umbra]

Wars are only won by the creation of widows and orphans. When one side loses the will to continue fighting -- the war is over. To that extent all warfare is pretty much psychological, in that the physical actions must be carried out to achieve the desired emotional effect.

There is also much of the 'what goes around, comes around' effect at work here. The Chechens have such a very long and very painful relationship with Russia that this could continue to go on for a very long time. There is nothing that Russia can do to force the Chechens to submit to their rule -- it's all been done to them before, over and over.

This goes far enough back that when Hitler's National Socialist Army rolled into Chechnya in WWII the Chechens welcomed them with open arms. They felt that they were finally being liberated from the Russians.

For the most part, time is on the side of the Chechens. They have already successfuly planted radioactive materials in a Moscow park. They informed the Russian government of the location. That was to show them that they were serious. Every year that goes by increases the probability that the separatists will eventually score a huge hit -- perhaps destroying Moscow itself.

The only way that Chechnya can win is to create more widows and orphans. This conflict, like all others, will continue until the DOWNSIDE so outweighs the UPSIDE for one of the parties that they no longer wish to continue.

 

[Wolfen]

Two female suicide bombers brought down the
Russian Planes according to the news.

 

[BC0311]

[ QUOTE ]
gtwace said:
...I respect all fighters who fight for their causes, even not so honorable ones, but those that targets civilians and innocents are not respectable any more. Just like the Vietnam war where US blows up so many civilian targets that they would never win the war...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
gtwace said:
Those terrorist are missing the point and provoking the general public. I could at least be nice to them if they just target the US, but now they are just disapointments.. then again it could be a US conspiracy..


[/ QUOTE ]


I believe I did understand you correctly afterall.

So, if the terrorists had attacked the USA, you would "be nice to them" and approve of what they did?

They disappoint you when they attack civilians or someone other than the USA?

 

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

Perhaps gtwace ain't from around here.

I don't get it when people won't put at least the country or state they live in over on the left...

Terrorism is not right. It doesn't matter WHO it happens to.

And to win a war? You must kill people and break things. That's just the way it is.

 

[turbodog]

[ QUOTE ]
gtwace said:
Don't worry, I won't support war of any kind, I would rather spent my money on lights /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleye11.gif. I respect all fighters who fight for their causes, even not so honorable ones, but those that targets civilians and innocents are not respectable any more. Just like the Vietnam war where US blows up so many civilian targets that they would never win the war. When will people learn that they could only win a war with respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two words:

Hiroshima

Nagasaki

 

[Empath]

I'm not aware of any Russians that frequent our board, but regardless, my deepest condolences for everyone that lost loved ones and family members.

 

[NewBie]

[ QUOTE ]
turbodog said:
[ QUOTE ]
gtwace said:
Don't worry, I won't support war of any kind, I would rather spent my money on lights /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleye11.gif. I respect all fighters who fight for their causes, even not so honorable ones, but those that targets civilians and innocents are not respectable any more. Just like the Vietnam war where US blows up so many civilian targets that they would never win the war. When will people learn that they could only win a war with respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two words:

Hiroshima

Nagasaki

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually it saved millions of lives and was quite ingenious if you ask me, in all aspects.

I assume you are a recent graduate who has fallen victim to the left rewriting the history books, and you haven't picked up many books covering actual history. Please do yourself a favor, visit the local library and do some honest reading, instead of sitting through daily brainwashing sessions in class and on the T.V.

 

[turbodog]

[ QUOTE ]
NewBie said:
[ QUOTE ]
turbodog said:
[ QUOTE ]
gtwace said:
Don't worry, I won't support war of any kind, I would rather spent my money on lights /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleye11.gif. I respect all fighters who fight for their causes, even not so honorable ones, but those that targets civilians and innocents are not respectable any more. Just like the Vietnam war where US blows up so many civilian targets that they would never win the war. When will people learn that they could only win a war with respect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two words:

Hiroshima

Nagasaki

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually it saved millions of lives and was quite ingenious if you ask me, in all aspects.

I assume you are a recent graduate who has fallen victim to the left rewriting the history books, and you haven't picked up many books covering actual history. Please do yourself a favor, visit the local library and do some honest reading, instead of sitting through daily brainwashing sessions in class and on the T.V.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get off your high horse and drop the agenda.

Dude said only win with respect. Japan surrendered quite quickly after the 2 bombs were dropped. That's my point.

And watch what inferences you incorrectly make.

 

[Empath]

Wouldn't the "rewriting of history" be from those attempting to make the bomb look like a republican project? The presence of republicans during WW2 was barely perceptible.

 

[raggie33]

sad world.

 

[Sigman]

ditto raggie!

 

[pjandyho]

In the 2nd World War the US dropped two Atom bombs, one in Nagasaki, and the other in Hiroshima all for the cause of stopping the war in the pacific. This is in our historical text books no doubt. The cause here is in stopping the pacific war.

The terrorist bombed WTC in NY for the cause of freedom from the States. Their cause was for freedom from US government.

In both cases, many civillians died. And in both cases, it is a war, be it the US against Japan, or Al Queda against the US.

I am a little confused right now about the term terrorism being used. Is it being used correctly? To me, terrorism is used when civillians are the target of soldiers, be they mercenaries, or uniformed, with the UN, or out of the UN. If civillians are attacked by these soldiers, we call them soldiers terrorists because they strike terror into the hearts of unarmed and untrained people.

So what about Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Does it mean that if it is UN sanctioned then it is legal and not considered use of terror? I for one wouldn't consider that as a rightful means to end a war (although it worked) but if you guys think it is, then the terrorist too could consider 9/11 as their rightful alternative in gaining freedom from US controls. And I wouldn't call them terrorists but nationalists.

I have nothing against the US, in fact I wished I was born there (I love the US for what it is) but there are some terms and definition used by the US government that I think really s**ks big time. I think the words are manipulated more for their own rightful propaganda. When George W. Bush said "either you are with us, or you are against us..." drives the nail down my spine. Can't a country remain neutral? It is to me an egoistic statement made by non other than the world's most powerful nation. A statement I would consider made by a "bully".

 

[raggie33]

are u compareing 911 with ww2?

 

[pjandyho]

Sort of. But like I say, I am a little confused by the term terrorism being used.

 

[raggie33]

i think it will be bettter if i stay out of this thread.but ya have some scary veiws but i respect ya right to have em im out of this thread now take care

 

[pjandyho]

I don't support terrorism, in fact I hate them but I just find that it is hard for me to comprehend who is right and who is wrong. Did we ask why the terrorist targeted the states? Would a human being for no reason pick on another human being just because he hates him? This deep and intense hatred has got to start from somewhere, and somehow, by someone.

I may be wrong but unless someone clarify these issues with me I would not know better.