Falklands war - the sequel?

[Captain Seafort]

More troops on the islands just means a larger supply need, and if the Royal Navy blockades the occupied islands, too many men can end up being more a liability than a reliable asset. The UK would know that storming the islands would result in one massive bloodbath, so bombardment/blockade would be the strategically sound choice.

On the contrary - a blockade would hurt the islanders worse than any occupying forces, so the priority would be to get ashore and get rid of them pronto, just as we did last time. The problem is that, were the Argies to get a significant force ashore they would have as good as won - we don't have the sea-based air power available that was essential to the '82 campaign.

That, however, is purely hypothetical - the Argies, as I've already pointed out repeatedly, simply do not have the capacity to take the islands.

[Captain Seafort]

It's dishonest to try and discuss one particular set of such events in a vacuum.

On the contrary. We're not discussing the overarching theme of whether US interventions from Tripoli onwards have been a net good or bad. We're discussing the fact that, in the seventeen months between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, all its acquired goodwill was pissed away because its government wouldn't listen to most of the rest of the world telling it that an invasion would be a disaster. They were proved right and everyone involved was bloody lucky that the best counterinsurgency commander since Gerald Templer popped up just in time to clear up the mess.

You guys didn't complain too much when the U.S. fire-bombed Dresden, but the last time I checked cities tended to hold civvie populations.

True. The slight problem with that analogy, which you are of course perfectly aware, is that Dresden was bombed in the context of the sixth year of a war that had engulfed the entire planet, killed tens of millions, and was still far from over - the Russians were still clearing East Prussia an Pomerania, the western allies were on the wrong side of the Rhine, the Ardennes Offensive had only recently concluded, and rumours of the southern redoubt were rife. It was by no means certain that the European campaign would end that year. Any and all methods available to bring the war to a swifter conclusion were justifiable.

This is, you will obviously agree, slightly different from a few thugs lobbing primitive rockets into a desert. It's threat that needs to be gripped, certainly, but not one that in the least bit justifies the indiscriminate bombardment the IDF typically responds with.

Attacking a military target is not "thuggish," no matter if the disgusting subhumans operating said target decide to run their own civilians out as meat shields.

Yes it is, because it fails the proportionality test all military action must pass.

Upon what that fact does have a bearing, though, is people complaining about how we do things when a) those people expect us to do those things, and won't contribute the same amount of effort, and b) they don't know how to do it better.

What's at issue here, though, isn't the fact that I'd lose the fight to a gorilla; it's the fact that because you would too, and don't know how to fight gorillas any better than I do, you have no place trying to give me advice on gorilla-fighting techniques.

Are you blind or stupid? The ability to do a thing is not a prerequisite for advising someone else not to do it because they're likely to fail.

Let's see... mostly; the part in which you think we owe the UKoGBaNI something

Really? The hundreds of British servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The thousands injured. The fifty-two people killed in London in July 2005. That's why Obama at the very least owes us the courtesy of keeping his gob shut if he can't think of anything intelligent to say.

the part in which you somehow think Obama's suggestion to negotiate somehow means that we wouldn't back you if it came to it. You know quite as well as I do that we would, even if it were independent of the Sec Council.

Doubting the readiness of an ally to stand by us in a crunch (not that we'd need any help in this case - see above regarding the state of the Argie armed forces) is an entirely different proposition from getting angry with idiotic and offensive comments made by that ally's head of state.

Jesus wept.

Sorry, the reference is completely lost on me.

It's a generic expression of exasperation. I assume, given your confusion, that it isn't prevalent in the States.

[Mikey]

We're discussing the fact that, in the seventeen months between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, all its acquired goodwill was pissed away because its government wouldn't listen to most of the rest of the world telling it that an invasion would be a disaster. They were proved right and everyone involved was bloody lucky that the best counterinsurgency commander since Gerald Templer popped up just in time to clear up the mess.

To this I would say - and based upon your positions in the past, would have thought you'd agree - that the invasion of Iraq squarely misses the category of an altruistic attempt to help restore democracy a/o help out a downtrodden populace. While the facts of the situation can be made to fit such an explanation, I think we all know the meat of the matter. In general, events in the Middle East tend to dodge the pattern of international intervention in support of democracy a/o freedom; we supported the Shah of Iran who was, I believe, a shah rather than a president or PM; we have, in half-assed ways, supported other monarchies in the area when it was deemed convenient to both of our overall mission statements; and we completely ignored Saddam Hussein for quite a bit when it didn't seem quite relevant enough to us.

True. The slight problem with that analogy, which you are of course perfectly aware, is that Dresden was bombed in the context of the sixth year of a war that had engulfed the entire planet, killed tens of millions, and was still far from over - the Russians were still clearing East Prussia an Pomerania, the western allies were on the wrong side of the Rhine, the Ardennes Offensive had only recently concluded, and rumours of the southern redoubt were rife. It was by no means certain that the European campaign would end that year. Any and all methods available to bring the war to a swifter conclusion were justifiable.

All that is true, but signifies nothing WRT the analogy. The reasons for bombardment are not being debated here; what is at the crux of the analogy is the fact that the allies - the U.S. in particular, fire-bombed a population center that also happened to contain manufacturing capabilities. Not the first time during that war, and it won't be the last time in the history of mankind either, but the point is that the First World is pissing and moaning about it now... yet nobody complained about it then, when it directly benefited them. In fact, you're right now decrying the one instance while defending the other (the one that benefited the UK.) That's either disingenuous, mercenary, or both.

This is, you will obviously agree, slightly different from a few thugs lobbing primitive rockets into a desert. It's threat that needs to be gripped, certainly, but not one that in the least bit justifies the indiscriminate bombardment the IDF typically responds with.

#1 - "A few thugs lobbing primitive rockets into a desert?" Your opinion on the matter notwithstanding, but you are one heartless and blind bastard if you can reduce the intentional, terroristic practice of targeting civilian housing centers and schools to "a few thugs lobbing primitive rockets into a desert."
#2 - Based upon the fact mentioned above, that these attacks directly and solely target innocent civilians, I don't think the difference in the history of the two wars we're discussing is quite as clear to the Israelis as it is to you. The only difference in perspective is that the one instance which you are dismissing isn't a threat to your country.
#3 - The "typical" IDF response, which you misrepresent here, is to target the source of an attack. It is the attacks to which Israel retaliates - that is, the Palestinian terror attacks - which target non-military personnel, including children.

You are beginning to sound like a supporter of the photo that's circulating on Facebook. If you're not familiar with it, it is a partial shot of a soldier with a boot on the chest of a prone little girl and his assault rifle pointed at her head. The accompanying text reads something to the effect of "Here's what an Israeli soldier is doing to a young girl." People are gobbling up this spin, but unfortunately for the spin doctors:
a) The soldier isn't wearing a Tzahal uniform... in fact, the hem of the jacket and the pants don't quite match in color. Neither are the boots depicted Tzahal boots.
b) The picture was taken during the Syrian riots, at which no Israeli soldiers were even close to being present.
c) The rifle in the picture is an AK-47. Tzahal doesn't use them, they only use M-16's/M-4's and Tavor variants.

However, the Palestinian terror arms put stuff up like this, shoot rockets at schools and nursing homes, get the combatant assailants targeted in return, and then say, "Hey, look at Israel's indiscriminate response." And, people like you eat it up.

Yes it is, because it fails the proportionality test all military action must pass.

Yet just above, you defended the firebombing of Dresden which obviously targeted civilians on a far more widespread scale. I've never heard you complain about the napalm bombing of Tokyo, and I have heard you defend the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (granted, a slightly different situation given that nobody really predicted the scale of destruction.) Such actions were far more out of proportion than any Israeli retaliations which happen to get a few civilians whose own leaders placed into the line of fire, but they get a pass? Hmm, that's not arbitrary...

Are you blind or stupid? The ability to do a thing is not a prerequisite for advising someone else not to do it because they're likely to fail.

Neither, actually. I'll ask again - if you guys, or the French, or the Germans, or anyone else, know so much better how to be the global intervention force than we do (even though before-thefact, everyone else thinks we should shoulder the load,) then why hasn't anyone else stepped up in anything less than a half-assed and transient way? Please, help yourself - I, for one, am tired of the responsibility being on American shoulders.

Really? The hundreds of British servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The thousands injured. The fifty-two people killed in London in July 2005.

Do you really want to start comparing lives lost in all the times that one of us stepped in to help out the global community (no matter your opinion on the execution of such an attempt?) I don't think you do, because you'll look like a bigger nation of do-nothings if we compare those numbers. If that's what you want to worry about, stay on the sidelines completely rather than partially. We won't miss you.

Doubting the readiness of an ally to stand by us in a crunch (not that we'd need any help in this case - see above regarding the state of the Argie armed forces) is an entirely different proposition from getting angry with idiotic and offensive comments made by that ally's head of state.

Yep, two different issues. You did ask to what I was referring in one particular statement, and I told you. The implication is clear, just by the fact that you got upset by Obama's comment.

It's a generic expression of exasperation. I assume, given your confusion, that it isn't prevalent in the States.

It might be, in parts. Just not among Jews or Byzantine Catholics.

[SolkaTruesilver]

#1 - "A few thugs lobbing primitive rockets into a desert?" Your opinion on the matter notwithstanding, but you are one heartless and blind bastard if you can reduce the intentional, terroristic practice of targeting civilian housing centers and schools to "a few thugs lobbing primitive rockets into a desert."

on that specific topic, while the plight of the Israelian population regarding their being targeted by these rockets is real, it's also true you cannot compare military-grade bombardment of WW2 or current day USAF or Israeli Air Force to the rather primitive missile capability of the Palestinians.

Yes, these rockets go far, yes they cause damage, but they are also blind-fired at kilometers of distance without any target tracking capacity. They cannot be "aimed at schools", like so Manu propagandists like to claim. At best, they are pointed in the general direction of an Israeli town, Since it's the only thing they can hope to actually hit.

The Israeli's tactics regarding suffering bombardments is the same as the Palestinians: denying vulnerabilty of any military target that can't be targetted without possibly or certaintly hurting civilians, and then use the dead civilians as an excuse for potential public swaying. Israel has some of the best intel gathering capability of the world's military, it's practically impossible for Palestinian to escape their sight. And I don't think the Palestinians are in this fight to lose, so they'll use the only strategy available.

No doubt if they had the capacity to fight on a more equal footing their tactics would be much less "despicable".

[Mikey]

Wait, did you just say that since the Palestinians can't target their rockets accurately, it's OK for them to aim said rockets at towns without any military significance? That's sure as hell what it sounded like, and if so it's one of the more disgusting things I've heard in my time on Earth.

As far as being less "despicable" if better equipment were available... nope. The Palestinian terror organizations are just that. They don't blow up buses and retirement homes and schools because they're bad shots, they blow up those things because that's what they do. Better materiel would just mean that they could kill more elderly people, schoolchildren, and other innocent civilians.

[Captain Seafort]

To this I would say - and based upon your positions in the past, would have thought you'd agree - that the invasion of Iraq squarely misses the category of an altruistic attempt to help restore democracy a/o help out a downtrodden populace. While the facts of the situation can be made to fit such an explanation, I think we all know the meat of the matter. In general, events in the Middle East tend to dodge the pattern of international intervention in support of democracy a/o freedom; we supported the Shah of Iran who was, I believe, a shah rather than a president or PM; we have, in half-assed ways, supported other monarchies in the area when it was deemed convenient to both of our overall mission statements; and we completely ignored Saddam Hussein for quite a bit when it didn't seem quite relevant enough to us.

Agreed in terms of Iraq being purely a matter of US national self-interest, but this makes it no different from any other war the US, or any country, has ever fought.

All that is true, but signifies nothing WRT the analogy.

On the contrary - Germany was a vastly more capable opponent than Hamas or Hizbollah will ever be.

the allies - the U.S. in particular

Actually the Eighth Air Force only provided a third of the aircraft involved, and even less than that in terms of bomb weight dropped given the superior carrying capacity of Bomber Command's heavies. Nitpick I know, but simply correcting an apparent misconception.

Not the first time during that war, and it won't be the last time in the history of mankind either, but the point is that the First World is pissing and moaning about it now... yet nobody complained about it then, when it directly benefited them. In fact, you're right now decrying the one instance while defending the other (the one that benefited the UK.) That's either disingenuous, mercenary, or both.

I'm defending one while criticising the other because the former was a necessary evil to end a long and bloody war ASAP while the latter is not. You'll notice that we did not respond to regular mortar fire by flattening housing estates when we were in the same tactical situation the Israelis are in now.

#1 - "A few thugs lobbing primitive rockets into a desert?" Your opinion on the matter notwithstanding, but you are one heartless and blind bastard if you can reduce the intentional, terroristic practice of targeting civilian housing centers and schools to "a few thugs lobbing primitive rockets into a desert."

How many of those rockets go anywhere near their targets? How many of them get through Israeli anti-missile defences? How many of them go off when they hit? The end result is that the majority of the time the only dead kids in any given rocket attack are on the sending end when an F-16 goes after the point of origin regardless of who's close enough to be caught up in it.

#2 - Based upon the fact mentioned above, that these attacks directly and solely target innocent civilians, I don't think the difference in the history of the two wars we're discussing is quite as clear to the Israelis as it is to you. The only difference in perspective is that the one instance which you are dismissing isn't a threat to your country.

It isn't an existential threat to Israel either, or thing close to it.

#3 - The "typical" IDF response, which you misrepresent here, is to target the source of an attack.

I've never disputed that. The problem is that they respond indiscriminately - they hammer the point of origin without regard to how many civvies are standing in the area they hit.

Yet just above, you defended the firebombing of Dresden which obviously targeted civilians on a far more widespread scale. I've never heard you complain about the napalm bombing of Tokyo, and I have heard you defend the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (granted, a slightly different situation given that nobody really predicted the scale of destruction.) Such actions were far more out of proportion than any Israeli retaliations which happen to get a few civilians whose own leaders placed into the line of fire, but they get a pass? Hmm, that's not arbitrary...

Yawn. Once again I point you towards the vast discrepancy between the threat posed by Germany and Japan and that posed by Hamas.

Neither, actually. I'll ask again - if you guys, or the French, or the Germans, or anyone else, know so much better how to be the global intervention force than we do

Most of the problem isn't a matter of "how" but "if". Iraq, for example - you were told it was going to be a mess, you ignored everyone and went in anyway (with us helping you), and guess what - it was a mess.

(even though before-the-fact, everyone else thinks we should shoulder the load,)

No, they don't, they think you should leave well alone.

Please, help yourself - I, for one, am tired of the responsibility being on American shoulders.

So, I suspect, are the Afghans and the Iraqis - they keep getting dropped on their hears.

Do you really want to start comparing lives lost in all the times that one of us stepped in to help out the global community

Who the fuck said a thing about counting lives you subhuman c**t? You asked for our help, and we stepped in to help you. We've lost a lot of people in the process. Now you're pooh-poohing that help. You disgust me.

The implication is clear, just by the fact that you got upset by Obama's comment.

Clear as mud. Or rather, clear to snivelling little cunts who think the US can do no wrong, and asking for a bit of civility towards a country that's backed you even when the rest of the civilised world turned away is somehow objectionable. Clear to those who think that the off chance of killing one crappy rocket launcher and its crew is worth the deaths of scores of civilians.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Wait, did you just say that since the Palestinians can't target their rockets accurately, it's OK for them to aim said rockets at towns without any military significance? That's sure as hell what it sounded like, and if so it's one of the more disgusting things I've heard in my time on Earth.

No, I did not. Learn to read, I actually said the tactics were despicable. The fact that it's the only kind of strategy the Palestinians can actually use doesn't change the fact that they are despicable.

Just like the fact that the fact Palestinians have staging areas near places where civilians gather doesn't justify the despicability of the Israelian Air Force to bomb them. Why are you so quick to give a break to the Israelians just because they have an excuse? Fact is, Israelis are deliberately targeting civilians to get to the Hamas. They don't have any other way of actually reaching the Hamas, but that's clearly no excuse.

As far as being less "despicable" if better equipment were available... nope. The Palestinian terror organizations are just that. They don't blow up buses and retirement homes and schools because they're bad shots, they blow up those things because that's what they do. Better materiel would just mean that they could kill more elderly people, schoolchildren, and other innocent civilians.

It's silly to assume Palestinians would have assumed terrorist tactics in the first place if they had a better alternative to wage their struggle. History often demonstrated that only nations (or interest groups if you aren't willing to calling one a "nation") who are overwhelmingly at a disadvantage would adopt what is a very, very despicable and frowned upon strategy.

And unlike you, I refuse to believe Palestinian people are, always have been and always will be a baby-eating people. Their current leadership are promoting outrageous things, but unless we ever find a way to tone down the dialogue and the fighting going on, the only way to resolve the issue will be through genocidal warfare.

And claiming that 40 blindfired rockets, 15 of them actually hitting a settlement and less than 5 hitting a human being justifies 100 tracking bombs killing over 400 people is not what I call trying to tone down.

Nor are constant construction of colonies in what is internationally recognized Palestinian territories.

[Mikey]

OK, here comes the hissing and spitting because I had the temerity to call your arbitrary criteria for what they were. Well, once more...

Agreed in terms of Iraq being purely a matter of US national self-interest, but this makes it no different from any other war the US, or any country, has ever fought.

Well, my intention was to point up the unique magnitude of such a lack of altruistic intention in that case, but whatever. This is getting tangential.

On the contrary - Germany was a vastly more capable opponent than Hamas or Hizbollah will ever be.

Yes, yes, I get it. You've said it a dozen different ways, and I agree. The use of the analogy, however, wasn't dependent on the relative threat level of the target nation - it was to illustrate the use of force against a primarily civilian target... and further, to illustrate the lack of outcry in one instance (no matter the reasons, dammit!) compared to the huge and partially misguided outcry on the other. For the purposes of that illustration, the relative threat level of Germany towards western Europe compared with that of Hamas toward Israel is irrelevant.

Actually the Eighth Air Force only provided a third of the aircraft involved, and even less than that in terms of bomb weight dropped given the superior carrying capacity of Bomber Command's heavies. Nitpick I know, but simply correcting an apparent misconception.

Believe me, I'm familiar of the limitations of U.S. WWII bombers generally compared with the Brit heavies. I said the U.S. in particular, because the latter part of that statement continued the theme with the inclusion of the burning of Tokyo and the a-bombs.

I'm defending one while criticising the other because the former was a necessary evil to end a long and bloody war ASAP while the latter is not. You'll notice that we did not respond to regular mortar fire by flattening housing estates when we were in the same tactical situation the Israelis are in now.

Dresden was a stepping-stone, but by no means intended to decisively and definitely end the war in the ETO in the way that the Enola Gay did. That's again getting tangential, though. When my cousin's husband sifted through the rubble in Tel Aviv after a Hamas rocket attack looking for parts of his father's body, I daresay you wouldn't have told him to his face that Hamas attacks weren't important or dangerous enough to warrant retaliation or an attempt to silence the attackers. And yes, during the course of history, Brits (and Americans and everyone else in the history of ever) responded to an indirect attack by sending their own fire toward the apparent source without regard for what else might be sitting there. It sucks, but that's life.

How many of those rockets go anywhere near their targets? How many of them get through Israeli anti-missile defences? How many of them go off when they hit?

So, retaliation or an attempt to stop an attacker should only be employed when the civilian death toll is above a specific level? What's the number, then? Even better, you probably shouldn't defend yourself against a mugger until you determine that he's above a certain skill level in HTH combat, right? By asking the above questions, you are pretty much saying that Hamas should be given free rein to attack because they're not so good at it. That's one of the most assholish things I've ever heard.

The end result is that the majority of the time the only dead kids in any given rocket attack are on the sending end when an F-16 goes after the point of origin regardless of who's close enough to be caught up in it.

Oh, OK then. Because the terrorists are heinous enough to use their own people as meat shields a/o launch attacks from civilian centers, then they should have carte blanche to murder people. Alright, now that makes perfect sense.

It isn't an existential threat to Israel either, or thing close to it.

You're right, they're only killing people (even though an existential threat to Israel is their publicly-stated objective.) "Just" killing people is hunky-dory, then. Do you read what you write?

I've never disputed that. The problem is that they respond indiscriminately - they hammer the point of origin without regard to how many civvies are standing in the area they hit.

Well, this is an impasse. You think it's OK to murder with impunity if you use your own people as meat shields, I think murderers should be prosecuted even if they prove themselves to be evil enough to do so.

Yawn. Once again I point you towards the vast discrepancy between the threat posed by Germany and Japan and that posed by Hamas.

Once again, I point you towards the fact that civilian Israeli murder victims aren't resurrected by your lack of concern. How many Israeli lives, by Seafort reckoning, does it take to amount to one Brit life?

Most of the problem isn't a matter of "how" but "if". Iraq, for example - you were told it was going to be a mess, you ignored everyone and went in anyway (with us helping you), and guess what - it was a mess.

No, they don't, they think you should leave well alone.

Yeah, sure... until the time comes that we decide not to do anything, and the rest of the world starts screaming about how America didn't do anything.

So, I suspect, are the Afghans and the Iraqis - they keep getting dropped on their hears.

Again, I must confess ignorance to your usage of vernacular. However, I have never argued that the American actions in both sitches were the paragon of planning and execution. That said, your being dodgy - you know full well that this aspect of the discussion referred to the Western World's reaction to American action or hypothetical lack thereof. To try to sound pithy by arguing around the point doesn't further anything.

Who the fuck said a thing about counting lives you subhuman c**t?

Hmm, who indeed? Who could possibly be such a "subhuman c**t" to bring up casualty numbers? Let's see...

Really? The hundreds of British servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The thousands injured. The fifty-two people killed in London in July 2005. That's why Obama at the very least owes us the courtesy of keeping his gob shut if he can't think of anything intelligent to say.

Clear as mud. Or rather, clear to snivelling little cunts who think the US can do no wrong, and asking for a bit of civility towards a country that's backed you even when the rest of the civilised world turned away is somehow objectionable.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Seriously, you got this up-in-arms about a suggestion of one way to avoid bloodshed, it really is pretty clear that the thought process behind the fury was the assumption that the U.S. would bail on you. Did anyone in British politics ever decry an American course of action while still intending to back us up when it came to it? Then why couldn't the same thing happen here?

Clear to those who think that the off chance of killing one crappy rocket launcher and its crew is worth the deaths of scores of civilians.

Yes indeed, though apparently not as clear to people who think that terrorists should be allowed to murder people with impunity, so long as the victims are Israeli.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Well, my intention was to point up the unique magnitude of such a lack of altruistic intention in that case, but whatever. This is getting tangential.

I am sorry, I had to quote it just to get a good look at it. What do you mean, "getting tangential"?

How about that Falkland rising tension?

[Mikey]

Why are you so quick to give a break to the Israelians just because they have an excuse?

Hmm, I guess I see "stopping murderers" as more of a reason, and less of an "excuse." I never gave anyone a break - but until the innocent, peaceful 95% of the Palestinian population does something about Hamas, then Hamas will continue to endanger their own people.

It's silly to assume Palestinians would have assumed terrorist tactics in the first place if they had a better alternative to wage their struggle. History often demonstrated that only nations (or interest groups if you aren't willing to calling one a "nation") who are overwhelmingly at a disadvantage would adopt what is a very, very despicable and frowned upon strategy.

Silly? Really? Because no other Islamic fringe radical group has ever adopted such a strategy to prosecute a conflict which was at once cultural and religious, right? Grow up.

And unlike you, I refuse to believe Palestinian people are, always have been and always will be a baby-eating people.

Alright, now you're just being an ass for... IDK. Please provide a citation form where I said that the guilty party is the Palestinian populace in general, rather than Hamas. Yeah, that's what I though. Trying to spin doctor a debate in a thread on a Star Trek forum is pretty piss-poor, friend.

And claiming that 40 blindfired rockets, 15 of them actually hitting a settlement and less than 5 hitting a human being justifies 100 tracking bombs killing over 400 people is not what I call trying to tone down.

Again, I'm forced to ask: How good do they have to be at murdering people before a response is indicated?

Well, my intention was to point up the unique magnitude of such a lack of altruistic intention in that case, but whatever. This is getting tangential.

I am sorry, I had to quote it just to get a good look at it. What do you mean, "getting tangential"?

How about that Falkland rising tension?

Hi! Welcome to DITL!

[Graham Kennedy]

Well, my intention was to point up the unique magnitude of such a lack of altruistic intention in that case, but whatever. This is getting tangential.

I am sorry, I had to quote it just to get a good look at it. What do you mean, "getting tangential"?

How about that Falkland rising tension?

If only we had some nickname for when that happens... something based off of a thread title that exemplified it or something...

[SolkaTruesilver]

Silly? Really? Because no other Islamic fringe radical group has ever adopted such a strategy to prosecute a conflict which was at once cultural and religious, right? Grow up.

Indeed. And they are the ONLY radical group has ever adopted such a strategy to prosecute a conflict.

How about those Muslim Northern Irishmen, eh?
Or the Muslim Black Panthers?
Or the Muslim Front de Liberation du Quebec?
Or the Muslim Marxists?
Or the Muslim ETA?

Get real. It's the tactic of the desperate or those who believe there aren't any other way of fighting back. Thing is, Muslim countries and nations are right now at the bottom of many food chains, so it's little surprise they use extremist tactics (as despicable as these tactics end up being). History have proven time and again that total domination by any Nation-state over a people is no impediment for any desire of resistance, no matter the strength of the occupying force. Jews have taken the same means in the past, but stopped doing so when they got in actual power. Muslims nations will most likely do so if they ever get back in power.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Well, my intention was to point up the unique magnitude of such a lack of altruistic intention in that case, but whatever. This is getting tangential.

I am sorry, I had to quote it just to get a good look at it. What do you mean, "getting tangential"?

How about that Falkland rising tension?

If only we had some nickname for when that happens... something based off of a thread title that exemplified it or something...

I know you are being witty here. I just can't get the reference for the love of Q... must be a brain freeze. You mean "getting derailed", maybe?

[Deepcrush]

Lets start with a T, R, 1, 1, 6.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Lets start with a T, R, 1, 1, 6.