jakem1 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Really? You're defending an act of terrorism? That's either some fine trolling or some weapons grade DERP. I'm not defending anything, I'm just simply pointing out that statements like the one I replied to are foolish. It's also worth pointing out that there's no difference between dropping bombs on Tripoli or Oslo. Both are wrong and neither should be defended although people will easily come up with excuses for both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacer Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I know you guys have an image in your head of a bunch of "rag headed muslims" running around and blowing people up but in reality many of the "terrorist" attacks are planned and executed by people with a clear motive and a target they've chosen for a particular reason, in this case it was clearly to send a message to the Norwegian Prime Minister over some recent activity - they don't randomly hate you, there's almost always a justification in some way. OR It could be a single person that has gone coocoo in da head. Building a bomb isn't as hard as you might think and depending on the compound and materials available/used pretty much anyone with even basic understanding of chemistry could build a very, very effective explosive device (with a guide). Actually, my image of a terrorist isn't automatically a "rag headed muslim", but thanks for the generalization. Terrorists do hate everyone (outside of their "cause"), because everyone outside of their cause, according to them, is expendable. Except for sociopaths, that implies some level of hatred or contempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomoko Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I'm not defending anything, I'm just simply pointing out that statements like the one I replied to are foolish. It's also worth pointing out that there's no difference between dropping bombs on Tripoli or Oslo. Both are wrong and neither should be defended although people will easily come up with excuses for both. Yeah, there's no difference in Norway bombing a military target and destroying weapons to prevent them from being used to slaughter Libya's own people (and in which no civilians are injured) and some nut bombing civilian targets and killing innocent people. Nope, no difference at all. :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acnpt Posted July 22, 2011 Author Share Posted July 22, 2011 I'm not defending anything, I'm just simply pointing out that statements like the one I replied to are foolish. It's also worth pointing out that there's no difference between dropping bombs on Tripoli or Oslo. Both are wrong and neither should be defended although people will easily come up with excuses for both. I've got an easy excuse. One is dropped under a UN mandate to protect civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david13lt Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I've got an easy excuse. One is dropped under a UN mandate to protect civilians. Mandate? That paper is pure bull****. They went way more further than they had to and by protecting them they definitely killed a lot of them. I am definitely not supporting what is happening in Oslo, but I am also not fully supporting UN (I was in the beginning). And just few days ago I applied for a job in Oslo. This is getting... interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acnpt Posted July 22, 2011 Author Share Posted July 22, 2011 A post from Gaf: REPOST Summary: - Two attacks on Oslo, one on PM's office, one on Labour party youth camp - Nobody has taken responsibility, possibly either Islamic or Neo-Nazi attack - Deaths reported - PM/Cabinet ministers all safe according to reports, however other reports state FM was on attack island earlier - Ex-president on attack island, attacker using handgun (Glock) - Possibly car-bomb on PM's office - "Helpers of Jihad" may have taken responsibility - UNCONFIRMED - Call for all those in Oslo centre to unlock wifi signals for those trapped in buildings - Someone arrested on the attack island Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I'm not defending anything, I'm just simply pointing out that statements like the one I replied to are foolish. It's also worth pointing out that there's no difference between dropping bombs on Tripoli or Oslo. Both are wrong and neither should be defended although people will easily come up with excuses for both. One of them targets military targets in a legally declared war by the UN in order to defend the civilian population of a country that was being slaughtered for opposing the dictatorial government. the other bomb is targeting civilians for the sole purpose of harming them and causing terror. That's the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t_r_nelson Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Perhaps you can explain why planting a bomb in a building and then activating it is more or less cowardly than dropping a bomb from a plane or firing a missile from a ship or other remote location? I don't have to explain anything when I never condoned the bombing of Libya. I'm not defending anything, I'm just simply pointing out that statements like the one I replied to are foolish. It's also worth pointing out that there's no difference between dropping bombs on Tripoli or Oslo. Both are wrong and neither should be defended although people will easily come up with excuses for both. I never made any excuses. Your ignorance shines through when you assume to know what my position is on Libya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakem1 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I've got an easy excuse. One is dropped under a UN mandate to protect civilians. You know that's not true though and civilians aren't protected when residential areas are deliberately bombed. The UN mandate was to provide a no-fly zone that would protect rebel forces from aerial bombardment. It's since been extended without any legal approval to a bombing campaign over Tripoli with the intention of killing a head of state in violation of international law. By undermining those laws Nato countries (including Norway) open themselves up to attack and this sort of thing is the end result. Of course we don't know who's responsible for what's going on in Norway but we do know that the Norwegian government is not exactly innocent. With any luck, this will lead to a reassessment of their military's actions around the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximum Error Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 You know that's not true though and civilians aren't protected when residential areas are deliberately bombed. The UN mandate was to provide a no-fly zone that would protect rebel forces from aerial bombardment. It's since been extended without any legal approval to a bombing campaign over Tripoli with the intention of killing a head of state in violation of international law. By undermining those laws Nato countries (including Norway) open themselves up to attack and this sort of thing is the end result. Of course we don't know who's responsible for what's going on in Norway but we do know that the Norwegian government is not exactly innocent. With any luck, this will lead to a reassessment of their military's actions around the world. what a stupid reply. If this leads to a reassessment of anyone's role in UN backed military action then the terrorists have achieved what they wanted. It would be weak to give in and short sighted and naive of you to believe that forcing people like gaddafi out of power isn't required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomoko Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 You know that's not true though and civilians aren't protected when residential areas are deliberately bombed. Since when is a military air base a residential area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakem1 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I don't have to explain anything when I never condoned the bombing of Libya. Apologies, but it annoys me when I see people repeating the mantra that "terrorists" are cowards. It's generally used by people who think that soldiers are heroes and intend to try and differentiate between two groups who have the same motive. I never made any excuses. Your ignorance shines through when you assume to know what my position is on Libya. The comments you quoted weren't aimed at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Norweigian antiterror squads counter-attacked at the camp arresting 1 so far. 5 attendees were shot. Terror expert on Fox says this has all the earmarks of an AQ-style coordinated attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakem1 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Since when is a military air base a residential area? Since when is Tripoli a miltary airbase? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/19/nato-libya-strike-civilian-deaths?INTCMP=SRCH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJens Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Update regarding Ut?ya shooting: Perp is Caucasian, nordic looks, blond hair, well built. Wearing police uniform (or look-alike). He opened fire with a full automatic weapon inside a building. Four supposedly dead. Police confirms that he is arrested. Not confirmed by source if there are other perps. source: TV2 News Channel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 You know that's not true though and civilians aren't protected when residential areas are deliberately bombed. The UN mandate was to provide a no-fly zone that would protect rebel forces from aerial bombardment. It's since been extended without any legal approval to a bombing campaign over Tripoli with the intention of killing a head of state in violation of international law. By undermining those laws Nato countries (including Norway) open themselves up to attack and this sort of thing is the end result. Of course we don't know who's responsible for what's going on in Norway but we do know that the Norwegian government is not exactly innocent. With any luck, this will lead to a reassessment of their military's actions around the world. The Norwegian Government is following the letter of the law in regards to what UN has allowed in Libya to the letter. You see, Norway is an actual democracy, and our government stands accountable for what they do, and the military stands accountable to them. We also only target military targets, and the majority of bombs dropped by Norwegian fighters targeted tanks exclusively untill the government forces started to put civilians around the tanks. Then we stopped targeting them to not harm the civilians. it's obvious you don't know anything about Norway, how Norway operates in Libya, or anything about the Libya conflict. On top of that, the time limit on the Libya thing is going out and Norway has been slowly pulling out and changing to a smaller background support role until there's a new mandate. Useless trivia, the Norwegian word for our Military is directly translated "The defense" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inklin Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 This is really sad, RIP to those innocent people that have died today :( You have to be really insane and sick in the head to open fire on kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderMarky Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Terrorists? Do you still think that twin towers has been attacked only by terrorists? Or that Pearl Harbor attack was a "surprise"? C'mon... this is another excuse to justify libya war. We need gasoline for our cars and we need it fast... there's no time to wait for rebels... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakem1 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 what a stupid reply. If this leads to a reassessment of anyone's role in UN backed military action then the terrorists have achieved what they wanted. It would be weak to give in and short sighted and naive of you to believe that forcing people like gaddafi out of power isn't required. :rolleyes: And it's that kind of thinking that has probably lead to today's violence. When will it end and how many people have to die before you're satisfied? Again, bombing Tripoli is not backed by the UN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detection Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 ITV News is saying it was a terrorist attack using a car bomb "The helpers of global gehan" have claimed responsibility (Unsure if I have spelled that correctly, just heard it on the news) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 AQ and its satellite groups don't care about timetables - you're "the other," Infidels, and that's all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t_r_nelson Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Apologies, but it annoys me when I see people repeating the mantra that "terrorists" are cowards. It's generally used by people who think that soldiers are heroes and intend to try and differentiate between two groups who have the same motive. It annoys me when people think they know what others are thinking. The comments you quoted weren't aimed at you. Really? I'm not defending anything, I'm just simply pointing out that statements like the one I replied to are foolish. It's also worth pointing out that there's no difference between dropping bombs on Tripoli or Oslo. Both are wrong and neither should be defended although people will easily come up with excuses for both. I am 'people'. Your statement is directed at people in general. Just like your reply to me, your generalizations of what you think you know is glaring ignorace. And terrorist are ****ing cowards. End of list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJens Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Police reports: Ut?ya shooting - 7 dead (not confirmed if this is final count) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakem1 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 The Norwegian Government is following the letter of the law in regards to what UN has allowed in Libya to the letter. You see, Norway is an actual democracy, and our government stands accountable for what they do, and the military stands accountable to them. We also only target military targets, and the majority of bombs dropped by Norwegian fighters targeted tanks exclusively untill the government forces started to put civilians around the tanks. Then we stopped targeting them to not harm the civilians. I'm sure that's true but unfortunately it's irrelevant. While it continues to support Nato's operations Norway is just as responsible for what goes on in Libya as the rest of Nato. Anyway, I've taken this thread off topic and that wasn't my intention so I won't post on this any more. We don't know if there's any link to Libya so there's no point talking about it any more. Besides, the latest report is that the shooting was carried out by a Norwegian or someone who looks Norwegian. (snipped) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Looks don't matter. There are home-grown Muslim - covert AQ's out there, something the US has been dealing with for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts