Walsingham

That was awfully 18th Century. Are you a reincarnation of Dr Johnson?

I'm not going to quote every single piece of your response in mine. If i did this would get even more unwieldy, although given it's probably only you and me arguing in here right now, it may not be worth worrying! 1. "In Bin Laden's public announcement as to why he initiated the 9/11 attack, he was very concrete about the goals of Al Qaeda and why he did what he did. It's available here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/...den.transcript/ Whether we believe him or not is inconsequential, the point is how can you claim that what they typically say in public announcements is that their goal is solely to cause chaos and disruption? Here he clearly states his goal: "US out of the Middle-East", proves justification: "Revenge", and states tangible propositions: "We won't attack you if you stop supporting Israel/attacking us". He demonstrates the ability to manipulate the public just as well as Bush can - in fact better, in some ways, since he seems to be aware of American opinion in a way Bush is not aware of Iraqi opinion. Certainly you can make the argument that the *END RESULT* of his statements is chaos and disruption, but chaos and disruption is exactly the guerilla way of fighting. You seem to make the distinction between terrorists and guerilla insurgents without understanding the underlying connection that their goal, both, is to drive out the influences of a ruling power through disrupting said power's economic, social, and political gains. Whether they are constructed as terrorists or insurgents is what distinguishes them, not their inherent properties." I don't follow this point at all. I wonder if you could rethink and rephrase for my benefit? 2. The second issue I have is with what i think is your point about good and evil being irrelevant in this context. But at the same time you refer in several places to the significance of intent. Intent is certainly important to my way of thinking, but can only be measured on moral grounds of good and evil! The example I would use is of the man who comes and cuts out your appendix. He may be a surgeon or a psychopath. He may kill or prevent a burst appendix. Whatever the result the main burden of our reaction falls on his intent. 3. You say our military would sacrifice all for expediency. This is simply not the case. Even if, as you suggest, we were to be in the inferior position, there examples right now of insurgents who manage to fight succesful campaigns against superior forces without indulging in brutality as a matter of course. The Maoists in Nepal are one example, according to independent reports. Similarly, I could point out that we are right now impeding operational effectiveness, and thereby jeopardising the entire stabilisation effort in Iraq by constraining our troops doctrine and weapons with humanitarian issues. 4. Finally, you suggest I have been coloured by 'a few books and interviews'. To which my only response would be to ask if I my views are suspect after years of first and second hand study, on what basis are your own constructed? Pure philosophical logic? ~~ I apologise for taking a rather snotty tone earlier, but I find myself frustrated at the constant havering I see on this forum over condemning terrorism. Good and evil are not completely arbitrary. A man who tortures and kills with no greater authority than his own opinion or inclination is not a good man.

There are several highly unconvincing transexuals in my current town. I find it highly pleasing to hold doors open and other chivalric courtesies for them. This pleases them immensely and costs me nothing other than some odd looks. I often reason that I pander to my boss' delusions of grandeur, so why not some poor b****r's delusions of femininity?

Debs always have something which gives them away - Mansized feet, shoulders, adam's apple - Excessive lack of body hair - Stereotyped femininity - Voice - The wrong walk - Turns of phrase I have never been wrong.

I think it woudl be easier all round if I just refuse to assist him in gettinga laptop and tell him he should get a desktop with a wireless keyboard and mouse if he is so pernickety about typing on his lap.

(w00t) Outstanding. Way better than killer dolphins.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4308018.stm To show how things can occcasionally go right. EDITOR NOTE: in 1985 race riots nearly destroyed Broadwater. PC Keith Blakelocke had his head torn from his body by a mob, and it was then paraded around on a pole.

TIE Fighter has to be the best joysticky game I have ever played. Graphics are lousy, but they get the job done; and the missions are fantastic

*peeks from behind hand* Are there any spoilers?

Link to the music for Torment: http://www.planescape-torment.org/soundtrack/

Erm... I believe you are supposed to also use your imagination. O so I am told. *hem hem*

I completely agree, o child o'flame. But he is not you, and he is not I. he is a bit of a techno-yokel and he wants a legacy laptop. I have been through the whole "You should buy a desktop. You never take the damn thing anywhere" business, without success. I will try recommending him an Acer. Never heard of them over here, tho.

But this is what I mean. Guerrilla warfare is merely a tactic. terrorism is merely a tactic. Go check out Algeria for some truly atrocious guerrillas. Actually, if I'm honest I am now lost about what my point is. If anyone knows what it is could they remind me?

I heard this as well. I dislike the idea intensely. However, I also heard they were releasing them soon on disk. Is this not so?

A friend of the family is buying a laptop for work. Has to be ultra ultra reliable, but not too fancy. Although it will become a legacy system in his household, so has to not fall over in a year's time when doing 'classic' games and so on. What should he buy? try to aim around 600-800 quid.

If you get a 'sack' waxing I'd be afraid the damn things would get pulled off into the bargain. Not nice.

Azarkon, you can criticise taks for being some sort of victim of government propaganda, But you are simply showing your own ignorance in the rest of your document. You seem equally blinded by supping solely from counter-cultural sources. If you had any experience, whether first or second hand with the military and with terrorists you would understand there is a very real difference. It is not merely because we are us and they are them. Military Marching types When most disciplined militaries take actions which injure civilians they do so reluctantly. I'm not saying they do always, but by and large this is the case. It is certainly drummed into all NATO forces (and those who train with us) that civilians are neither a militarily useful, nor morally sound target. Indeed, one of the things which makes soldiers most riled about terrorists is that they hide among the civilians the soldiers are trying to protect, and kill those same civilians. Political Terrorist Types Terrorists I know of come in two delicious varieties. Those who take a 'military' view like you describe are the first. They are like the IRA and ANC. they say they try to avoid civilian casualties. They give warnings. Yet at the same time they try to give as little warning as possible because it makes the security services look bad if folks still get killed. They also have a huge inconstancy towards sticking to the rules on not killing civilians. Because behind the headline actions you will find event after event involving murder, kneecapping, necklacing, beatings and so on. Revolutionary Types The second type of terrorist is your full-octane revolutionary/apocalyptic cult (Al Qaeda are revolutionaries). Their aim is to cause maximum chaos as described before. They make zero distinction between a soldier in a tank and you or I. I'm not making this up; this is what they typically say in their public pronouncements. This is mainly so they can hit soft targets and go home feeling big about themselves (In my opinion). But it also serves to further their aim of inducing chaos and disruption, which they believe they can exploit by retaining the initiative, and gaining credibility. Summary The militarists and revolutionaries both consist of egomaniacs, psychos, and fools conned by the two preceding types into believing they have a duty to fight. The fools kill regular people because they are told to. The egomaniacs believe they have a destiny and a right to. The psychos do it because they want to. All of them are pretty fething far from right by any stretch of the imagination or culture. Even the civilian populations they live in recognise there is something wrong. Or at least I hope so, because in every single one of the 'struggles' I have studied the terrorists kill about four to ten times of 'their' own civilians; never minding the toll on the target group. Murder is and has been a crime in almost every culture man has ever created. terrorism, being essentially political murder, is IMO therefore probably bad wherever you stand. Recommendation You seem like a smart guy. So I would politely suggest you get to grips with terrorism first hand, by reading interviews, reading their training manuals, and chatting to some (retired) ones first hand. You never know who you can dig up if you try. You may not agree with me when you do, but you'll sound less like an ass (donkey).

Well, I don't agree, but I wouldn't go so far as to pelt you with rocks over it. Some would say that if guerrillas do not wear uniforms they are drawing down (potentially) fire on ivilians, by refusing to distinguish themselves. Is this bad and wrong?

We Europeans have few inhibitions about drinking:

I am but a poor humble Englishman. Could you possibly post in my language?

Here's a provisional distinction for you between terrorist ad freedom fighter. A freedom fighter is an individual who uses terrorist strategy and tactics in pursuit of political/social change against undemocratic states. These being typically where the franchise is witheld to either a majority ethnic group or the entire population. In such states the disenfranchised, while more numerous than the organs of control, generally possess less power. The use of force is less reprehensible because it may plausibly be argued the dissatisfied have no recourse to peaceful means of change. Having chosen to use force terrorism is the only militarily sensible strategy to pursue. A terrorist is an individual who uses terrorist strategy and tactics in pursuit of political/social change against democratic states. Here the group possesses no moral or popular weight, and chooses to use force because peaceful means do not satisfy them . NOT because peaceful means are denied them. Thus an extremist terrorist group is no different in political terms to a junta or other tyranny. It merely uses the military strategy best suited to its resources, which are small. Any good?

YES! We will become a secret fraternity, like the Masons. And we will be legion...

It doesn't hurt nearly so much as you'd think. I had mine waxed as a 'thankyou' for coacing a winning sports team at uni. Of course, we were all drunk, and I was distracted by the punching and the biting of people holding me down.

Weell... you are right up to a point. But what you are really talking about is a difference of opinion, where one party is vastly inferior in terms of resources. It doesn't necessarily follow that you then become a terrorist. The aim of terrorism as a strategy is to cause destruction and disruption. the primacy of mental over military relies on the eventual aim of the terrorist group. Some want compromisable political goals, and aim to break the will of the target. Some want revolutionary goals like maoists, islamofascists, and my mom. The latter have ultimately military/political goals. And they see terrorism as the first step in tehir revolutions, to be followed by gaining more and more adherents, moving on to guerrilla and then regular war. They plan to move up by bringing the target down.

Don't you Americans have guns? Why not use them to make people see the movie?