By: Maverick
- 19th November 2000 at 20:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Flanker I understand your argument but do you think kids of that age really live up to their potential since they have probably been forced in to fighting...I think not!
Secondly...Pure brutality does not make you the ultimate Special Forces trooper. Think about the skills involved. Demolitions, Bomb Squads,(defusing), Electronic Experts etc. I doubt kids bred like this have much in the way of brain cells. The don't make for great tacticians either.
By: Jonesy
- 19th November 2000 at 23:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
This may be a cultural thing Ahmet but one of the major differences, in the West, between terrorism and "civilised warfare" (what a lovely contradiction in terms) is the declaration of a state of war between combattant parties. May seem a little naive to you, but thats the way we play things.
In that sense the act of driving a speedboat into a warship, in the port of a nation not declared as combattant, is indeed a clear act of terrorism.
As to the propaganda issue, the Television station you mention was, allegedly, broadcasting (or at least rebroadcasting) tactical and strategic military traffic for paramilitary units inside Kosovo. If true that pushes it into legitimate military target territory and, by your own description, destroying it couldnt be listed as a terrorist act.
Perhaps your guilty of listening to too much anti-NATO propaganda?
By: ink
- 19th November 2000 at 23:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Jonsey,
"declaration of war"? Well, you have shown up 19 "democratic" nations as being terrorists because they bombed a nations infra-structure, army, TV stations, tobacco factories and hospitals without declaring war in '99.
Also, I've never heard the claim that the TV station was used as a transmitter of info to anyone but the people of Yug. I watched the news (on many different channels and from many countries) during the kosovo war and I've never heard that rationale before. However, even assuming it to be true (which it almost undoubtedly isn't) NATO not only had the option of targeting the relay mast (far from any civilians "innocent" or otherwise"). I should also remind people of the oft forgotten fact that a mere week before the bombing of the TV station NATO promised to the worlds press that Yugoslav journalists would never be targeted because "...democracy stands for free speach...".
The TV station was bombed because NATO didn't like what they were saying, other reasons are simply fabrications designed to make people think that NATO is good and just.
Where would the difference lie if Serbian "extremists" had placed a bomb outside the offices of the Sun or even the BBC. Before you get on my case, I would like to say that I would never wish that to happen, as it would be a needless waste of innocent life. I'm just throwing up a hypothetical case.
New
By: Anonymous
- 20th November 2000 at 04:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Another example of the fact that there is no such thing as a perfect air operation. Those are only the mistakes we know about.
Attempting to hit a radio station with anything is a bad idea.
elp
usa
New
Posts: 343
By: stormrider
- 20th November 2000 at 09:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
LAST EDITED ON 20-Nov-00 AT 09:19 AM (GMT)[p]-oops, wrong thread
By: Jonesy
- 20th November 2000 at 11:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Ink,
Sorry mate but I think your being a bit pedantic there, I used the phrase "declaration of war" to mean a stated intent to commence hostilities should certain conditions not be met. Say what you will but Milosevic certainly had NATO diplomats telling him exactly what was going to happen if he didnt fall into step. Maybe not a declaration of war in itself but nowhere close to the act of sneaking up on a target and planting a bomb. (BTW should you ever feel the desire to blow up "The Sun" offices, please get in touch. I may be able to secure a small amount of PE4 for you to use :-))
I was watching the situation in 99 as closely as anyone as i had friends in Bosnia at the time.
The report that the TV station was relaying military information came from a couple of these friends and from at least one published report in a western military journal. Could this be a fabrication in an attempt at a justifying the civillian casualties? Yes I suppose it could be.
"The TV station was bombed because NATO didn't like what they were saying"
The statement above though could just as easily be a fabrication to demonise NATO though, couldnt it?
By: Arthur
- 20th November 2000 at 14:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Some minor comments here, no offense intended:
Islam was first to attack, if you want to dig deep down in history. Well before the age of the Crusades, Islamism crossed the Gibraltar Straits took over Spain and moved north - well into France until stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Poitiers. Not that it really matters in this discussion, BTW.
As for the discussion when something is terrorism, and when it's not i don't think it's possible to keep this really objective. As far as i'm concerned, war is on a more 'official' level, while terrorism is much less confined to states, locations and/or targets. No matter declaration of war or not, the Kosovo conflict of 1999 was a war, while the attack on the Cole was an act of terrorism just as much as the cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan.
By: ink
- 20th November 2000 at 16:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
This is quite an interesting debate, I remember having a similar one in A-level Physics (obviously it was far more interesting than electro-magnetic inductance). If I remember correctly, we decided that the defenition of terrorism depended on which side you are on. Ahmet quite rightly sighted the KLA, Hizbollah and others while Arthur mentioned the Sudan and Afganistan cruise missle attacks. The point is, Bill Clinton is never going to stand at a podium and say the those (afforementioned) cruise missle attacks were a clear act of terrorism against innocent men, women and children. But carry on the debate, I'm enjoying it.
Jonsey, "NATO bombed the TV station because it didn't like what they were saying" is not an attempt to demonise NATO (in my opinion they do that well enough themselves) it is simply a statement of fact (as I see it, your opinion probably differs).
New
By: Anonymous
- 20th November 2000 at 23:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Yeah well regardless of who killed who's dog and who killed who's cat, it's upsetting to turn on the TV and see almost live
(a few years back with the cruise missle strike against Iraq because it didn't play ball with the UN inspectors) a crushed hotel lobby from a cruise missle that was shot down or went off course. In the rubble of this lobby is a dead lady hotel worker who never hurt anybody in her life. Highly upsetting. I have never met a bad Arab from any country. I don't have a problem with using force when it is justified. But ordering out a cruise missle strike like you would order a pizza, is crazy.
Another real life issue is we have a lot of airpower sitting in Saudi. A lot of Arab countries don't mind us helping out in Desert Storm, but it's like the house guest that never leaves. My point is we have to be sensitive to these things. And unfortunately this issue never comes up over here. Ever.
elp
usa
New
Posts: 7
By: Maverick
- 20th November 2000 at 23:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Perhaps to further this discussion we should try and determine what the word "terrorism" actually means.
Perhaps..."An act of aggression in any shape or form by one body to another(I use body as a wild card...It could be a country, person etc.) where an official declaration of war has note been announced."
However terrorism is often viewed by any country who is attacked by another. This I believe was the case in Serbia. The Serb government under Slobodan Milosevic (though it has changed now) has declared the leaders of NATO as terrorists for their actions.
New
By: Anonymous
- 21st November 2000 at 08:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Intersting point arthur and i wasnt offended and you are right. But if we go even further the Byzantians were the first to wage "religion" war for no reason ageinst ottomans in 785. But history is history.
As for "definition" of terrorism provided by maverick... i belive it is out of Oxford dictionary..im saying this simply becouse the Oxford dictionary and its deffinitions may not apply to places beyond Western borders. Many nations see and think of different things in different way. We see people who suicide bomb (in my view only a millitary targets As COLE was....i am deply ageinst Trade center or more recently the school bus in ISR. incidents)as martyrs you see them as psycos. But then there are thing you find fine which we belive are imoral or crazy. So your judgment will always depend on form where you look...as they say "from different mountain one object gives different apperance" (well as best as i could translate).
PS: By your deffiniton of not declearing a war = terrorism...how can you than say "well kosovo and before bosina were war" especialy bosnia where only small sorties were flown with out any warning. Both incidences were ageinst UN charter and international law (yet it goes beyond me when US critisise Russia for doing same)and NO FORMAL DECLERATION was ever made ..in fact i belive the US is even refusing to call it a war...it was "conflict". So what is conflict? A terrorism when Done by US??????
By: Jonesy
- 21st November 2000 at 09:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Like I said to Ink, Ahmet, that's really just playing with words. The truth is that in Kosovo and in Bosnia before that there were intensive diplomatic efforts made to create a solution before military force was used.
Everyone on both sides was very clear on what would happen if no diplomatic settlement was reached.
Whilst this isnt an official declaration of war, it is a statement of intent to commence hostilities from one country (or group of countries) to another.This, for me, amounts to a legitimacy of those operations.
There are a fair few instances where the line has been well and truly crossed though, I'll grant you, support for the KLA was one of these - although, in fairness, there was a very vocal element in the West saying we should have nothing to do with them! Then again though wasnt the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" originally an Arabic one Ahmet? :-)
New
Posts: 146
By: Flanker
- 21st November 2000 at 11:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Yup It is. But that saying is now absolite since enemy of my enemy can also be my enemy. Ye it gets complicated.
And with albanians in Kosovo getting more annoyed with KFOR i wont be supprised if the friend changes face to enemy.With money forging and drugs traficing being source of income for many of their leaders now it could be trouble if west strats teaching their "law".The reacent arrests only point in this direction.
Now i might get trashing here form all esp. my islamic brothers.....but the thing is i was never fond of the albanians in general (im not racist) and their eastern politcs. They are wery strange people to say the lest ..and though i realy hate to say this ....serbs seem more civilised and easier people to negotiate and deal.(excp. S.Milosevic who should be hanged). Albania is a shame for islam, they are te most poorest country in europe due to their stubborness. They have 7 kids an average who try to leave their country as soon as they can walk ..that is a trason. Id never leave my home place no mather what. But as soon as they get out of Alb and settle into greece macedonia or serbia they start sepperatist moves....the idea of joining albania is dumbest thing kosovors can do. If they do they soon be running away from there...and cycle begins.
They should go indipendet and make better relation to Arrabian nations who will be happy of true islamic state in europe, and stay as far for Albania as possible. Also they should make sure the US doesnt settle there permanetly.... sica i hear the yenks a druling at the $7.6 trillion of minaral reserves in north kosovo.
New
Posts: 146
By: Flanker
- 21st November 2000 at 13:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That above aint me !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I DONT KNOW WHO THE HELL WROTE THAT THING ABOVE BUT IT SURE WASNT ME. I AINT NO ISAMIC ARAB...AND AS A RUSSIAN ORTODOX I DEMAND AN APOLOGY AND RECTIFICATION.
New
By: Anonymous
- 21st November 2000 at 13:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry it was me..made innocent error
Sorry Flanker it was me... i accidently put what i intended as subject aimed at one of your comments into a "name" field by mistake. MY WRONG AND SORRY AGEIN
By: Arthur
- 21st November 2000 at 14:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
I think the difference between an act like the attack on the USS Cole by a suicide bomber, or the destruction of an Iraqi SAM-site by a British or American LGB is way overrated - the principal difference IMHO being the means of delivery. Neither do i believe there is much difference between the actors, since although militant organisations like Hizbollah are, although not state-bound, genuine political entities. Whether these actions are performed under a declaration of war isn't important as far as i'm concerned, since the confrontation is amongst the countries/organisations militaries.
A totally different matter, as far as i'm concerned, is it when civilians are targeted. If you call attacks on school buses, refugee camps or other non-military targets terrorism, i don't think it fair to give the same name to attacks on military targets.
As far as NATO's bombing of the Serb TV-station; since this occurred in a war or war-like situation (strange the diplomats haven't found a euphemistical term for this sort of conflict), this is again another matter IMHO. I don't think it was a viable target, but i think it's too strong to refer to it as an act of terrorism. I think this discussion is very interesting, but we shouldn't get caught in the rhetorics opposing sides like to refer to.
Regards,
Arthur (FYI, catholic by birth)
New
By: Anonymous
- 21st November 2000 at 22:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Hey, I look at this post today and everyone is writing without any daggers. Thats something. Everyone here is now qualified to get a job as a UN delegate.
By: ink
- 22nd November 2000 at 09:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Arthur,
Could it be called a war crime, since not even Jamie Shae tried to pass it off as a mistake? A delibirate, pinpoint attack on a clearly civillian target where civillians were known to be present. For me it just makes it worse that it was a media centre.
Jonsey,
While I agree that Mr Milosevic, the Serbian parliment and the Serbian people knew that the bombing was about to begin it doesn't (in my opinion) affect it's status as a terrorist act. This is because the diplomatic process was designed to back the Serbs into the situation where they could choose total capitulation (not what happened after the bombing) or the bombing. It is similar to the IRA giving warning of a bomb but still going through with the attack.
By: Arthur
- 22nd November 2000 at 14:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
I have my doubts for calling it a war crime. Even though it was a civilian target, bombing it is defendable from a military/political point of view. Although especially in this case, it would have been nothing more than courteous if war had actually been declared. It would be interesting to see how some international court would judge this bombing. BTW, there was an interesting documentary lately that the Serb government knew the media centre was about to be hit, but didn't take actions in an attempt to create 'civilian martyrs' - do you know if this is (in some way) true?
As for referring to the NATO campaign as terrorism, i don't think you're right because of the definition i tried to make above. Although i have serious doubts about the legitimacy of Allied Force, i simply think it was nothing less but an undeclared war. And yes, it does appear that the Serbs were forced to either surrender completely, or get bombed. IMHO, it was a very, very nasty piece of diplomacy. I can totally understand the Kosovar grief, but i think NATO went way too far in supporting them.
Regards,
Arthur
New
Posts: 18
By: Andy
- 22nd November 2000 at 21:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
'Maverick' totally agree with your statement at the start of this project, the Royal Marines Commandos are one of the best amphibious assault units in the world. It gave me pride to see our troops land in the style they did. As for the SBS, well there's rumours that they are higher skilled than the SAS. I think we should remind the Americans that during and after the Second World War that our special forces were training there elite forces and its also our SAS who train other countries special forces.
On a personal note which part of Britain do you come from?
(I presume your British!)
Posts: 7
By: Maverick - 19th November 2000 at 20:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Flanker I understand your argument but do you think kids of that age really live up to their potential since they have probably been forced in to fighting...I think not!
Secondly...Pure brutality does not make you the ultimate Special Forces trooper. Think about the skills involved. Demolitions, Bomb Squads,(defusing), Electronic Experts etc. I doubt kids bred like this have much in the way of brain cells. The don't make for great tacticians either.
Regards...Maverick.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 19th November 2000 at 23:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
This may be a cultural thing Ahmet but one of the major differences, in the West, between terrorism and "civilised warfare" (what a lovely contradiction in terms) is the declaration of a state of war between combattant parties. May seem a little naive to you, but thats the way we play things.
In that sense the act of driving a speedboat into a warship, in the port of a nation not declared as combattant, is indeed a clear act of terrorism.
As to the propaganda issue, the Television station you mention was, allegedly, broadcasting (or at least rebroadcasting) tactical and strategic military traffic for paramilitary units inside Kosovo. If true that pushes it into legitimate military target territory and, by your own description, destroying it couldnt be listed as a terrorist act.
Perhaps your guilty of listening to too much anti-NATO propaganda?
Regs
Posts: 3,269
By: ink - 19th November 2000 at 23:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Jonsey,
"declaration of war"? Well, you have shown up 19 "democratic" nations as being terrorists because they bombed a nations infra-structure, army, TV stations, tobacco factories and hospitals without declaring war in '99.
Also, I've never heard the claim that the TV station was used as a transmitter of info to anyone but the people of Yug. I watched the news (on many different channels and from many countries) during the kosovo war and I've never heard that rationale before. However, even assuming it to be true (which it almost undoubtedly isn't) NATO not only had the option of targeting the relay mast (far from any civilians "innocent" or otherwise"). I should also remind people of the oft forgotten fact that a mere week before the bombing of the TV station NATO promised to the worlds press that Yugoslav journalists would never be targeted because "...democracy stands for free speach...".
The TV station was bombed because NATO didn't like what they were saying, other reasons are simply fabrications designed to make people think that NATO is good and just.
Where would the difference lie if Serbian "extremists" had placed a bomb outside the offices of the Sun or even the BBC. Before you get on my case, I would like to say that I would never wish that to happen, as it would be a needless waste of innocent life. I'm just throwing up a hypothetical case.
By: Anonymous - 20th November 2000 at 04:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Another example of the fact that there is no such thing as a perfect air operation. Those are only the mistakes we know about.
Attempting to hit a radio station with anything is a bad idea.
elp
usa
Posts: 343
By: stormrider - 20th November 2000 at 09:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
LAST EDITED ON 20-Nov-00 AT 09:19 AM (GMT)[p]-oops, wrong thread
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 20th November 2000 at 11:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Ink,
Sorry mate but I think your being a bit pedantic there, I used the phrase "declaration of war" to mean a stated intent to commence hostilities should certain conditions not be met. Say what you will but Milosevic certainly had NATO diplomats telling him exactly what was going to happen if he didnt fall into step. Maybe not a declaration of war in itself but nowhere close to the act of sneaking up on a target and planting a bomb. (BTW should you ever feel the desire to blow up "The Sun" offices, please get in touch. I may be able to secure a small amount of PE4 for you to use :-))
I was watching the situation in 99 as closely as anyone as i had friends in Bosnia at the time.
The report that the TV station was relaying military information came from a couple of these friends and from at least one published report in a western military journal. Could this be a fabrication in an attempt at a justifying the civillian casualties? Yes I suppose it could be.
"The TV station was bombed because NATO didn't like what they were saying"
The statement above though could just as easily be a fabrication to demonise NATO though, couldnt it?
Regards,
Steve
Posts: 7,877
By: Arthur - 20th November 2000 at 14:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Some minor comments here, no offense intended:
Islam was first to attack, if you want to dig deep down in history. Well before the age of the Crusades, Islamism crossed the Gibraltar Straits took over Spain and moved north - well into France until stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Poitiers. Not that it really matters in this discussion, BTW.
As for the discussion when something is terrorism, and when it's not i don't think it's possible to keep this really objective. As far as i'm concerned, war is on a more 'official' level, while terrorism is much less confined to states, locations and/or targets. No matter declaration of war or not, the Kosovo conflict of 1999 was a war, while the attack on the Cole was an act of terrorism just as much as the cruise-missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan.
Just my POV,
Arthur
Posts: 3,269
By: ink - 20th November 2000 at 16:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
This is quite an interesting debate, I remember having a similar one in A-level Physics (obviously it was far more interesting than electro-magnetic inductance). If I remember correctly, we decided that the defenition of terrorism depended on which side you are on. Ahmet quite rightly sighted the KLA, Hizbollah and others while Arthur mentioned the Sudan and Afganistan cruise missle attacks. The point is, Bill Clinton is never going to stand at a podium and say the those (afforementioned) cruise missle attacks were a clear act of terrorism against innocent men, women and children. But carry on the debate, I'm enjoying it.
Jonsey, "NATO bombed the TV station because it didn't like what they were saying" is not an attempt to demonise NATO (in my opinion they do that well enough themselves) it is simply a statement of fact (as I see it, your opinion probably differs).
By: Anonymous - 20th November 2000 at 23:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Yeah well regardless of who killed who's dog and who killed who's cat, it's upsetting to turn on the TV and see almost live
(a few years back with the cruise missle strike against Iraq because it didn't play ball with the UN inspectors) a crushed hotel lobby from a cruise missle that was shot down or went off course. In the rubble of this lobby is a dead lady hotel worker who never hurt anybody in her life. Highly upsetting. I have never met a bad Arab from any country. I don't have a problem with using force when it is justified. But ordering out a cruise missle strike like you would order a pizza, is crazy.
Another real life issue is we have a lot of airpower sitting in Saudi. A lot of Arab countries don't mind us helping out in Desert Storm, but it's like the house guest that never leaves. My point is we have to be sensitive to these things. And unfortunately this issue never comes up over here. Ever.
elp
usa
Posts: 7
By: Maverick - 20th November 2000 at 23:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Perhaps to further this discussion we should try and determine what the word "terrorism" actually means.
Perhaps..."An act of aggression in any shape or form by one body to another(I use body as a wild card...It could be a country, person etc.) where an official declaration of war has note been announced."
However terrorism is often viewed by any country who is attacked by another. This I believe was the case in Serbia. The Serb government under Slobodan Milosevic (though it has changed now) has declared the leaders of NATO as terrorists for their actions.
By: Anonymous - 21st November 2000 at 08:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Intersting point arthur and i wasnt offended and you are right. But if we go even further the Byzantians were the first to wage "religion" war for no reason ageinst ottomans in 785. But history is history.
As for "definition" of terrorism provided by maverick... i belive it is out of Oxford dictionary..im saying this simply becouse the Oxford dictionary and its deffinitions may not apply to places beyond Western borders. Many nations see and think of different things in different way. We see people who suicide bomb (in my view only a millitary targets As COLE was....i am deply ageinst Trade center or more recently the school bus in ISR. incidents)as martyrs you see them as psycos. But then there are thing you find fine which we belive are imoral or crazy. So your judgment will always depend on form where you look...as they say "from different mountain one object gives different apperance" (well as best as i could translate).
PS: By your deffiniton of not declearing a war = terrorism...how can you than say "well kosovo and before bosina were war" especialy bosnia where only small sorties were flown with out any warning. Both incidences were ageinst UN charter and international law (yet it goes beyond me when US critisise Russia for doing same)and NO FORMAL DECLERATION was ever made ..in fact i belive the US is even refusing to call it a war...it was "conflict". So what is conflict? A terrorism when Done by US??????
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 21st November 2000 at 09:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Like I said to Ink, Ahmet, that's really just playing with words. The truth is that in Kosovo and in Bosnia before that there were intensive diplomatic efforts made to create a solution before military force was used.
Everyone on both sides was very clear on what would happen if no diplomatic settlement was reached.
Whilst this isnt an official declaration of war, it is a statement of intent to commence hostilities from one country (or group of countries) to another.This, for me, amounts to a legitimacy of those operations.
There are a fair few instances where the line has been well and truly crossed though, I'll grant you, support for the KLA was one of these - although, in fairness, there was a very vocal element in the West saying we should have nothing to do with them! Then again though wasnt the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" originally an Arabic one Ahmet? :-)
Posts: 146
By: Flanker - 21st November 2000 at 11:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Yup It is. But that saying is now absolite since enemy of my enemy can also be my enemy. Ye it gets complicated.
And with albanians in Kosovo getting more annoyed with KFOR i wont be supprised if the friend changes face to enemy.With money forging and drugs traficing being source of income for many of their leaders now it could be trouble if west strats teaching their "law".The reacent arrests only point in this direction.
Now i might get trashing here form all esp. my islamic brothers.....but the thing is i was never fond of the albanians in general (im not racist) and their eastern politcs. They are wery strange people to say the lest ..and though i realy hate to say this ....serbs seem more civilised and easier people to negotiate and deal.(excp. S.Milosevic who should be hanged). Albania is a shame for islam, they are te most poorest country in europe due to their stubborness. They have 7 kids an average who try to leave their country as soon as they can walk ..that is a trason. Id never leave my home place no mather what. But as soon as they get out of Alb and settle into greece macedonia or serbia they start sepperatist moves....the idea of joining albania is dumbest thing kosovors can do. If they do they soon be running away from there...and cycle begins.
They should go indipendet and make better relation to Arrabian nations who will be happy of true islamic state in europe, and stay as far for Albania as possible. Also they should make sure the US doesnt settle there permanetly.... sica i hear the yenks a druling at the $7.6 trillion of minaral reserves in north kosovo.
Posts: 146
By: Flanker - 21st November 2000 at 13:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That above aint me !!!!!!!!!!!!!
I DONT KNOW WHO THE HELL WROTE THAT THING ABOVE BUT IT SURE WASNT ME. I AINT NO ISAMIC ARAB...AND AS A RUSSIAN ORTODOX I DEMAND AN APOLOGY AND RECTIFICATION.
By: Anonymous - 21st November 2000 at 13:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry it was me..made innocent error
Sorry Flanker it was me... i accidently put what i intended as subject aimed at one of your comments into a "name" field by mistake. MY WRONG AND SORRY AGEIN
Posts: 7,877
By: Arthur - 21st November 2000 at 14:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
I think the difference between an act like the attack on the USS Cole by a suicide bomber, or the destruction of an Iraqi SAM-site by a British or American LGB is way overrated - the principal difference IMHO being the means of delivery. Neither do i believe there is much difference between the actors, since although militant organisations like Hizbollah are, although not state-bound, genuine political entities. Whether these actions are performed under a declaration of war isn't important as far as i'm concerned, since the confrontation is amongst the countries/organisations militaries.
A totally different matter, as far as i'm concerned, is it when civilians are targeted. If you call attacks on school buses, refugee camps or other non-military targets terrorism, i don't think it fair to give the same name to attacks on military targets.
As far as NATO's bombing of the Serb TV-station; since this occurred in a war or war-like situation (strange the diplomats haven't found a euphemistical term for this sort of conflict), this is again another matter IMHO. I don't think it was a viable target, but i think it's too strong to refer to it as an act of terrorism. I think this discussion is very interesting, but we shouldn't get caught in the rhetorics opposing sides like to refer to.
Regards,
Arthur (FYI, catholic by birth)
By: Anonymous - 21st November 2000 at 22:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Hey, I look at this post today and everyone is writing without any daggers. Thats something. Everyone here is now qualified to get a job as a UN delegate.
elp
usa
Posts: 3,269
By: ink - 22nd November 2000 at 09:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
Arthur,
Could it be called a war crime, since not even Jamie Shae tried to pass it off as a mistake? A delibirate, pinpoint attack on a clearly civillian target where civillians were known to be present. For me it just makes it worse that it was a media centre.
Jonsey,
While I agree that Mr Milosevic, the Serbian parliment and the Serbian people knew that the bombing was about to begin it doesn't (in my opinion) affect it's status as a terrorist act. This is because the diplomatic process was designed to back the Serbs into the situation where they could choose total capitulation (not what happened after the bombing) or the bombing. It is similar to the IRA giving warning of a bomb but still going through with the attack.
Posts: 7,877
By: Arthur - 22nd November 2000 at 14:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
I have my doubts for calling it a war crime. Even though it was a civilian target, bombing it is defendable from a military/political point of view. Although especially in this case, it would have been nothing more than courteous if war had actually been declared. It would be interesting to see how some international court would judge this bombing. BTW, there was an interesting documentary lately that the Serb government knew the media centre was about to be hit, but didn't take actions in an attempt to create 'civilian martyrs' - do you know if this is (in some way) true?
As for referring to the NATO campaign as terrorism, i don't think you're right because of the definition i tried to make above. Although i have serious doubts about the legitimacy of Allied Force, i simply think it was nothing less but an undeclared war. And yes, it does appear that the Serbs were forced to either surrender completely, or get bombed. IMHO, it was a very, very nasty piece of diplomacy. I can totally understand the Kosovar grief, but i think NATO went way too far in supporting them.
Regards,
Arthur
Posts: 18
By: Andy - 22nd November 2000 at 21:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: Royal Marines and British Special Forces
'Maverick' totally agree with your statement at the start of this project, the Royal Marines Commandos are one of the best amphibious assault units in the world. It gave me pride to see our troops land in the style they did. As for the SBS, well there's rumours that they are higher skilled than the SAS. I think we should remind the Americans that during and after the Second World War that our special forces were training there elite forces and its also our SAS who train other countries special forces.
On a personal note which part of Britain do you come from?
(I presume your British!)