If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
That's quite right. My problem is that other people do have different standards of ethics and morality, yourself included. What I do about it is air my views, hear you air yours, and in a democracy, we let the majority opinion preside.
Sure, the basis of Democracy is always compromise, and we often end up with half-way measures that don't effectively do either one thing or another, except offend neither side.
My other problem is that certain parties do want to dictate. Not just outside the West either, for the West is increasingly dictating standards to the rest of the world with no mandate to do so except that they are richer, bigger and more arrogant than those they dictate to.
You don't like fundamentalist regimes? Then don't trade with the devil (or the Taliban) just to try to gain a little support against drugs. The Taliban came to power because the West, most notably Britain and the US, allowed them to do so and turned a blind eye to anything but the fact that the Taliban claimed to be against drugs being produced in Afghanistan.
You don't like Fundamentalist madmen? Then don't spend millions on training and equipping them to fight your enemies. America made Osama Bin Laden, and 3,000 innocents paid the price when the mad dog inevitably bit the hand that had reared him.
I disagree.
You see, I believe in human nature. Would you expect anyone you know to be at work on the day their place of employment was about to be bombed? No, me neither. I therefore believe that the warnings were not effectively given. If they had been, the buildings would have been empty. QED.
Sure, right after you tell me why it is that Osama was already on the list of known terrorists threatening America, when you seem to believe that he and your President could have just sat down for a nice friendly chat over a cup of coffee.
I can just imagine the scenario that you seem to expect me to provide proof of:
Terrorist: "Hi, are you the CIA agent in Afghanistan"
Agent: "I don't know what you mean. The CIA has no forces or actions in Afghanistan. I'm a carpet salesman."
Terrorist: "But Osama sent me, and he seemed pretty familiar with the CIA here"
Agent: "I deny all knowledge of anyone called Osama. The CIA have no forces or actions in Afghanistan. I am a carpet salesman."
Terrorist: "Okay. For the sake of argument, if you were a CIA agent, I'd have told you that Osama is declaring war on America."
Agent: "Well, if I were a CIA agent I'd have killed or captured you as a known terrorist before you got a chance to speak. Also, since Osama is a terrorist, and a leader of a faction, not a legitimate government, he can't technically declare war. We'd laugh. It's not like some piss-ant terrorist is gonna threaten the US and scare them is it? - However, luckily for you, the CIA have no forces or actions in Afghanistan. I am a carpet salesman."
Gosh, you mean they forgot to fill in the right "Intention to bomb the US" application forms in triplicate?
I'm not arguing that the warnings were correctly given and effective, but they were there, and strong enough to have caused some investigations within the CIA and FBI - especially into the ways they could better share information.
I refer you to my earlier answer which again applies:
"You see, I believe in human nature. Would you expect anyone you know to be at work on the day their place of employment was about to be bombed? No, me neither. I therefore believe that the warnings were not effectively given. If they had been, the buildings would have been empty. QED."
I'd be quite surprised if there were not companies in the WTC who did not contribute billions of dollars of taxes to the US economy, of which a direct proportion is allocated to the CIA, the millitary, the FBI, etc.
America is seen as more of a capitalist society by the terrorist than a democratic one - they hit that capital quite effectively which they see (rightly or wrongly) as the pillar of your whole society.
In targeting those buildings, they stopped all domestic flights for a considerable time. In targeting the WTC, they caused the evacuation (and abandoning of work) in tall office buildings all across America, Britain and other Western countries.
As a landmark of the NY skyline, attacking the WTC was like defacing the very image of the US itself. They reached out and gave the US an injury that everyone can and will see, possibly for years to come.
Oh. I had no idea that everyone serving in the US forces was given extensive training and also first hand experience of what it is like to be a Palestinian, or a General, or a Terrorist.
I thought it wold mostly teach me how to polish my boots, clean my uniform, respect authority, be part of a team, never question orders, and have less respect for ordinary civillians, with added training in professional and combat skills.
Actually, I think it shows that by-and-large, the Americans were shown their complete failure to know the people who they chose to attack and how those people would react to such an attack.
You are fighting suicide bombers and expect them to give a shit that you'll kill them? ROFLMAO
The legacy of the action remains long past the deaths of those who commited or planned it. A tiny group that you thought to use and abuse with total impunity reached out a quarter of the way around the world and made America a victim. A bleeding, and shocked victim.
Yes, America got up and struck back with fury - got down to the terrorists level, but before it did, everyone with hatred or envy towards the US in their hearts got to see you hurt and battered.
That in itself was probably something they'd have all willingly cut their own throats to acheive.
The legacy remains. Terrorist organisations world-wide now know that America is not invulnerable. Perhaps they could do the same again, even if they had to hire private jets in the US, equipped with plenty of fuel for supposed international flights, and do exactly the same trick again, but with smaller jet planes - maybe using three-times as many to acheive the same results.
A universal rule?
Hell I just want America to grow up and stop being the swaggering bully of the world who cries when the dirty tactics it employs are turned back upon it.
If Americans must get up and make speeches then let them make ones that aren't hypocritical. Terrorism is wrong? Fine, stop funding it and inciting it. Targeting non-millitary buildings is wrong? Fine, I agree, lets write it into a convention and enforce it.
Tell me, how did funding and training Osama to fight against the Russians fit in with the Rules of Land Warfare and the Geneva Convention? Oh of course, it wasn't covered. Nor of course was the fact you acted against Russia, without openly declaring your hostile intent.
Oh perleeeeeeeze!
The whole point of shadow-warfare, be they spooks or terrorists, is that its fine to break any conventions, (they are supposed to be non-conventional) provided you either: (a) don't get caught, or (b) are on the winning side in the end, so you'll be forgiven/overlooked by the victors, rather than condemned.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but a large portion of the world is not represented by democracies. The world is not a democracy. So, when did you last hear the views of a Burmese or a Chinese on what was and wasn't moral?
Interesting how the easiest way to not accept American standards/influence is simply to turn down business like McDonalds, etc. A little different from the tactics of other countries (Britain included) who forced their legal system, their language, and their morality down the throat of other nations.
Lovely twist on history. Not true, but cute.
Again, nice twist. Also not true, but why confuse the issue with facts?
If your idea of human nature was accurate, North America would be empty. If your idea of human nature was accurate, London would have been deserted during the blitz. If your idea of human nature was accurate, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been ghost towns before the bombs were dropped. Obviously, your idea of human nature is flawed. QED
Kind of funny. Adolf Hitler manages to declare war within the guidelines of International Law on December 8, 1941 but a terrorist organization can't manage to declare war within those same guidelines in this day and age? By the way, look up the Barbary Pirates. The USA and UK have gone to war with non-nations before.
Infrastructure as a military term applies to a nation's ability to wage war. Tax dollars have no meaning when it comes to a nation's ability to wage war. Nor did any major companies fail as a result of that attack.
Never been to NYC, have you?
Guess you should try it so you'd have a clue.
It isn't the bombers who give a shit. It's their leaders. You don't see Arafat strapping a bomb across his chest, do you? If they were all suicide bombers, we wouldn't have to worry at all, because they would exterminate themselves in due order.
You need to visit the USA and see for yourself. The bleeding was staunched in the first days. There was little shock.
Well, we can only hope.
They also know that they will not achieve their goals, and they will be struck back at effectively and hard.
Let's see now.....
Have you bothered to read the Geneva Convention? The Law of Land Warfare? Anything except your own raving?
You really ought to read a bit. Try The Mitrokhin Archive. You might actually have a clue what you are talking about then. I doubt it though.
So because some areas of the world are not democratic, it's okay to abandon morality? I'm not sure how your reasoning is working here. Then again, perhaps it just isn't.
Just to clarify, the US did train and equip Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan, including Osama bin Laden, to fight against the Russians. This is fact, not an "interesting twist on history"; they are responsible for the Taleban.
To support this, here is a quote from George Galloway:
If you wish to continue your pathetic fantasy that the US were not involved in creating your number one enemy, please provide some evidence to support this in future, instead of just sneering. It really does make your argument look cheap.
The Monroe Doctrine and the Truman Doctrine both spring to mind. They were both by American presidents, categorically stating that they would force their systems down the throats of others.
I think we can all agree here that anyone with half a brain cell who knew anything about Osama bin Laden pre-11/9 would have known that it was his clearly stated intention to destroy America. Then again, these are the US "Intelligence" agencies we're talking about, so the half brain cell in itself is a huge assumption to make.
The US can't seriously expect anyone to believe that the only reason they were totally unprepared for 11/9 is that there had not been a formal declaration of war. Have you any idea how stupid that notion makes you look?
Lastly, it's quite clear that when you see your argument faltering, you resort to one-line quips or fleeting allusions to international conventions or to sensationalist books you have read. If you believe something contained within these is pertinent, please feel free to quote it in future. It kinda helps the argument.
I look forward to reading your quotes from the Geneva Convention...
To quote The Times, which brought up the very same comparison between the September 11th terrorists and piracy:
"Pirates did not merit a declaration of war: they were simply hunted down."
Sorry Greenhat, but apart from that there are no "rules of war".
Maybe you should have read the Geneva convention first Greenhat, before you made the comments about Black Knight's "ignorance".
I noticed that, but such are not specific to me as you asked, are they. i.e. they are not part of my problem with my country, and the US which my country has chosen to support.
I last heard the views of a Chinese chap concerning morality only yesterday. This is London, sir, we are quite open to people of all cultures, races and creeds here.
When was the last time you were able to listen to the views of a Englishman without feeling a need to belittle them? Let me guess, it was the last time one agreed with you, right?
A Bit About Facts:
I think that addresses quite clearly both whether the US was aware of Bin Laden's hostile intent, and also whether or not America funded and backed him to oppose the USSR.
You still think that Bin Laden didn't declare war?
I take it you know that 'jihad' is the term for (roughly) 'holy war' and can understand the implications. Prior to the 9/11 tragedy, Bin Laden had openly declared a holy war upon American to interviewers from ABC News.
Sure, he may not have filled out the right forms, but I think he'd made the declaration pretty damn clearly.
So you never heard of the Evacuees?
Almost all of the children of London were evacuated to the country during the Blitz. This was not just their decision, but a properly organised measure to protect them. Many women and elderly people with relatives in the country also left London while they could.
Hundreds of Londoners moved completely into the Air Raid shelters throughout the entire duration of the Blitz. In Chislehurst Caves, just south of London, an entire hospital was built within the caves, as well as a post office, police station, and much else that meant people could basically live there day in and day out for months.
Not been to London outside of the tourist trap I take it?
I take it you can prove that Bin Laden had contracted to be party to the convention? No? Oh dear. Maybe you should read the documents you mention but don't seem to quote.
FM 27-10 The Law of Land Warfare (US Military Field Manual version)
I think this may be a useful link for anyone bored enough to read the rules, and stupid enough to think Bin Laden or any other partisan/terrorist/guerilla fighters will have agreed to the convention (spawning the term Conventional Warfare) when their tactics are unconventional (outside of Conventions).
Osama Bin Laden chose to die opposing the US in the hills rather than surrender himself to life in prison.
I didn't see Bush toting a gun on the front-lines either? That mean he didn't care about it enough or didn't feel as outraged, commited and duty-bound as the soldiers who did? Or did it just mean that he had another role?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm getting rather tired of having to justify my right to have the opinion that I stated in my article. Tell me again how you yanks don't try to ram your own morality and ethics upon others. I could do with a good laugh.
And there are very few things in there that are actually condemned internationally.
The use of chemical weapons with the exception of riot control gas e.t.c are the only weapons there that are prohibited. I don't recall reading that the use of suicide attacks is prohibited, especially if there is no alternative.
Technically, because Osama declared war on the USA, he hasn't broken any international law, at least none of the ones you seem to love so much Green hat. Please however prove us wrong, and point us to them, instead of informing us of their existence.
Edited to add:
I apologise, I misread the part about bombardment. It is illegal to bombard buildings that have no strategic or military value, and do not contain soldiers, or machinery of war.
It's just a pity we break that rule everytime we use a guided missile and bomb a tv station or 2.
Well, dum-dum bullets (hollow tip, etc) are outlawed, and there's questions over depleted uranium ammo too. However, it is still a convention, and only binds all sides that agree to follow it.
Iraq obviously hasn't, but it still has to abide by our rules.
Methinks that when Greenhat returns he'll be slightly peeved to find that he should have read these conventions first before trying to argue about them with us
:rolleyes:
I'm still curious as to why he brought the Geneva convention up at all.
The general mission of any Army: "Shoot, Move and Communicate. Might mean that any communication station is a military target, mightn't it?
A little more research is in order on your parts. In particular on the specific legal language and the application of legal remedies to countries and combatants as set forth by precedent. That is the way that law works. So read a bit of history, and start paying attention to the details of what you are reading, instead of with the assumptions and inferences that you have picked up. Good start by actually reading both the Geneva Convention and the Law of Land Warfare. Now learn how they are actually applied (and not the media's twisted ideas of how they are applied).
As a simple example, you might read the post about the famous photograph of a burning child in Vietnam. You might also read about the war crimes trials of the Vietnam war (there is more than just Calley). While you're at it, see how many nations you can find that have actually arrested, tried and convicted one of their own members of the military for warcrimes without any pressure from other nations. It's an awfully low number.
The Taleban did not exist when the US and UK were supporting the Mujadeen. And the majority of the Mujadeen were not supporters of the Taleban. Anyone familiar with the concept of valid conclusions?
Chinese ancestry or Chinese citizen? Not exactly the same thing.
As for Brits, I've heard from quite a few. Most recently a few members of the 22d Regiment. They may not agree with me, but I'd say they definitely disagree with you. Of course, they've actually seen the results, actually experienced the reality of terrorism. It's a bit more than just an exercise in philosophy to them.
You might do a little more research into the meaning of "jihad". Speak with a few experts in Arabic and on Islam. Ask for subtle detail, not just a quick answer. No point to me explaining, you won't believe it.
We live in a world that is hostile, and is often enough deadly. You can try to ignore that, you can try to believe it doesn't exist, or you can deal with it. Nothing you say will change it. Nothing at all. So make your choice of which you shall do. I've made mine, made it a long time ago, and chose to take action that supported my choice. Will you do the same? I doubt it, I doubt it very much.
http://www.thesite.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27634
With all respect to you, Sir... Whowhere prefers to quote from mythology, rather than reality.
Again, Sir, with respect to you... Whowhere claims to be a "warrior in waiting"... :rolleyes: Gonna be commissioned in the Queen's Keyboard Kommandos.
Yes it might, but if that includes television stations... well many arials and satelite dishes tend to be mounted on tall buildings don't they. So, tell me which ones were mounted on the WTC (perhaps a clue is that CNN went offline?). I suppose the WTC could be classified as a millitary target if anyone in it had a mobile phone as well, after all it could be used to communicate, just like a television station could.
Sounds like lame justification either way.
I suppose that there could have been a CIA cover company in the WTC too (be quite surprised if there wasn't come to think of it). It still doesn't justify taking out the WTC and it still doesn't justify targeting civillian power stations, television stations or telecoms buildings to me. But have it your way - anyway to twist a rule so you can kill more people is good right?
You know, I tried really hard to find anything of significance there and all I found was someone blowing smoke.
In answer to whether Bin Laden had agreed to follow the convention? Nothing.
About the fact that terrorism is automatically outside of war conventions (either it is terrorism which is a crime, or it is warfare and all persons captured have to be treated as POWs not criminals)? Nothing.
About my disproving your ridiculous claim that Osama Bin Laden was not created, trained and Funded by the US? Nothing.
About disproving your claim that the US did not know Bin Laden had clearly stated his intention to make war upon America? Nothing but that silly bit later about the the word Jihad having several meanings - well read the ABC News interview, Bin Laden made very clear exactly which meaning - that he saw it as his holy and divine duty to Allah to destroy the infidel Americans.
About me backing up my example of warned people leaving even an entire city, never mind a single building (London, the Blitz)? Nothing. Hell you even got to chose the examples and still (as we say here) muffed it.
So what did you say? Nothing. A load of words that do nothing to further your case and just attempt to claim some secret hidden knowledge would disprove everything. Fine - I challenge you to quote it.
Even so, if it takes "specific legal language and the application of legal remedies to countries and combatants as set forth by precedent" I assume you can prove that Bin Laden had been provided with a proper legal counsel by the US prior to the WTC attack? No? Damn, maybe he didn't know your mythical special legal language and remedies either. Can't be a very good law if it isn't actually known by anyone its supposed to apply to.
And what the hell is the next bit?
Hello?!
Are you saying that Bin Laden bombed the WTC in mistaken revenge for that burning child? If not then what the hell is the relevance of this to 9/11?
The key players, and their convictions and beliefs were well established before the US and the UK picked the one's they'd support. The US chose the fundamentalist in the belief that they'd be the hardest fighters and the least likely to quit. The British instead supported one of the more moderate Mujadeen leaders, but he failed to maintain any power after the USSR retreated and the Rebel groups turned on each other.
The Taliban were primarily backed by Pakistan, and acheived much of their drive to take 90% of the country from the fact that they promised law and order, traditional values, and an end to the opium trade. Read the CIA report I linked to in my last post, and consider how much America would have wanted to shut down the drugs trade of the country that is the largest exporter of Opium in the world.
America (and Britain) not only did not oppose the Taliban, they virtually welcomed them as being the precursor to ending the opium trade from Afghanistan for good. Sure, you can delude yourself otherwise, but you'll not delude others.
Chinese birth and residence until a few years ago. Until then he was a chinese citizen. He naturally has chinese ancestry too.
Dealt with this one already. It is a word with many subleties and nuances. However its exact use was very specific and detailed in the interview. That's why I provided the link as well as the quote.
I'm allowing you your choice. I've already made mine. It's what you have spent the last week attacking remember?
I will not back down. I will speak out. I will contradict and provide evidence. I will promote reason where it is a viable alternative. I believe in preventative medicine. You want America to keep spawning malignant growths in the hopes you'll always be able to rely on expensive and painful surgery (mllitary action) to remove them. I want America, and Britain, and other nations to stop formenting hatred in the first place.
No more creating the Osama Bin Ladens of the world, because the next malignancy, the next atrocity, may be far greater than imagined. I believe that on the current path, it is only a matter of time before a nuclear or chemical device is used in a major city. Your millitary action will not bring back a single one of the millions that will die when that happens.
But you won't actually DO anything, will you?
And my military action, and those of many like me, have provided for the survival and liberty of millions of people around the world.
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." Theodore Roosevelt (Paris Sorbonne, 1910)
It was a nice quote though. Inappropriate and lacking any meaningful content to answer the many points that you could not, but still a great quote.
Thank you for an interesting debate.
Act wrongly?
As a member of the US military, I have helped to build schools and dig wells. I have helped to teach people to farm more effectively, to take care of their health more effectively, to protect what they have worked hard for in their lives. As a member of the US military, I have helped to resettle and feed refugees, to demine large tracts of land in SE Asia, to protect people from murderous thugs who would prefer to enslave, rape or murder those people. I consider myself fortunate to have made friends in countries around the world who are willing to call me for help.
And what have you done? Made moral judgements about actions you have no concept of? Criticized that which you neither understand or have experienced?
You are the critic. The quote is very accurate. Try entering the arena.
OO-RAH!!!
Most apropos, Sir!
Surely his right to be a critic is what you fight for. Why bother fighting for freedom if you don't want people to use it?
Actually, I posted an article - you are the critic thereof.
Do try to keep up.
It would be nice for you to manage to post something that was both relevant and correct somewhere.
But then again, we can't really expect you to have a clue, can we? You haven't actually DONE anything.
Enjoy your life and your freedom to express yourself. Just remember that you owe both to crass, uncivilized people like me who are willing to sacrifice for others. Oh, and all the martial arts training in the world won't help you should you face warriors. :rolleyes:
You condemn him for having the temerity to make moral judgements which don't conform to your views. You seem to think that he should not make moral judgements unless he has experienced the same things that you have.
There are two areas in which some people here are very much mistaken, being an American or being in the armed forces doesn't automatically make you right. It just adds a different perspective.
You've also been too arrogant, cowardly or foolish to take any level of interest in whether your country could have prevented 3,000 deaths in the WTC.
No, far more important to be proud than humble, to be heard rather than to listen, to bully your way rather than seek cooperative benefit to all parties. You represent your country well.
You'd like to think that you were a noble warrior, a man of honour and bravery. I don't see you that way.
You remember those UN volunteers killed by American munitions in the early days of the 'vengeance' upon the Taliban? Those were heroes. Armed with nothing more than their courage, humanity, and convictions, they risked their lives daily to disarm and clear the mines that were maiming innocents in Afghanistan.
In the end it was not the mines that got them, however, but an inaccurate American missile. I curse whoever launched it, the man who ordered the launch and anyone who doesn't feel the intense tragedy, waste and pointlessness of their deaths at American hands.
If you do not feel any sorrow or guilt for those deaths, if you do not see that those lives were worth a hundred war-mongers, then I simply pity you, and all the falsehoods you stand for.
Still, I suppose we should at least be greatful that you didn't blow up any British tanks this time around.
Your judgment that the UN workers were truly honourable was a good one, and then you spoilt it with anti-war rhetoric.
So, Black Knight. Why don't you join the UN demining operations? They always need people. And there's a good chance I'll be one of the people who teaches you how to remove a mine without blowing yourself up.
Btw, Man of Kent, I don't condemn him, I just think he's a man without the courage to place his actions behind his morals. Basically, a coward.
I'll see your "crass, uncivilised", and raise you "crude, vulgar, obscene and temerarious"... Ready to call? Might remember, Sir, that you are on O, and I am an E...
As for "martial arts vs. warriors", 'tis always easier to play at games, than to toe the line, and stand the post in real time. Why should them lacking in the requisite gonadal qualities risk loss of life or limb, when they can simply claim their glory surreptitiously by playing the role of the critic? Form is more important to him than substance...
As the thespians would say,"Them that can, act; them that cannot become critics to grant a perspective for those too ignorant to observe and judge for themselves." The black knight has elevated himself to the limits of capability, and has found his niche. Be thankful that but for the grace of God, your upbringing, your ethics, your training, your honor, your commitment, your...
Oh, shit. Reality intruded, and rectumfied the thought. Sorry, Mr Greenhat, Sir... did not wish to impune your character by comparing you to black night. My apologies...
OO-RAH!!!
The wordsmith has his words. Isn't that enough? :rolleyes:
Entertaining, is it not, to witness someone without the heuvos to stand a post, call a decorated warrior "a coward"? ROTFLMFAO!
You have your words, wordsmith. That is ALL you have... You exist by the commitment and sacrifice of those like Greenhat, and have not even the honor to comprehend that.
Greenhat has cause to be proud; he earned it. He defines SELF-RESPECT. He has measured himself against the yardstick, and proven himself worthy.
You, have the "pride devoid of substance", otherwise known as arrogance. You define SELF-ESTEEM. You claim worthiness because you exist, and have only your illusions to support you.
I would serve with Greenhat, and follow him to the gates of Hell, then secure the AO. It is warriors such as he who build and defend nations.
You? We would take you to the place, leave you there, and laugh all the way back. It is the depravity of those as you who bring nations down.
Glory in your delusions, such as they are...
You misunderstand me MoK, I'm not anti-war - I'm anti-waste. If Afghanistan, rather than a small cadre of terrorists hiding within it, and unrepresentative of the people as a whole, had launched the 9/11 attack I'd not be opposed to bombing the country.
That was not the case however.
Britain knows that activists and agents of the IRA operate in the US to gain funds, munitions and other support for the IRA. Would it be right for us to bomb America to end it? No, and Afghanistan only got shafted because it is small and weak enough to be bullied and abused.
I have the utmost respect for those who are true warriors, those who act as they must to protect the weak they are duty-bound to serve. My father was a soldier working in demolitions, he worked in Bomb Disposal whilst being readied for the landings, and again on his return from Dunkirk. He was one of the last off Dunkirk, since naturally it was his job to demolish or wreck the equipment that had to be left behind.
After the war he served in Palestine, and rose through the ranks of the administrative staff there very rapidly (mainly due to the incredibly high Assassination rate). He served as the Town Clerk, runing Palestine, until finally one of the many assassination attempts got him shipped home with 6 months to live (luckily, he defied expectations in this as in much else).
He was a man of honour and courage. His courage was shown best by his life-long fondness for both the Arabic and Jewish people. He never judged the people by the actions of the few who'd made so many attempts on him. That took real courage. The courage and honour to resist hatred yet never swerve from his duty to protect.
Millitary service ended by his health records, he became first a social worker, specialising in prosecutions of those commiting abuse, and spent his spare time training in the fields that interested him. He finished a doctor, still serving the weak and needy.
He fought for people, both with and without a gun and a uniform. He was a true warrior. Not a swaggering lout with a gun and aggression.
Indeed I have and I apologise for it. ALthough that was how your comments scanned...
The Terrorists were supported by the Govt of Afghanistan. No Govt is fully representative of the people, but the only way to remove the Taliban was to destroy them militarily.
Or because the US had the ability to strike back effectively.
And the Govt of the US never openly supported the IRA, that is a major difference, but I would happily have bombed Boston anyway
Coward
One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.
That certainly does not apply to Black Knight.