Selective terrorists ?

Stryke · Post by **Stryke** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:23 am

Just wondering , would any of you be shocked to find a terrorist living and working in the US ?

how about one that deals in arms and supplies US special forces with specialty equipment ?

It`s not a maybe it`s a fact ...

the head commander on the mission to Bomb the Rainbow Warrior now working in Washington DC

Colonel Louis Piere Dillais (alias Jean Louis Dormand)

this was a clear act of terror on the part of France against NZ and against the Greenpeace movement .

maybe it doesnt matter if the right people sponser the terrorist acts , or the right people issue the orders ....

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ED0506/S00074.htm

Mills75 · Post by **Mills75** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:39 am

MikeK · Post by **MikeK** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:00 pm

this was a clear act of terror on the part of France against NZ and against the Greenpeace movement .

Sabotage and agression but not terrorism. It was a specific act to remove the Rainbow Warrior from being a floating base for Green Peace operations and not against the population of NZ. So while being an incredibly stupid and costly operation it still wasn't terrorism.

To think the French are wimps is way off. They're operators are some of the biggest BAs out there and don't hesitate to show it as the RB saga shows. France thinks of one thing first and only, France being a world power.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:15 pm

Hey Mate, I think they should harass more greenpeace dudes.

Your just sore cause your the only country France has invaded in the last few centuries.

MikeK · Post by **MikeK** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:21 pm

And from the settlement they had to pay France still lost.

Stryke · Post by **Stryke** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 6:03 pm

I thought so , it`s a matter of perspective .

civilian target in freindly nation

If it occured in US waters it would be an act of terror .

why is this less an act of terror than the attack on the USS Cole ?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:15 am

good post mate.

You know how I feel about greenpeace and why.

I agree it was an act of terror.

I'm not impressed with my own government doing nothing.

But we seem to have left our backbone behind when we voted in the liberals.

Think it's time I left Canada....Think I'll take Alberta with me.

Stryke · Post by **Stryke** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:10 am

Hey Mate I could care less who`s ship it was .

Was just curious to see others thoughts ... I know nothing will change and the game will be played the same ...

It`s just things seem so black and white in these discussions .

Seems some folks wear grey hats .

to me those folks will always be terrorists , simple things as orders/and or goverment approval doesnt change the fact .

Some folks down here thought it an act of war , I wanted to send up the local Kapa Haka group and terrify the French into surrender , Luckily I realised that once we`d conqured em we`d have to live with em .... logic triumphed .

Heck i can see why the french got so excited , they thought theyed found a warrior the could finally tangle with ...

Unfortunately it was metaphorical .. the Rainbow part of the name didnt seem to enlighten them , or the fact it was a pascifist group

heh yeah ok .. enough , now I`m just having fun

MikeK · Post by **MikeK** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:07 pm

I thought so , it`s a matter of perspective .

civilian target in freindly nation

If it occured in US waters it would be an act of terror .

why is this less an act of terror than the attack on the USS Cole?

Not perspective Marcus but targets and goals. The Cole wasn't really an act of terrorism in that it wasn't against civilians but an American warship and was done to send what AQ thought was an enemy without backbone packing just like in Somolia. We were in a guerilla war but for some reason wouldn't admit it. The French weren't primarily trying to scare away Green Peace but to take away their main base of operations that were getting in the their way. The other thing is Green Peace went out of their way to engage and in their own "peaceful" way thwarted French interest, which in some circles will get you removed.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:27 pm

Actually it was an act of terror against against Canucks. We did not however retailate . With this troublesome boat out of the way we were able return to that popular winter pastime of bashing in seal heads out on the ice floes.

The french did us a favour.Kind of made up for all that troublesome press we got from Bridget.

Valkenar · Post by **Valkenar** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:27 pm

Mills75 wrote:I don't want to generalize

At first I wasn't sure if this post was serious or not. In fact, I'm still not sure. But assuming it is, I'm curious what experiences you've had with french people that lead you to believe that they're a "a bunch of rude and wimpy fools?"

Stryke · Post by **Stryke** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 6:55 pm

Not perspective Marcus but targets and goals.

I disagree .

You could say that the Towers was a strategic target , they acheived there goal didnt they ?

If France wanted to excercise there rights they could of done so in open water , or better yet in french territorial water .

the whole excercise was to send a message and create fear , there were many other vessels heading to the Atoll .

Terrorisim by definition . Just because yopu may agree with the cause doesnt change the fact .

MikeK · Post by **MikeK** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:38 pm

Just because yopu may agree with the cause doesnt change the fact .

Marcus, What cause do I agree with?

You could say that the Towers was a strategic target , they acheived there goal didnt they?

Not really, they didn't as it had the opposite effect and backfired in their face. They knocked down some buildings, killed thousands and hurt the economy. Only the loss of those lives wasn't correctable. They have always been more succesful in getting the American public to complain by hitting military targets overseas than hitting here in the States. And even those operations have cost them.

If France wanted to excercise there rights they could of done so in open water , or better yet in french territorial water .

That's why I said it was an incredibly stupid and costly thing to do. Also France doesn't have any rights that I know of that would let them sink a watercraft the way they did.

the whole excercise was to send a message and create fear , there were many other vessels heading to the Atoll .

If anything it was a warning to what length the French would go to when protecting their interests. If they wanted to create real long term fear they could have used many other methods that would have really done the job like just setting off the nuke with all those boats around the atoll. The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior was a short term solution to a problem as it didn't hurt GP long term, wasn't intended to kill anyone (which could be why they executed it where they did) and even helped them raise more money.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:09 pm

I don't know what you want to call it, Marcus, but it WAS stupid. I remember that rather brazen act.

The French generally do what is good for the French. Their heavy/under-handed tactics also include getting oil credits under the table in exchange for supporting Hussein's release from U.N. sanctions. As they say, deja vu. I'm not surprised.

This happened in NZ waters probably because they thought they could get away with it. I wouldn't call that terrorism; I'd call that bullying on an international scale.

- Bill

Mills75 · Post by **Mills75** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:13 am

decided to retract everything I said in this thread afterall lol

Selective terrorists ?

Selective terrorists ?

lol

bash them seal heads!

Re: lol