billvon 2,990
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
yoram 0
yuri, yuri....life seems to be very simple for you. ahhh those imperialists of nowadays.....
how did you figure out so fast the US and Israeli goals and reasons of existing. amaaaaazing, so clearvoyant.
you, clever man, should open up a country,and tell us so we can be citizens of your paradise.
how did you figure out so fast the US and Israeli goals and reasons of existing. amaaaaazing, so clearvoyant.
you, clever man, should open up a country,and tell us so we can be citizens of your paradise.
Gawain 0
I see it this way, Israel pulled out of Southern Lebanon and out of Gaza in the interests of finding a final solution to deflate tensions and in the face the popular elections in these area and find the beginning of an era of peace.
How did that play out? Did it bring peace? NO.
How did the Palestinians and Hezbolah respond to Israel? They begin invasive, surgical, coordinated attacks and abduct Israeli defense force personnel, demanding prisoner exchange (while citing they would be given POW status). Was Israel rewarded with peace? No. They were attacked.
How did that play out? Did it bring peace? NO.
How did the Palestinians and Hezbolah respond to Israel? They begin invasive, surgical, coordinated attacks and abduct Israeli defense force personnel, demanding prisoner exchange (while citing they would be given POW status). Was Israel rewarded with peace? No. They were attacked.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
It's that reason alone that really makes me believe that peace isn't what they really want, ever.
I think their goal is to start an all-out war between Israel, the US, UK, and Lebanon, Syria, Iran, etc, and after Isreal's latest strikes, they're well on their way to reaching that goal.
I think their goal is to start an all-out war between Israel, the US, UK, and Lebanon, Syria, Iran, etc, and after Isreal's latest strikes, they're well on their way to reaching that goal.
kbordson 8
I think it could get very sticky very quickly especially if recent trends continue. There are several countries in that territory that are currently friendly to western society, but if an open war began (as opposed to these "battles" being fought), then true loyalties would have to be declared. It's likely that most of the Arabic countries would band together. That would be war to avoid, not just for the sake of lost life (cuz outrager knows so well the heart of America) but also for the sake of failure of a peaceful attempt to resolve these issues.
Karen
Karen
Quote>While I agree that Isreali troops have been guilty of misconduct
>in many cases (much like US and Canadian troops) I do sympathise
>with their position.
I do as well. They are in a nearly impossible situation.
>I would certainly not feel like limmiting my response when the
> people I am up against wish me dead simply because of my religion . . .
Nor would I. But I would because that is what moral people do. They limit their response to those who are guilty (or at least do their best to so limit it.)
>In that case it may as well play to win.
Define "win" in this case. (I assume you do not mean a successful genocide.)
Clinton also felt this way when the US embassys were bombed. Osama laughed at his patheticly proportional response.
What would an appropriate response be in Israel's case?
www.FourWheelerHB.com
QuoteGive em hell Israel, give em hell.
Yeah, cause that is guaranteed to work! All it does is contributes to the (ahem), downward spiral.
Coreece: "You sound like some skinheads I know, but your prejudice is with Christians, not niggers..."
yoram 0
so for you being moral is letting the butcher slaughtering you? aren't those guys that are supposed to rule Lebanon responsible for those things that are going on in their country? shouldn't they protect their border against whatever terrorist group and their harmful intentions? so again who is responsible for letting this hezbollah milicia parading so openly? so for you Mr, morality is just being a working horse and seeing only the first meter in front of you? and not seeing who is really behind all this and running this show? the lebanese government is letting it happen for whatever reasons: Iran and Syria are amongst them and the whole world knows it.
so why don't you spare us your lesson on morality? and let us defend ourselves without your hypocritical critics.Genocide is not the answer. and for the sake of this forum don't use such terms. You surely don't know what is is....we do!!!!
so why don't you spare us your lesson on morality? and let us defend ourselves without your hypocritical critics.Genocide is not the answer. and for the sake of this forum don't use such terms. You surely don't know what is is....we do!!!!
billvon 2,990
>so for you being moral is letting the butcher slaughtering you?
Nope. Go after the butcher, not his family/friends/guy down the hallway/guy driving by/some guy with the same last name/someone who looks like him. That's what moral people do.
Nope. Go after the butcher, not his family/friends/guy down the hallway/guy driving by/some guy with the same last name/someone who looks like him. That's what moral people do.
QuoteQuoteGive em hell Israel, give em hell.
Yeah, cause that is guaranteed to work! All it does is contributes to the (ahem), downward spiral.
heh I like that.
What would you suggest that Israel do? Nothing?
www.FourWheelerHB.com
QuoteIf anybody wants to understand why US or Israel is disliked or hated so much by so many around the globe, one can first look at an easier target: terrorists.
...
What matters is they don't just disregard life and kill innocents on a huge scale that terrorists can't even approach. They also separate life into valuable "western" people, and dispensable subhumans on the other side that nobody even bothers to count.
What makes you think the other side doesn't similarly separate life into valuable Muslim people and dispensable subhuman infidels/occupiers/aggressors? You think terrorists hold the lives of Jews inside a bus or nightclub in high regard?
I've posted here before about the tendency to dehumanize the enemy, and I haven't seen the slightest indication that it's strictly a trait of the US and Israel. It seems more like a human method of pre-justifying the taking of life. By considering the victims of a planned attack subhuman, one avoids feeling guilty over their intentions/actions.
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
Richards 0
QuoteIn that case it may as well play to win.
Define "win" in this case. (I assume you do not mean a successful genocide.)
I don't know if I can define it that easily. I guess I mean I would treat it as a total war. I do not agree with responding to every provocation as that is clearly what some elements would want, and those elements could be dealt with by other means. If it became evident that a neighboring state was allowing elements to operate within their borders to plan attacks against me I would start by using diplomatic means, but if those failed and the attacks continued I would give an ultimatum to that country and go in if they did not comply. I can't say any good could neccessarily come out of this (all war is horrible) but I could not allow something like that to continue. In terms of playing to win I figure going full out against all military, government, infrastructure, and terrorist targets until they capitulate and come to the negotiating table. It is impossible to say that without coming across as brutal but I would not see any other way. I gues I am glad the decision does not rest on my shoulders because no-one responsible for dealing with this is going to come out looking good.
Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
outrager 6
QuoteHow did the Palestinians and Hezbolah respond to Israel? They begin invasive, surgical, coordinated attacks and abduct Israeli defense force personnel, demanding prisoner exchange (while citing they would be given POW status).
It is quite allright for Israel to abduct palestinians, and for US to abduct everybody (without giving POW status). One can only see this as a fair, albeit futile game. This responce-to-their responce-to-their responce never ends and has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. The subject was value of life.
We already know that "terrorists" are evil. The point was not to give them any benefit of doubt - there is none.
The point is their opponents are equally cynical and they put very little value on human life, except for "the chosen ones". As well as it is camouflaged, the underlying facts are not far from Nazi philosophy. I believe this is what pisses off most of the world so much.
As far as peace in Middle East - there's absolutely no chance for it now, and both sides are equally guilty. Given that, a second best fair solution would be mutual annihilation.
bsbd!
Yuri.
yoram 0
again the same "moral"
try to read more carefully what i wrote
and may be try harder...to understand.
try to read more carefully what i wrote
and may be try harder...to understand.
billvon 2,990
>I guess I mean I would treat it as a total war.
Right - but again, how do you win? You could occupy 'enemy areas' again to attempt to preserve peace, but then you're there forever. And since there will be fighting every day, you'll end up losing a LOT of people.
>In terms of playing to win I figure going full out against all
>military, government, infrastructure, and terrorist targets until they
>capitulate and come to the negotiating table.
Who would come to the table? Every arab in the area? Not possible. The arabs who will keep fighting? They'd rather fight. The remnants of Hezbollah? Perhaps. But if they become a puppet of Israel, then all the fighters left out there will pledge their allegiance to the next group that comes along, and the cycle will continue. (And now the Israelis are a lot easier to attack; they're right there.)
The problem is that you're not fighting a cohesive government that will surrender and the war will end. You're fighting a fragmented ragtag bunch of paramilitary types; often there's not even any leadership to get them to stop fighting (even if you could convince them to stop fighting to begin with.)
Right - but again, how do you win? You could occupy 'enemy areas' again to attempt to preserve peace, but then you're there forever. And since there will be fighting every day, you'll end up losing a LOT of people.
>In terms of playing to win I figure going full out against all
>military, government, infrastructure, and terrorist targets until they
>capitulate and come to the negotiating table.
Who would come to the table? Every arab in the area? Not possible. The arabs who will keep fighting? They'd rather fight. The remnants of Hezbollah? Perhaps. But if they become a puppet of Israel, then all the fighters left out there will pledge their allegiance to the next group that comes along, and the cycle will continue. (And now the Israelis are a lot easier to attack; they're right there.)
The problem is that you're not fighting a cohesive government that will surrender and the war will end. You're fighting a fragmented ragtag bunch of paramilitary types; often there's not even any leadership to get them to stop fighting (even if you could convince them to stop fighting to begin with.)
outrager 6
QuoteWhat makes you think the other side doesn't similarly separate life into valuable Muslim people and dispensable subhuman infidels/occupiers/aggressors?
Uh, you must have not read the post - it states that the other side doesn't value any life much. We are not defending terrorists or fanatics, we are showing that their opponents lower themself down to the same barbaric level, with a peculiar Nazi twist.
bsbd!
Yuri.
Quote>Once again a nice statement of genralization you can't back up
It's not a generalization. Right now, those two countries (the US and Israel) are doing more destroying than any other. Doesn't mean that will be true in a year, but it is true now.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
last I checked Israel and the US were not engaged in the type of quasi-genocide being conducted on the Chechens by Russia, or the genocide by the Sudanese on other Sudanese (Muslim North vs Christian/Anamist South), or even the Sunni and Shia Iraqis on each other.
Having said that, I do think Iraq is a bloody nightmare and the situation in Lebanon is looking grimmer by the hour....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060714/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_israel;_ylt=AnsC7lwGbw4lDyt2s2qllYys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD...
yoram 0
ahhh what a humanist....Jj rousseau would have been very proud of you
Amazon 7
QuoteAs far as peace in Middle East - there's absolutely no chance for it now, and both sides are equally guilty. Given that, a second best fair solution would be mutual annihilation.
I guess that works for you and the Chechens too....
yoram 0
that was obvious coming from you wsn't it
yoram 0
it is called the sense for survival you know
outrager 6
Quoteahhh what a humanist....Jj rousseau would have been very proud of you
Find a fault with this logic
A third and final choice to settle this matter is for one side to annihilate the other, forever carrying the stigma of genocide.
Should've taken that piece of land in Africa, eh?
bsbd!
Yuri.
Richards 0
QuoteQuote>I guess I mean I would treat it as a total war.
Right - but again, how do you win? You could occupy 'enemy areas' again to attempt to preserve peace, but then you're there forever. And since there will be fighting every day, you'll end up losing a LOT of people.
I would not go for an occupation as that is a type of conflict that allows a technically inferior enemy to mitigate our technical advantage. I simply mean overwhelming force with a reasonable attempt to minimize collateral damage followed by a withdrawal which will hopefully result in someone realizing (while trying to conduct damage control) that an attack against us is not worth it. I realize that for many this will be the seed for new hatred but it could not be helped. In some cases a great deal of damage needs to be done before the other side realises that it is not worth it and is willing to back down. It took a couple of horrible world wars for people in Europe to realize that problems need to be dealt with by some other means. Perhaps that may be the only option Isreal has. It seems that they have wanted a peace settlement but the other side always drags up old greivances to block the peace process. I realize that negotiating is better than fighting but sometimes you need to spell that out for the other side.The problem is that you're not fighting a cohesive government that will surrender and the war will end. You're fighting a fragmented ragtag bunch of paramilitary types; often there's not even any leadership to get them to stop fighting (even if you could convince them to stop fighting to begin with.)Quote>In terms of playing to win I figure going full out against all
>military, government, infrastructure, and terrorist targets until they
>capitulate and come to the negotiating table.
Who would come to the table? Every arab in the area? Not possible. The arabs who will keep fighting? They'd rather fight. The remnants of Hezbollah? Perhaps. But if they become a puppet of Israel, then all the fighters left out there will pledge their allegiance to the next group that comes along, and the cycle will continue. (And now the Israelis are a lot easier to attack; they're right there.)***
Only the arabs in the country that we were hitting would be required at the negotiating table. Hopefully they would not be so quick to support the next bunch of rabble-rousers who wanted to stir the pot.
In most cases it appears that the governments of the neighboring countries support these rag-tag groups of fighters implicitly (if not explicitly) and could be doing more to curb their actions. They may not be able to stop them completely but they could at leat try to cooperate with Isreal by limmiting these groups to the best of their ability.
I realise that just about anyone can find a million flaws in my argument and be right because there is no "right" solution. It just seems that when you are faced with somone who is hell bent on doing harm and will not agree to peace then in the short term fighting back is the "least worst" option. It appears that nothing else seems to work over there right now.
Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
outrager 6
QuoteQuoteAs far as peace in Middle East - there's absolutely no chance for it now, and both sides are equally guilty. Given that, a second best fair solution would be mutual annihilation.
I guess that works for you and the Chechens too....
Yes, it works the same way for Chechen problem, and most other nation/religion/land conflicts.
Not sure how it works for me, since i'm not a part of either one.
bsbd!
Yuri.
>in many cases (much like US and Canadian troops) I do sympathise
>with their position.
I do as well. They are in a nearly impossible situation.
>I would certainly not feel like limmiting my response when the
> people I am up against wish me dead simply because of my religion . . .
Nor would I. But I would because that is what moral people do. They limit their response to those who are guilty (or at least do their best to so limit it.)
>In that case it may as well play to win.
Define "win" in this case. (I assume you do not mean a successful genocide.)
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites