Especially when the "occupiers" only become such because of being attacked, and these occupiers tried to give everything back in return for peace (after the Egyptians wouldn't accept Gaza being given back to them, cause they didn't want to deal with such a radicalized population).
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Under the shadow of the Iraq war, Israel practices asassination....
- Thread starter ARogueTrader
- Start date
Especially when the "occupiers" only become such because of being attacked, and these occupiers tried to give everything back in return for peace (after the Egyptians wouldn't accept Gaza being given back to them, cause they didn't want to deal with such a radicalized population).
Quote from 50 cent:
You claim to have no position but your position is clearly evident by your phrasing and your arguments.
We can clearly see which side you have taken, the only one who still can't clearly admit it is you! Read your own posts... israel assassinates under shadows... israel are "wild eyed crazies" while hamas simply has no choice.. and you really expect us to then assume that "you don't have a position"?
Your position is very clear and let me be the one to should "the king is naked" here: you support terror. and you use democracy (the regime which terror does its best to fight) to spread your word. and then you deny your own position.
So true!
Quote from resinate:
Industrial machine per se may not be key but is often associated with what is--- a nation.
A nation entitles something to lose, which gives force its leverage. What do you have to lose when you see yourself as occupied?
This is why history has no examples of force short of genocide working against terrorism and plenty of examples of it working against individuals and nations.
How is that? Many insurgencies and terrorist groups have been put down. They are doing a good job of it in the Philippines, Fujimora virtually eliminated the Shining Path (who now, without a tough president to challenge them, are making a minor comeback), and Colombia is making progress against FARC and ELN. And contrary to what you are saying, the government actually should have gotten tough sooner, and Pastrana's big mistake was trying to reason and appease these people, during which he ceded a Switzerland sized land that became nothing but a terrorist ground for recruiting, profiting (off more drugs), stockpiling and staging attacks. And working to take it back cost the military time, resources and many lives. And there are many other examples. So how are there "NO EXAMPLES OF FORCE SHORT OF GENOCIDE WORKING AGAINST TERRORISM????"
Quote from ARogueTrader:
The terrorists who flew the American Airline bombs into the twin towers had the exact same feelings you extol.
The terrorists who flew the plane were looking to kill tens of thousands of "infidels." They weren't trying to avoid civilians, they were looking to kill anyone and everyone they could who didn't see things exactly the way they did, with no tolerance for any other views. Big difference from anything Darkhorse is saying or would advocate.
And, by the way, the terrorists certainly weren't looking to reason or negotiate, as the Israelis have done with Egypt and tried to do, in very good faith, with the Palestinians.
Quote from ARogueTrader:
I think those who assassinate, rather than capture and bring to trial, are the wild eyed crazies.
Your example of Japan is weak. They were an industrial machine crushed by a more powerful industrial machine.
In this case we have one religious group fighting against another religious group.
In the current situation we have people strapping bombs onto their children, not trained Kamikaze pilots.
I don't view these people as wild eyed crazies, but rather a group that sees no reasonable alternative.
This is not a new conflict, the age old methods have failed over the ages.
Thos who assassinate, rather than "capture and bring to trial, are the wild eyed crazies," But those who seek to kill any and all civilians possible, and who refuse all negotiation (even when offered something beyond fair), are simply a "group that sees no reasonable alternative." Do you even try to be the least bit fair and reasonable, as you claim to be?
Quote from I Missed Boat:
How is that? Many insurgencies and terrorist groups have been put down. They are doing a good job of it in the Philippines, Fujimora virtually eliminated the Shining Path (who now, without a tough president to challenge them, are making a minor comeback), and Colombia is making progress against FARC and ELN. And contrary to what you are saying, the government actually should have gotten tough sooner, and Pastrana's big mistake was trying to reason and appease these people, during which he ceded a Switzerland sized land that became nothing but a terrorist ground for recruiting, profiting (off more drugs), stockpiling and staging attacks. And working to take it back cost the military time, resources and many lives. And there are many other examples. So how are there "NO EXAMPLES OF FORCE SHORT OF GENOCIDE WORKING AGAINST TERRORISM????"
I confess to not being as up to date on the above conflicts you mention. "Progress" rather than solved seems to characterize the above situations at best.
My point was that resolution of the core issues is what ends these types of conflicts rather than military force. The US used to have Puerto Rican terrorism when I was growing up as well as some anti Vietnam war terrorism. I think the Puerto Rican terror was resolved after a number of votes on independence, not bombing of Puerto Rican villages.
Do you believe that the Palestinians would still be sending suicide bombers to Israel if an independent Palestine was in existence?
Quote from darkhorse:
You capture a criminal and bring him to trial if you are dealing with crime. When you are involved in a war, the rules are different. Israel is at war with Hamas and any other group that would prefer Israel did not exist.
The industrial machine aspect doesn't matter. The point is that force can and does solve problems where dialogue failed and has a track record of doing so. The use of force can also deter further bloodshed, and thus spare lives on the whole, in certain situations.
Israel is not fighting Hamas as one religious group fighting another. They are fighting as a small country in a bad neighborhood tired of their neighbors trying to murder them.
The fact that children are the aggressors makes the current situation even worse, and creates an even more compelling argument for stopping the bastard leaders on the Palestinian side who are sending children instead of themselves. Think of it as capital punishment for crimes of infanticide if you like.
You see "no reasonable alternative" to strapping a bomb to a ten year old's chest and sending him to blow up a bus load of civilians? How the hell can child suicide bombers be a reasonable alternative to ANYTHING?
How's this for an alternative: Palestinians take their case to the World Courts and the UN blah blah, agree to binding arbitration, come to a resolution, and spend some time and effort trying to educate themselves and building a market economy with all the foreign aid they would get once they dropped the terrorism thing, instead of stewing in hatred and obsessing over how they can obliterate Israel.
The "age old methods have failed" because these terrorist assholes have been mollycoddled. No one has ever said hey Hamas: STOP this shit or we will KILL YOU. If you INSIST on being unreasonable, we will STOP YOU by KILLING YOU. Like I said, you don't negotiate with mongrel dogs.
Your response only strengthens my case.
And the funny thing is the World Court, which forced this case (since there mandate is to take only disputes that both sides agree to bring, and Israel did not agree here), is supposed to be an fair and impartial "COURT." Yet, before the case even began, the Arab members who help to judge began making harsh statements and taking a side.
As far as the foreign aid, the funny thing is that Israel (along with the US) offered tons of this aid themselves, in exchange for peace during the Oslo accords.
Hey ART, rather than waste your time here on those of us who have trouble following your fuzzy logic, why not do something really useful and go to Gaza City to serve as a human shield for the poor defenseless misunderstood peace-lovin' Hamas? In fact, why not take the rest of your cohorts in incoherence with you? In light of your sacrifice, we could start a collection to raise funds for your airfare here on ET. Indeed, I would bet that it would take no more than 5 minutes to raise the required sum. You game?
The terrorists mission was ultimately based in their faith, as is the fundamentalism of the Christian variety that is equally self righteous in nature.
Naturally most Americans of the Christian and Jewish variety feel their religion is right and superior to Muslims in their faith, just as strongly as the Muslims feel the the same way about Christians and Jews and their status as "infidels."
The question is, if they are willing to strap on a bomb for their God, does that make their faith stronger than "ours" if we are not willing to do the same?
If the roles were reversed, and they had the technology and power, what would we do, and would they call us barbaric?
Point being, that the conflict has its roots in faith, not in reason.
We ain't fighting the "Godless" communists this time, these are men with full faith in the God of Abraham.
The Qurâan identifies Allah as none other than the God to whom Abraham offered âsubmissionâ (âislam) in the episode Jews and Christians know so well from Genesis 22, the story of the binding of Isaac. As the paradigmatic Muslim or âsubmitter,â Abraham then made the original, paradigmatic pilgrimage to Mecca, Muslims believe, accompanied by the very son, Ishmael, whom Allah had rescued so dramatically.
President Bush said on November 20, 2003 that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
Speaking in London at a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush was asked his thoughts on how the war on terrorism and his promotion of freedom intersects with his Christian faith:
"I do say that freedom is the Almighty's gift to every person," Bush answered. "I also condition it by saying freedom is not America's gift to the world. It's much greater than that, of course. And I believe we worship the same God."
Naturally most Americans of the Christian and Jewish variety feel their religion is right and superior to Muslims in their faith, just as strongly as the Muslims feel the the same way about Christians and Jews and their status as "infidels."
The question is, if they are willing to strap on a bomb for their God, does that make their faith stronger than "ours" if we are not willing to do the same?
If the roles were reversed, and they had the technology and power, what would we do, and would they call us barbaric?
Point being, that the conflict has its roots in faith, not in reason.
We ain't fighting the "Godless" communists this time, these are men with full faith in the God of Abraham.
The Qurâan identifies Allah as none other than the God to whom Abraham offered âsubmissionâ (âislam) in the episode Jews and Christians know so well from Genesis 22, the story of the binding of Isaac. As the paradigmatic Muslim or âsubmitter,â Abraham then made the original, paradigmatic pilgrimage to Mecca, Muslims believe, accompanied by the very son, Ishmael, whom Allah had rescued so dramatically.
President Bush said on November 20, 2003 that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
Speaking in London at a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush was asked his thoughts on how the war on terrorism and his promotion of freedom intersects with his Christian faith:
"I do say that freedom is the Almighty's gift to every person," Bush answered. "I also condition it by saying freedom is not America's gift to the world. It's much greater than that, of course. And I believe we worship the same God."
Quote from I Missed Boat:
The terrorists who flew the plane were looking to kill tens of thousands of "infidels." They weren't trying to avoid civilians, they were looking to kill anyone and everyone they could who didn't see things exactly the way they did, with no tolerance for any other views. Big difference from anything Darkhorse is saying or would advocate.
And, by the way, the terrorists certainly weren't looking to reason or negotiate, as the Israelis have done with Egypt and tried to do, in very good faith, with the Palestinians.