Pelican Parts Forums

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)
-   -   Unconditional surrender, The Isreal solution (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/296343-unconditional-surrender-isreal-solution.html)

cool_chick 08-02-2006 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tobster1911
And they are doing a great job of it. Very supportive and protective. Kinda like a mother hen........
Generally, they are. What you're seeing is extreme cases, and not the majority, where they are. That doen't sell.

techweenie 08-02-2006 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cool_chick
Generally, they are. What you're seeing is extreme cases, and not the majority, where they are. That doen't sell.

The radical Islam that's being promoted in the news has not been embraced in the middle east -- at least it hadn't until the Jihadists moved their targets outside the middle east and attacked the West. Now, a failed movement has gotten much stronger and gained international prominence -- still without widespread support in most Arab countries.

john70t 08-02-2006 10:28 AM

ME peace can probably only be acheived by the polaritys at this point unfortunately.

A) Israel can finish the wall on the 67 lines and build a single bridge across (easy to destroy), then push the Palestinians out and not use them for cheap labor.
--Of course this would mean Israel would have to abide by international mandate such as not sabotaging Palestinians buisnesses, giving fair passage, respecting air rights, no assasignations, etc... which the Likudists will never do. Their plan is to keep the conflict going and with every victory sqeeze a few hundred yards furthur until a nice smooth border is acheived.
--Unfortunately Palestinians breed like rats and haven't integrated well into the surrounding arab countries(i.e. Jordainian coup attempt).

B) Israel can start an all-out full scale war. No arab state have nukes yet so now is a good time. Level all the major cities of Syria and Iran like London, Tokyo, Berlin, Hamburg and Dresden. Civilians? What's that? Back to the stone age.
--Only problem is that in 50 years the arabs will have nukes and a memory. and a close target. They also might have more Russian weapons than they've let on, and an all out war would damage the regional enviroment for quite while.

Yes, the problem is in Islams backwardness and blaming the rest of the world for their own lack of progress, but it's also in the westernized worlds lack of cultural respect and crass exploitation practices that they fight against.
Both sides are acting like whiny, *****y, bickery unsure frenchwomen and I personally have no sympathy for cheats and liers. If they were Japanese, there would be a compromise hammered and then everyone would live with it.
This does not involve the US.

Tim Hancock 08-02-2006 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cool_chick
Generally, they are. What you're seeing is extreme cases, and not the majority, where they are. That doen't sell.
Here we go again. "My friend is Muslim and he told me..........."

Someone page JoeA and tell him he needs to post some more of his real world experiences with the religion of "peace" again. ;)

speeder 08-02-2006 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Denis,

For chuckles, I was just trying to get Pat go on about how we should appease the ME by evacuating the whole ME, 100% so that they will quit "disliking" us. I for one do not think that the radical islamists would suddenly change their attitude or actions towards western society simply by pulling out.

This simplistic attitude of leave them alone and they will leave us alone is flawed. The radical islamists want us dead whether we leave them alone or not.

PS: I rarely watch Fox news :)

OK, fair enough. From what I can glean here, Pat wants the U.S. out of all foreign countries, (not just the ME), because he is an isolationist. He believes that doing so would instantly eliminate all causes for conflict w/ the U.S. I do not think that his solution is completely workable or realistic or even desirable, but there is a great solution somewhere between the current policies and his plan. I see nothing wrong w/ having allies in the world and being a superpower that protects these smaller allies, but there are sensible limits. Our policy of leaving troops and bases in Saudi Arabia, for instance, was not only unnecessary from a strategic standpoint but also a hugely arrogant and miscalculated move that inflamed radical muslims. There are over a billion muslims in the world, within any group this large there are going to be extremists and violent over-throw types, including Christianity. My Catholic distant relatives in Northern Ireland are known for their terrorism, as were the early Israelis. The only pertinent factor is how much traction these extremists get among the general population of their group, and that wholly depends on how extreme the perceived injustice is towards them combined w/ desperation about their prospects for fighting it using "conventional" means.

It is in our interest to try to reduce radicalism in the muslim world, and the people currently in charge seem to have the opposite agenda. Why? Beats the schit out of me. Maybe someone is profiting from the current wars. It's a mystery. Anyone who believes that we are in any kind of position to "beat some sense" into these billion+ people is just hugely ignorant, IMO. This is a time for big brains to step in, unfortunately Bush and the Israeli politicians both suffer from a form of machismo where they will do absolutely anything not to appear "weak". Reason and good strategy take a powder with this constraint.

techweenie 08-02-2006 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by john70t
ME peace can probably only be acheived by the polaritys at this point unfortunately.

A) Israel can finish the wall on the 67 lines and build a single bridge across (easy to destroy), then push the Palestinians out and not use them for cheap labor.
--Of course this would mean Israel would have to abide by international mandate such as not sabotaging Palestinians buisnesses, giving fair passage, respecting air rights, no assasignations, etc... which the Likudists will never do. Their plan is to keep the conflict going and with every victory sqeeze a few hundred yards furthur until a nice smooth border is acheived.
--Unfortunately Palestinians breed like rats and haven't integrated well into the surrounding arab countries(i.e. Jordainian coup attempt).

B) Israel can start an all-out full scale war. No arab state have nukes yet so now is a good time. Level all the major cities of Syria and Iran like London, Tokyo, Berlin, Hamburg and Dresden. Civilians? What's that? Back to the stone age.
--Only problem is that in 50 years the arabs will have nukes and a memory. and a close target. They also might have more Russian weapons than they've let on, and an all out war would damage the regional enviroment for quite while.

Yes, the problem is in Islams backwardness and blaming the rest of the world for their own lack of progress, but it's also in the westernized worlds lack of cultural respect and crass exploitation practices that they fight against.
Both sides are acting like whiny, *****y, bickery unsure frenchwomen and I personally have no sympathy for cheats and liers. If they were Japanese, there would be a compromise hammered and then everyone would live with it.
This does not involve the US.

Boy howdy. I'm in about 90% agreement with the above.

That we should not be involved is something I agree with.

We are, however, involved. We give money to all the parties; we have trade with all of them. Unfortunately, we give many times more to Israel than all the others combined, and are openly giving the Israelis weapons they are using against the Lebanese in a program of collective punishment.

techweenie 08-02-2006 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by speeder

It is in our interest to try to reduce radicalism in the muslim world, and the people currently in charge seem to have the opposite agenda. Why? Beats the schit out of me. Maybe someone is profiting from the current wars. It's a mystery. Anyone who believes that we are in any kind of position to "beat some sense" into these billion+ people is just hugely ignorant, IMO. This is a time for big brains to step in, unfortunately Bush and the Israeli politicians both suffer from a form of machismo where they will do absolutely anything not to appear "weak". Reason and good strategy take a powder with this constraint.

There are those (uber cynics) who think we went into Iraq to protect the high price of oil. That Saddam had threatened to increase production rates to bring down the price per barrel and also (old rumor) to 'dump the dollar' and link his oil prices to the Euro. Dubya pulicly stated his goal of removing Saddam in 1999, after all.

But what does this have to do with radical Muslims? They provided the excuse. First, they provided the excuse for mobilizing the US armed forces against a group that may not have had even a dozen "members" on 9/11. Al Quaeda, remember, has not been tightly tied to the events of 9/11. Al Quaeda has never claimed responsibility for 9/11 although they have claimed responsibility for many other attacks before and after 9/11.

Most of radical Muslim activity takes place against other Muslims or other people within their home countries. There have been only a handful of attacks on foreign soil and, IIRC, all took place after the US made al Quaeda into a formidable foe in the eyes of the world. In a very real way, the US has been largely responsible for the growth of al Quaeda.

dheinz 08-02-2006 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
It comes down to this again.

Someone posted here a long time ago that a fundamental tenet of Islam (not "radical" Islam, whatever that is, just plain old Islam) is that ALL infidels (i.e. non-Islams) must either be:

1) Converted to Islam.

or

2) Killed.

There's no other choices. "Leave the infidels alone," for example, isn't one of the choices.

Now, when I read that, I thought, "Wow, that sounds pretty wack! I'm sure someone will post and conclusively demonstrate why that isn't correct."

But no one even challenged the statement.

So I thought, "OK, people must have missed that one," and asked specifically if the statement was true.

Again, no one disputed it.

I've asked it again several times, and no one has ever disputed the truth of the statement.

I'm no expert on Islam, like many here apparently are. So, one of you experts edumacate me. Is the statement true or untrue, and why?

I'm no expert, but this is something that I received via email....

Living in the Detroit area I can concur with this. We have more Muslims
in our neighborhood monthly and they are very active in the schools,
preaching all the time about their "rights" and how tolerant we should be of
their faith. However toleration is a one-way street with them. We are to
learn about Ramadan, etc., but they are not to learn about Easter or
Christmas. What is below is very true. "In God We Trust."

The Basics of Islam

This is a must read -- it's short but very informative!

The Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion per capita in the
United States, especially in the minority races!

Allah or Jesus? by Rick Mathes

Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for
maintaining my state prison security clearance.

During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers
representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained
each of their beliefs.

I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say.

The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a
video. After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers.

When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked:
"Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and
clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels
of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all
Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case,
can you give me the definition of an infidel?"

There was no disagreement with my statements and without hesitation, he
replied, "Nonbelievers!"

I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of
Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they
can go to Heaven. Is that correct?"

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to
that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie
jar.

He sheepishly replied, "Yes."

I then stated, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope
John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr.
Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!"

The Imam was speechless.

I continued, "I also have a problem with being your friend when you and
your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask you
a question. Would you rather have your Allah who tells you to kill me in
order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am
going to Heaven and He wants you to be with me?"

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head.

Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the "Diversification"
training seminar were not happy with Rick's way of dealing with the Islamic
Imam and exposing the truth about the Muslim's beliefs.

I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with
the liberal justice system, liberal media, and the ACLU, there is no way
this will be widely publicized.

. This is a true story and
the author, Rick Mathes, is a well-known leader in prison ministry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

techweenie 08-02-2006 11:07 AM

Prison ministry leaders are always pretty reliable sources for comparative religion studies.

:rolleyes:

Also, the account has been discredited here:

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/rickmathes.html

speeder 08-02-2006 11:30 AM

Wow, now all we need is for that extremely offensive image to be removed/re-posted and no more Ron. WTF are you thinking there, homey? Influencing hearts and minds, are we?

RoninLB 08-02-2006 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by speeder
Wow, now all we need is for that extremely offensive image to be removed/re-posted and no more Ron.

WTF are you thinking there, homey? Influencing hearts and minds, are we?




Let me know what you start thinking when your neighborhood gets bombed.

speeder 08-02-2006 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by techweenie
Prison ministry leaders are always pretty reliable sources for comparative religion studies.

:rolleyes:

Also, the account has been discredited here:

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/rickmathes.html

That's funny. I thought that "email" had about as much credibility as Baghdad Bob when I was reading it. People fall for this schit? Scary. :rolleyes:

speeder 08-02-2006 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RoninLB
Let me know what you start thinking when your neighborhood gets bombed.
If it does, I'll blame it on you.

Tim Hancock 08-02-2006 11:36 AM

Yeah, that pic shows that the islamo terrorists are the barbarians. Stay on topic. The US and the Israelis are the bad guys. :rolleyes:

Tim Hancock 08-02-2006 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by speeder
Wow, now all we need is for that extremely offensive image to be removed/re-posted and no more Ron. WTF are you thinking there, homey? Influencing hearts and minds, are we?
Careful Ron, if enough people complain about you like they did Mul, they might just be able to knock off another right leaning Pelican. ;)

techweenie 08-02-2006 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Yeah, that pic shows that the islamo terrorists are the barbarians. Stay on topic. The US and the Israelis are the bad guys. :rolleyes:
Makes as much sense as showing pictures of the detainees killed in US custody.

The few abusive soldiers (and contractors) at Abu Ghraib do not represent all "Christians" any more than the barbarians who chop off Westerners' heads represent "Muslims."

cool_chick 08-02-2006 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RoninLB
Let me know what you start thinking when your neighborhood gets bombed.
If my "neighborhood" gets bombed, we'll know our money spent on defense was a big waste of buckage....

Tim Hancock 08-02-2006 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by techweenie
Makes as much sense as showing pictures of the detainees killed in US custody.

The few abusive soldiers (and contractors) at Abu Ghraib do not represent all "Christians" any more than the barbarians who chop off Westerners' heads represent "Muslims."

If you truly equate the Abu Ghraib prisoner treatment with the kidnapping/beheadings, then I have no reason to waste any more of my time.

Carry on, oh great defenders of Islam. Time for me to hop in the 100+ degree car and drive home.

fastpat 08-02-2006 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Denis,

For chuckles, I was just trying to get Pat go on about how we should appease the ME by evacuating the whole ME,

Evacuating? That implies either ownership or some other "right to be there", when in fact there is no ownership or the right to be there on the part of the US government.

Additionaloly, there is no power granted the federal government by the US constitution to be there either.

Quote:

100% so that they will quit "disliking" us. I for one do not think that the radical islamists would suddenly change their attitude or actions towards western society simply by pulling out.
Nor do I think that muslims will immediately forget US government terror, terror that has been perpetrated upon them for decades. I can reliably, by self evident facts, tell you that remaining in the mideast and waging terror campaigns today and into the future will not make them "stop hating us" at all.

Quote:

This simplistic attitude of leave them alone and they will leave us alone is flawed. The radical islamists want us dead whether we leave them alone or not.

PS: I rarely watch Fox news :)
They want the people that have been terrorizing their lands for over 80 years to leave them alone. Some of them saw an opportunity to bring that terrorism home to the US government's backyard and took it. It appears it is you with the simplistic idea that waging a terror campaign in the mideast will work, you have 80 years of history that say you aren't just wrong; but idiotically, dangerously, and murderously wrong.

fastpat 08-02-2006 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
If you truly equate the Abu Ghraib prisoner treatment with the kidnapping/beheadings, then I have no reason to waste any more of my time.
I can and will equate the bombing campaign with beheadings. Bombs tear people to shreds, and in fact is much more "grusome" than a simple beheading.

The US government's bombing campaign in Iraq is 100's of times worse than all the beheadings of US government thugs and it's mercenary army combined.

speeder 08-02-2006 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
If you truly equate the Abu Ghraib prisoner treatment with the kidnapping/beheadings, then I have no reason to waste any more of my time.

Carry on, oh great defenders of Islam. Time for me to hop in the 100+ degree car and drive home.

Who is defending Islam? Show me the post. If that is the kind of strawman boloney that is necessary to keep your end of the argument going, isn't that a problem? :rolleyes:

And as for the abuses at AG and other military prisons, dead is dead. It does not matter whether you were hung up by your wrists behind your back or beheaded. As barbaric as beheading (and filming it) is, I would rather be decapitated then tortured to death any day of the week. Torture is the most inhumane act that humans are capable of, period. And Bush does not have a problem w/ it, it seems. If my neighborhood gets bombed, I'll blame it on the torturers and their supporters.

fastpat 08-02-2006 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
It comes down to this again.

Someone posted here a long time ago that a fundamental tenet of Islam (not "radical" Islam, whatever that is, just plain old Islam) is that ALL infidels (i.e. non-Islams) must either be:

1) Converted to Islam.

or

2) Killed.

There's no other choices. "Leave the infidels alone," for example, isn't one of the choices.

Your analogy, if indeed that's what it was, is apparently lost on the Bush'ists in the White House. The only country in the 20th century being taken by muslims via conquest is being helped by the Bush'ists. That country is Albania, by illegal Albanian immigrants in the Serbian province of Kosovo.

There isn't a single other country in the mideast being taken by conquest by muslims.

We could go to the Pacific Rim countries and see small countries being taken by large countries in which muslims rule. East Timor and Bali among them, but there again, the US government has aided and abetted those conquests as well.

Sort of quashes your theory I'd say.

speeder 08-02-2006 12:02 PM

And BTW, I only concern myself w/ the morality of my own side in a conflict, not the behavior of the other party so that I can use it as a BS excuse to do some torturing. The same people who squeal like stuck pigs around here when anyone suggests moral equivalency between sides in a conflict are the first to use the exact same rationalisation for an "anything goes" policy against enemies. It's a freaking joke from a debating standpoint.

gaijindabe 08-02-2006 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fastpat

They want the people that have been terrorizing their lands for over 80 years to leave them alone.

Soon, very soon. We will not be terrorizing them with trillions of petro dollars much longer.

No more air conditioned cities in the desert. No more third world slaves. No more allowing their restless and excess populations to immigrate. Left alone indeed. They can slowly sink back into the sand..

They will look back on the age between the Ottomans and future Persian/Shia rule as a golden one...

widebody911 08-02-2006 12:33 PM

Explain.

Quote:

Originally posted by gaijindabe
Soon, very soon. We will not be terrorizing them with trillions of petro dollars much longer.

No more air conditioned cities in the desert. No more third world slaves. No more allowing their restless and excess populations to immigrate. Left alone indeed. They can slowly sink back into the sand..

They will look back on the age between the Ottomans and future Persian/Shia rule as a golden one...


gaijindabe 08-02-2006 12:52 PM

Well, I dont think Pat means the Israelis. They would have about 1% of the land from the Atlantic coast to the border of Persia.. They could not be "terrorizing their lands".

So if it is the West - well Europe, North America and the rest of the world will be pretty much done with them when the oil runs out. This great money transfer will stop and then what are they going to do for a living??

They were freed from Ottoman rule after WWI and soon the equally foreign Persians (Iranians) are likely to be in control of much of the Middle East in the way they are now calling the shots in Syria and Lebanon. Once they have the bomb - who is going to stop them?

As for the zillions in petro-dollars, how much is left and how long until the $$ runs out?

fastpat 08-02-2006 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gaijindabe
Well, I dont think Pat means the Israelis. They would have about 1% of the land from the Atlantic coast to the border of Persia.. They could not be "terrorizing their lands".
For the most part, Israel is a european state on land stolen from arabs over the last 100 years by europeans in one method or another.

Quote:

So if it is the West - well Europe, North America and the rest of the world will be pretty much done with them when the oil runs out. This great money transfer will stop and then what are they going to do for a living??

They were freed from Ottoman rule after WWI and soon the equally foreign Persians (Iranians) are likely to be in control of much of the Middle East in the way they are now calling the shots in Syria and Lebanon. Once they have the bomb - who is going to stop them?

As for the zillions in petro-dollars, how much is left and how long until the $$ runs out?
Under the worst case prediction, that would be at least 70 years. Under the best case prediction, something over 500 years.

America currently meets about 7-8% of it's annual petroleum requirement from mideast sources. Since that is true, those that need it more need to secure their supply, we Americans need to limit the US government's involvement on behalf of other countries or US corporations wanting free (i.e. taxpayer funded) security for their investments in foreign oil fields.

Tim Hancock 08-02-2006 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by speeder
Who is defending Islam?
Have you not read right here in this forum, some claim that the terrorists are justified to purposely target and kill innocents due to former US ME policy?

Arguing about how to best deal with the ME makes sense. Claiming that acts of terror against US citizens is somehow justified OTOH, is just disgusting.


I understand why Pat spews this crap. He hates the US govt with a passion (he probably got screwed somehow by the govt at some point in his life). But I truly do not understand how some can equate barbarous acts of terrorism purposely directed at innocents with military strikes aimed at taking down thugs.

speeder 08-02-2006 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Have you not read right here in this forum, some claim that the terrorists are justified to purposely target and kill innocents due to former US ME policy?

Arguing about how to best deal with the ME makes sense. Claiming that acts of terror against US citizens is somehow justified OTOH, is just disgusting.


I understand why Pat spews this crap. He hates the US govt with a passion (he probably got screwed somehow by the govt at some point in his life). But I truly do not understand how some can equate barbarous acts of terrorism purposely directed at innocents with military strikes aimed at taking down thugs.

You need to talk to Red Beard or some of the other right-wingers here about the concept of "innocents" in a war zone. Somehow I do not think that financial mercenaries working for Halliburton in occupied Iraq would fit their qualifications.

Tim Hancock 08-02-2006 02:57 PM

OK Denis, I guess this means you cannot comprehend where I am coming from.

speeder 08-02-2006 03:00 PM

I thought that you were talking about most of the American non-military victims of insurgents/terrorists in Iraq. That would pretty much cover any beheadings mentioned above.

Tim Hancock 08-02-2006 03:23 PM

I was talking about them along with any other attacks on CIVILIANS by islamo terrorists. Equating military attacks with terrorist attacks is really a pretty simple concept to comprehend. There are those that see them as different in nature and there are those who see no difference.

It is fairly obvious which way you see it. Another good example is how some see Israeli attacks on Hamas terrorists as heinous yet they see suicide attacks to a passenger bus or shopping center as somehow justified. Both are tragic, but one is intended to eliminate a threat while the other is just done to kill as many innocent civilians as possible.

I truly do not understand how some civilized people cannot see ANY difference. I often wonder if they do realize a difference but due to their political persuation, they just won't admit it.

speeder 08-02-2006 03:35 PM

You are either intentionally mis-characterising my positions or failing to understand what I, and others have written. The issue is not Israeli "attacks on Hamas terrorists", it is Israel dropping hundreds of bombs on populated areas of a city w/o regard for civilian casualties. There is quite a difference, and you are either failing to make the distinction intentionally or otherwise.

My sister-in-law is a civilian NGO relief worker in Beirut right now, (and yes, she knows how risky it is), there is approximately zero chance of her being killed by the Hezbollah "terrorists" and a very large chance of her being killed by an Israeli bomb dropped from a U.S. supplied jet. Neither side is clean in this fight, I would be solidly on the side of Israel if they employed morally defensible tactics. But they do not.

nostatic 08-02-2006 03:43 PM

I have never argued that terrorists killing civilians was/is justified based on past/current policy. I have however stated that one can find motivation for it based on policy. There is a difference. I think that understanding the motivation of the players is critical for trying to figure out solutions (plural). If you just are blind with rage and lash back, you might get lucky and end it, but things could also get worse. You can come to the same solution (bomb the crap out of them) but doing so from an informed position is highly preferred. The path matters...

RoninLB 08-02-2006 03:51 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN4AL-AOyfs

Tim Hancock 08-02-2006 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by speeder
You are either intentionally mis-characterising my positions or failing to understand what I, and others have written. The issue is not Israeli "attacks on Hamas terrorists", it is Israel dropping hundreds of bombs on populated areas of a city w/o regard for civilian casualties. There is quite a difference, and you are either failing to make the distinction intentionally or otherwise.




I am not trying "mis-characterize" you. Your responses to my statements tell me plain and clear where you stand.

Nostatic, I can tell at least by your response that you understand the difference between motivation and justification. I can understand your reasoning about policies affecting the motivation for terrorism. (not that you should care what I think) :D

Speeder, I think it is safe to say that my right wing opinions and your ????wing opinions will never coincide when it comes to picking sides in a fight.

speeder 08-02-2006 05:02 PM

I don't agree; I respect many of your opinions and think that you are a good person. We would agree on plenty face-to-face, I'm sure of it.

I guess this means that I am not agreeing to disagree w/ you?;)

Also, NS has possibly encapsulated my feelings better than I did myself. There is a lot of misunderstanding that goes on in this here cyber communication deal.

Rob Channell 08-02-2006 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
This simplistic attitude of leave them alone and they will leave us alone is flawed. The radical islamists want us dead whether we leave them alone or not.


Spoken like a man with a clue.......

I agree, Tim.

fastpat 08-02-2006 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Have you not read right here in this forum, some claim that the terrorists are justified to purposely target and kill innocents due to former US ME policy?
Anyone in the mideast has the right to defend their land(s) from an invader, be it the US government or one single American who shows up to take what is not his to take. No American who goes abroad has the right nor should he have any expectation that the US government will use force of arms to retrieve him or extract him from difficulty.

I have never defended the muslim arab attacks in 2001, but I have and will continue to explain why they occured, and why if I were in their shoes I would consider doing the same thing.

Quote:

Arguing about how to best deal with the ME makes sense. Claiming that acts of terror against US citizens is somehow justified OTOH, is just disgusting.
When we force the US goernment to leave the mideast, never to return it will be with the caveat that any future acts of terror will be treated harshly. It will also be with the issuance of offers of reparation payments, not to any government, but to the tens of thousands of individuals harmed by the US government worldwide. I expect that to run into the trillions of dollars.

Quote:

I understand why Pat spews this crap.
We'll see.

Quote:

He hates the US govt with a passion (he probably got screwed somehow by the govt at some point in his life).
There may be no American that hasn't been harmed by the US government at one point or another, or that will be harmed at some point in the future, or both.

Quote:

But I truly do not understand how some can equate barbarous acts of terrorism purposely directed at innocents with military strikes aimed at taking down thugs.
Because your morals are either part time, ambivalent, or nonexistent. Bombing campaigns are the ultimate form of terrorism in that they're almost always wrapped in claims of justification and abundant "We're so sorry" accompanied by crocodile tears. Nothing could be further from the truth. Aerial bombardment today is nothing beyond being an official government terror campaign.

fastpat 08-02-2006 05:57 PM

Quote:

Do you believe what you wrote? Without regard for civilian casualties? It would be much easier for Israel to carpet bomb a Lebanese town than it is to trace where missles are being launched and to send a precision bomb to that precise coordinate -- after spending a day spreading leaflets telling the population to leave because a bombing is imminent.

"Without regard for civilian casualties". What else do you suggest they do when the enemy is purposely blending in amongst civilians in the hopes of sacrificing said civilians to create a "massacre"?

Moral equivalence is evil.

I reckon the Israeli's should simply even up the odds by leaving their air force on the ground, leaving their tanks in their paddocks, and only take the weapons that correspond with what Hezbollah is known to have. Then it would be a true test of courage on both sides in the fight.

But as long as the Israeli's hide behind armor and in aircraft, which is a form of cowardice, the opposition will use whatever tactics it can to compensate.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.