Unconditional surrender, The Isreal solution

[speeder]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

Explain.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

[speeder]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Tim Hancock]

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)

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

I understand why Pat spews this crap.

We'll see.

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.

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]

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.