Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: vyper on November 25, 2004, 09:25:10 am
-
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1124-06.htm
I wish Sandwich and HLP was available right now. :wtf:
I'm glad Sandwich and HLP are available.
(taken from NW ;))
-
That is terrible :(
Though you will take into account that some action has been taken against the commander involved when discussing this? I cannot condone what happened there, it sort of taints my views....
Theres going to be debate about the fact that some 10 year old kids are being trained as bombers, and counter claims that she wasn't posing a threat etc......
I would like to hear Sandwich's views on this, but not just to have yet another pop at the IDF ;)
-
"Though you will take into account that some action has been taken against the commander involved when discussing this? "
Yeah you mean the commander who won't be charged with even manslaughter because there's no proof the two bullets killed her? :meh:
-
I know what you mean Vyper, it is disgusting, theres no other way to describe it. :(
I wish there were......
-
Could they still charge him with murder?
Simply because I remember they did that with a British soldier (over the killing of an Iraqi) who had returned from Basra - albeit there may have been a technicality with the court martial that allowed that.
-
A Dutch marine got charged with murder after a ricochet bullet it an Iraqi robbing supply trucks. Mind, the prosecution halted after the public outrage, but yeah, murder charges could work.
-
Disgraceful.
-
This is absolutely upsetting. Terrible.
-
I'm starting to vote for the Palestinians.....
-
Sick. Just Wrong. F*cker should be lynched.
-
That's what happens when you let a psychotic piece of **** be a military commander. He will probably receive a medal for killing a child.
-
Just fair warning: Watch yourselves in this thread please. No more rampant flaming political discussions please.
Also I should say...one source on such a controversial issue (or ever) is really not enough. Look at this academically and try and consider multiple viewpoints...we're all intelligent enough to deal with things with a better level of analysis.
-
you realy haven't been paying atention to the other political threads have you :)
-
Originally posted by IceFire
we're all intelligent enough to deal with things with a better level of analysis.
*scoffs*
-
:rolleyes: (http://blogs.tigtag.com/smiley/y_whistling.gif)
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
Sick. Just Wrong. F*cker should be lynched.
I would tend to agree however they dont have a death sentence here. the worst you get is life in prison which for him I think would be more fiting anyway I think he should be put in a prison with a bunch of palestinian terrorists who have been arrested maybe then he can see the diffrence between a 10 year old girl and a 30 year old guy! :rolleyes:
-
First, I'm a bit doubtful of a news source where they highlight an article called "Ten reasons not to move to Canada". Is there any other source? What time of the day it was, for example?
Second, I'm sorry for the girl and all, it's a horrible thing, et cetera, but what if the bag had in fact contained explosives? Cases of children being used for suicide bombings are not unknown, and it was a "no entry zone" - meaning she shouldn't be there, so at least part of the responsibility is with her parents for letting her go there. If I was the garrison's commander, and had orders to shoot anyone who crossed the perimeter, I'd follow them - unless they had provisions for not engaging a specific type of intruder.
Third, I'm sure all the palestinians are horrified for this, but they don't even blink when Israeli children, alongside their whole families, are killed on suicide bombings of buses and restaurants - places that don't even have the "no entry zone" status.
So yeah, forgive me if I'm not for lynching or hanging that guy. I'd have to hang a lot more people higher on the list before I got to him.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
First, I'm a bit doubtful of a news source where they highlight an article called "Ten reasons not to move to Canada". Is there any other source? What time of the day it was, for example?
Second, I'm sorry for the girl and all, it's a horrible thing, et cetera, but what if the bag had in fact contained explosives? Cases of children being used for suicide bombings are not unknown, and it was a "no entry zone" - meaning she shouldn't be there, so at least part of the responsibility is with her parents for letting her go there. If I was the garrison's commander, and had orders to shoot anyone who crossed the perimeter, I'd follow them - unless they had provisions for not engaging a specific type of intruder.
Third, I'm sure all the palestinians are horrified for this, but they don't even blink when Israeli children, alongside their whole families, are killed on suicide bombings of buses and restaurants - places that don't even have the "no entry zone" status.
So yeah, forgive me if I'm not for lynching or hanging that guy. I'd have to hang a lot more people higher on the list before I got to him.
Well, according to the article he not only injured here, but then moved in and killed her.
In the recorded exchanges someone in the operations room asks: "Are we talking about a girl under the age of 10?" The observation post, housed in a watchtower, replies: "It's a little girl. She's running defensively eastwards, a girl of about 10. She's behind the embankment, scared to death."
Not until four minutes later was it reported that the girl had been hit and had fallen. The observation post reports: "Receive, I think that one of the positions took her out." ... Operations room: "What, she fell?" Observation post: "She's not moving right now."
The tape records the commander as telling his men, after firing at the girl with an automatic weapon and declaring he has "confirmed" the killing: "Anyone who's mobile, moving in the zone, even if it's a three-year-old, needs to be killed."
The tape, broadcast on Israel's Channel Two TV, gives the most graphic account of the killing after which soldiers in the company, part of the Givati Brigade, complained that they had been "besmirched" by the company commander's insistence on "confirming the kill".
The army admitted shortly after the shooting near the Girit outpost that it had been a mistake. The girl was carrying a bag which the army said that the soldiers had thought contained explosives, but which was found to contain schoolbooks. Although the family is at a loss to explain why she had wandered into a dangerous prohibited zone, they say she was on her way to school at the time.
The soldiers said that the commander had fired two shots at the girl from close range as she lay on the ground before withdrawing, turning and "emptying his magazine" by firing some 10 bullets at her body.
Now, the Israelis definately have robots capable of bomb disposal use - I remember them from a TV report; also, why did this guy see fit to walk over to a several wounded youngster and 'empty his magazine'? Especially as it would seem very likely that he would be able to simply kick the bag away, and if she was wearing a bomb-vest he'd surely be in danger by walking into close range.
So, even if he could justify the initial shooting, then what followed does seem unjustifiable from my perspective.
NB: yeah, it is hypocritical to have a mass Palestinian outcry about this but not about Israel children - or indeed civillian - casualties. But what can you do but hope the other side is able to maintain a sense of morality about what they've done or do wrong?
EDIt; Oh, and the fact that the article says the soldiers there felt 'besmirched' by the killing probably indicates a lot about the illegality of it.
-
Well, if you consider only the fact that he shot her after she was down, yeah, I'd consider that reprehensible, but not nearly enough to warrant lynching or the death penalty. She was already down, probably dead. Anything up to that point is justifiable in my view, and probably what they've been ordered to do.
-
Shooting a 10 year old girl or boy is never justifiable.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Well, if you consider only the fact that he shot her after she was down, yeah, I'd consider that reprehensible, but not nearly enough to warrant lynching or the death penalty. She was already down, probably dead. Anything up to that point is justifiable in my view, and probably what they've been ordered to do.
At close range, though. I'd imagine he'd have been able to identify whether or not she was alive at that point; the 'close range' part is the key point, IMO it's what seperates the arguments of justifiable action and deliberate homicide.
-
yeah, saw it on the news the other day. Just plain tragic. :(
-
You don't shoot weans. There's no justification - even if you do suspect the child of being used as a trojan horse, they're innocent to it all. By all means force her to leave or move back - but you do not kill her.
-
the fact that the others working in the unit turned him in, I think speaks volumes for the diference between Isrealies and Palestinians.
-
And the fact that they didn't do anything much about it afterwards says what about them?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
you realy haven't been paying atention to the other political threads have you :)
I do not think he has Bob. Once reason I do not bother to get into these discussions on these boards is because the of the lack of maturity and factual data expressed in them. This one is one of the few exceptions.
I think I possess a perspective that no one else, except Sandiwch, does on this board. While I totally condemn what this so-called officer has done, I have also worked with the IDF on several occasions and I KNOW that this sort of thing is totally condemned by them as well. Based on my experiences with them, I am certain that they are just as appalled as you are. Just because this man has not been prosecuted yet does not mean he will not be. I heard that this was a recent event and prosecution will only take place after a proper investigation is completed. I know you want to ask: "What need is there for an investigation? He is GUILTY!" That maybe so, but if they were to prosecute him without regard to his legal rights, the system would be lowering itself to the level of this monster's act. Just as you are for demanding his immediate punishment or suggesting that you would lynch him.
Further, I possess another unique perspective. During a gun battle in Somalia, a nine year old boy in Adide's miltia had two of my team-mates pinned behind a burned out vehicle with a MAT-49 sub-gun. I shot him down. The Army ruled the engagment justified, but I will always live with the guilt. Call me baby-killer if you want, but nothing you can say to me has not already been said BY me.
IMO, this man's INITIAL actions were horrible, but justified. His actions after the initial engagement most certainly were NOT, and I think he should be punished.
-
Standing in a street = don't be so quick to shoot
Firing a submachine gun at you = shoot to kill.
Well, if you consider only the fact that he shot her after she was down, yeah, I'd consider that reprehensible, but not nearly enough to warrant lynching or the death penalty. She was already down, probably dead. Anything up to that point is justifiable in my view, and probably what they've been ordered to do.
So pumping a clip into her just to make sure she's dead is justifiable to you? :wtf: I hope I'm reading it wrong...
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
So pumping a clip into her just to make sure she's dead is justifiable to you? :wtf: I hope I'm reading it wrong...
You apparently skipped the "up to that point" part of my post. ;)
-
Phew...Yeah, guess id did :D
-
People, why is the only way to shoot someone to kill em? Why not shoot the girl in the leg, and stay away untill you've got a good view of the backpack?
-
As it has been said, if she was a terrorist indeed, she could have some sort of bomb strapped on herself, and the poor schmuck coming to check the bookbag could have been blown away. While I despise the guys for shooting children, I can sort of understand them. What I hope is that the nutjob who emptied a full clip into an already down, killed or not, children, will get the boots on mental disorder grounds.
-
, why is the only way to shoot someone to kill em?
Because in war zone or in terrorism threat there is only one way to do job or just try capture them (Terrorism threat only)
It could be that IDF soldiers did think that girl was suicide bomber (age don't matter)
-
Regardles what they tought, it was a ten year old girld walking slowly up a long street. They could have fired a warning shot, or yelled at her to stop. It's not like she poped 2 feet away from them. She was in the distance first!!
But no - they fired imidiately at her.
and I don't like the IDF one bit. Blasting refugee camps and runing over people with buldozers is not anti-terrorism fighting.
-
[q](age don't matter)[/q]
You apply that to pulling as well HIG?
-
Originally posted by Genryu
As it has been said, if she was a terrorist indeed, she could have some sort of bomb strapped on herself, and the poor schmuck coming to check the bookbag could have been blown away. While I despise the guys for shooting children, I can sort of understand them. What I hope is that the nutjob who emptied a full clip into an already down, killed or not, children, will get the boots on mental disorder grounds.
Well, i mentioned this earlier;
the Israeli army has bomb defusal robots for this exact reason. With the girl not moving, there would surely not have been any urgency to preclude this.
Also, if she was carrying and able to activate a bomb, surely going up to shoot her at close range was incredibly & unecessarily dangerous?
-
How do the IDF justify firing with TANK CANNONS at boys throwing STONES?
-
Don't you understand?
Those boys are EVIL TERRORIST bent on destroying everything that's good and pure. They might even be hiding bombs in those stones.
So, the IDF, in it's righteous crusade will not only use teh tank cannons, but allso buldozers (why the hell not? You can demolish whole towns with it and run people over - back and forth) and everything else to purge the wold of palestini...erm...terrorists.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Regardles what they tought, it was a ten year old girld walking slowly up a long street. They could have fired a warning shot, or yelled at her to stop. It's not like she poped 2 feet away from them. She was in the distance first!!
But no - they fired imidiately at her.
That's the misinformed opinion that people like you - no personal offense, dude - form from reading just one POV, one article, one news report. More on this below.
Originally posted by TrashMan
and I don't like the IDF one bit. Blasting refugee camps and runing over people with buldozers is not anti-terrorism fighting.
I don't like terrorists one bit. Shooting at heavily armed military units and then hiding in refugee camps packed to overflowing with innocent men, women and children. Such nasty people, those IDF refugee-camp-wiper-outers. :rolleyes:
As for the bulldozers - pfft. Blame the driver on the highway whose car your daughter jumped out in front of and subsequently got smeared all over the asphalt by with manslaughter. Real logical thinking there.
Anyway, to get back on track here. Two articles from the Israeli media's POV on the issue:
Jerusalem Post - Analysis: Confirming the kill (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1101270344955&p=1078027574121)
Ha'aretz - Officer on tape says he `confirmed kill' of Gaza girl (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?itemNo=506702)
Both of those, I would think, highlight how this event IS being dealt with by Israel.
One last point. I asked my dad what he had heard abou this SNAFU, since I hadn't been keeping up with things. I don't have the source at the moment (I'll try to get it though), but he reported the following.
Supposedly, the girl had been told by terrorists to plant her backpack near the outpost, in the "no-fly-zone" (or whatever it's called - the area they're not to breach). The plan was to then ambush the soldiers who leave the outpost to check out what the girl planted.
But instead, the soldiers opened fire after shouting repeatedly at the girl to stop and go back. The rest, I believe, is known.
Finally: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=72669
-
Why didn't the terrorists shoot the officer who shot the girl, then?
NB:bbc news article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3733638.stm
-
In no way, shape or form do I want to be seen as defending his actions, but a bit of context is always nice...
Do you remember how, a few months ago, Arafat's Fatach members gave a 13-year-old boy a bag with a bomb in it and how, when the boy was discovered at a checkpoint (and people wonder why the checkpoints are there!) his handlers tried to blow up the bag (and the boy)? Not nice.
So a 13-year-old girl with a school bag wanders into a closed military zone (which is clearly labeled as such). The soldiers tell the girl (in Arabic) to bugger off, but she comes closer. So a soldier shoots her. Now, this is against the rules and that is why this soldier was convicted of the crime the other day in a CIVILIAN (note: not military) court.
Personally, I don't think shooting the girl was wrong. (By regularly using child combatants in the past four years, the Pallies have condemned ALL their children to be suspected of being combatants from now on). What I object to was the way the soldier 'confirmed the kill' by shooting her repeatedly at close range. That is wrong, and punishment worthy.
Obviously, the usual liberal 'peace in our day' types have been condemning this soldier and all of Israel repeatedly since this happened. But what I don't understand is why we don't hear the bleeding hearts condemn Pallies when they run up the street with Israeli entrails in their hands? It has happened - on numerous occasions.
Moreover, when a Pallie kills an Israeli civilian, the rest of them cheer in the street! Football tournaments are named after him! Streets are named after him! Summer camps for children are named after him! You think I'm joking? Have a look here http://www.pmw.org.il/murderF.htm, here http://www.pmw.org.il/4 Loopholes in US Anti-Terror Laws_b.htm and here http://www.pmw.org.il/sperep6-033.html!
But where are the condemnations of Pallie actions? Two sets of standards for two different people groups? That's racism, people! (Not to mention hypocrisy!)
-
Originally posted by erratus
In no way, shape or form do I want to be seen as defending his actions, but a bit of context is always nice...
Do you remember how, a few months ago, Arafat's Fatach members gave a 13-year-old boy a bag with a bomb in it and how, when the boy was discovered at a checkpoint (and people wonder why the checkpoints are there!) his handlers tried to blow up the bag (and the boy)? Not nice.
So a 13-year-old girl with a school bag wanders into a closed military zone (which is clearly labeled as such). The soldiers tell the girl (in Arabic) to bugger off, but she comes closer. So a soldier shoots her. Now, this is against the rules and that is why this soldier was convicted of the crime the other day in a CIVILIAN (note: not military) court.
[/b]
Yeah. Like, she was actually going away from the soldiers and was 100 yards away. She was totally coming straight for them!
Personally, I don't think shooting the girl was wrong. (By regularly using child combatants in the past four years, the Pallies have condemned ALL their children to be suspected of being combatants from now on). What I object to was the way the soldier 'confirmed the kill' by shooting her repeatedly at close range. That is wrong, and punishment worthy.
Obviously, the usual liberal 'peace in our day' types have been condemning this soldier and all of Israel repeatedly since this happened. But what I don't understand is why we don't hear the bleeding hearts condemn Pallies when they run up the street with Israeli entrails in their hands? It has happened - on numerous occasions.
Right. All liberal leftie loonies always, categorically, praise and support suicide bombings and terror acts, because THEY HATE ISRAEL.
...
what.
We, the godless commie pinko gay liberal elite, are pretty eager to condemn terrorist actions and Pal dumb****ery, if you haven't noticed, and it seems you haven't. Of course, I/P thingamungie is so polarized that every single discussion about it is immediately degenerated into retarded flamewar, but that aspect is enforced by the fact that pretty many who take part on these discussions are
A) already on one side, and they ain't gonna change it, darn!
B) ignorant.
Moreover, when a Pallie kills an Israeli civilian, the rest of them cheer in the street! Football tournaments are named after him! Streets are named after him! Summer camps for children are named after him! You think I'm joking? Have a look here http://www.pmw.org.il/murderF.htm, here http://www.pmw.org.il/4 Loopholes in US Anti-Terror Laws_b.htm and here http://www.pmw.org.il/sperep6-033.html!
But where are the condemnations of Pallie actions? Two sets of standards for two different people groups? That's racism, people! (Not to mention hypocrisy!)
Nice playing of racist card, congratulations, and also two thumbs up from great source! Thats the best journalism I've ever seen. Besides, what is your point here? Pals do bad stuff? NO **** SHERLOCK. All Pals are guilty? Nope. Red herring?
-
What bollocks. The gay-pink-fill-your-cause-in-here lot are quick to condemn Pallie terrorism - but just as quick to contextualise it with 'occupation'. If they don't actually explicitly justify Pallie terrorism, they bloody well imply its acceptance.
Whereas, in their regular condemnations of Israeli actions, contextualisation will never occur. There is a key difference here.
As for my message not being cutting edge journalism, here I was thinking this was a discussion board. Sorry for not reaching your high referencing standards.
And the link to PMW is valid. That organisation translates Palestinian newspapers. If it condemns anyone, its in the words of the PA.
You'll have to excuse me for jumping to the conclusion that you're biased, but I didn't see you condemning the extraordinarily racist material the PA publishes in their official newspaper. Oh, but do we justify that, do we?
If the same material was published by the Israeli government, you'd scream bloody murder!
Double standards equals hypocrisy. There are no two ways around it.
-
Yes double standards. The jews employed terrorist tactics against the British in Palestine prior to our withdrawal, yet when the Palestinians do it to you - all of a sudden it's a "Wrong" method?
-
Originally posted by erratus
What bollocks. The gay-pink-fill-your-cause-in-here lot are quick to condemn Pallie terrorism - but just as quick to contextualise it with 'occupation'. If they don't actually explicitly justify Pallie terrorism, they bloody well imply its acceptance.
Whereas, in their regular condemnations of Israeli actions, contextualisation will never occur. There is a key difference here.
[/b]
I... I... **** it.
I/P issue is, as stated, polarized and filled with idiots. Some people try to see the both sides of the coin.
Israel is expected to have the moral high ground in the issue. Their average living conditions are just vastly better than in average Palestinians, they are a democracy etc. Really exaggerated and provocative argument: They are, as a country, much much better off than the Pal Authority. As acknowledged part of the more Western culture, they are also supposed to abandon the Hammurabian code and act civilized. I am a relativist, whatever. You get my point, I hope.
In most of the times they do retain the upper ground - they do not punish civilians and boast about it. Of course, civilian casualties happen and there might be a way to reduce them, but still they could be claimed as "superior" to groups like Islamic Jihad, Hamas' militant wing etc.. Some people compare Israel actions with those of Nazis, which is utter bull**** and should be rewarded with one-way ticket to ignore list.
On the other hand the Israels do live in tough situations, and I am first to admit that it has understandable repercussions. IMHO it's not a huge crime to shoot someone who acts suspiciously when stuck in a firefight. If the guy is unarmed, it's not right, but neither is it a deliberate murder.
THen comes the Pal stuff. They are a corrupt and nearly anarchist regime, education is nearly nonexistant and if it exists, it's pretty often in the hands of groups like Hamas and so on. Their official regime is in ruins after years of intifada, internal and external warfare, lack of cash, occupation, struggle and that kind of ****. Like in many nations approaching total collapse. Also, their culture is pretty different
In such case we may understand why the suicide bombings take place, but that does not mean we condone them. With no future, one might grab a piece of TNT and head to fight off the oppressor. OK. The oppressor happens to be a car full of kids. Not ok.
As for my message not being cutting edge journalism, here I was thinking this was a discussion board. Sorry for not reaching your high referencing standards.
And the link to PMW is valid. That organisation translates Palestinian newspapers. If it condemns anyone, its in the words of the PA.
No problem, bro, it's only hurting you. Giving good links is not just tampering to some elitism, it's about what kind of impression you give and how people will weigh the info you give them. I do not find a page like the PMW trustworthy. Cite Reuters or something like that. Do not cite a site in which's front page there are just words "welcome to pmw.org" and which's content is just slabbed together. I don't like those rules because they are "elitist", I like those rules because IMHO objective and calm reporting gives everyone a equal chance of figuring out what is happening and form their own opinion.
You'll have to excuse me for jumping to the conclusion that you're biased, but I didn't see you condemning the extraordinarily racist material the PA publishes in their official newspaper. Oh, but do we justify that, do we?
If the same material was published by the Israeli government, you'd scream bloody murder!
Double standards equals hypocrisy. There are no two ways around it. [/B]
I don't see you condemning the Sabra massacre. Oh, but do we justify that, do we?
Funny game. Shall we play it some more?
I don't see you condemning East Timor situation!
See my point up there. I would condemn Israeli stuff, as I would condemn Pal stuff. But what comes out to daylight more often due to it's surprising nature?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
That's the misinformed opinion that people like you - no personal offense, dude - form from reading just one POV, one article, one news report. More on this below.
Nope, that's LOGIC. Unless palestinians don't have transporters (beam me up Scotty) that girl must have come from SOMEWHERE.
It's not like she can cross 500m in two seconds.
The soldiers and the officers clearly had time to stop her and NOT to kill her. They could have shot her in the legs. They could have handled it another way.
I don't like terrorists one bit. Shooting at heavily armed military units and then hiding in refugee camps packed to overflowing with innocent men, women and children. Such nasty people, those IDF refugee-camp-wiper-outers. :rolleyes:
As for the bulldozers - pfft. Blame the driver on the highway whose car your daughter jumped out in front of and subsequently got smeared all over the asphalt by with manslaughter. Real logical thinking there.
But of course! How blind of me. All those refugees weren't run over by buldozers! they were throwing themselvs under them in a mass suicide craze.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Nope, that's LOGIC. Unless palestinians don't have transporters (beam me up Scotty) that girl must have come from SOMEWHERE.
It's not like she can cross 500m in two seconds.
The soldiers and the officers clearly had time to stop her and NOT to kill her. They could have shot her in the legs. They could have handled it another way.
Like I said, you're only reading one article, where the soldiers opened fire immediately. I happened to read an article that reported that the girl - who was actually a shape-shifting monster with dripping fangs and tentacles - pulled a handheld howitzer out of her backback and started firing at the Prime Minister of Malaysia, who just so happened to be in the area. The Israeli soldiers in the nearby outpost saw this, shouted at the girl/monster-with-drippy-fangs-and-tentacles to stop her belligerent actions, but she/it didn't respond. So after 15 minutes of shouting to stop, the soldiers opened fire and killed the girl/monster.
That's the only version I read, so it must be true. Those must be the events exactly as they occurred, and it's unthinkable that any details were modified or ommitted from the account of the eye-witness reporter who was there and caught it all on his newfangled holographic 3D-video recorder.
...I hope I've made my point.
Originally posted by TrashMan
But of course! How blind of me. All those refugees weren't run over by buldozers! they were throwing themselvs under them in a mass suicide craze.
"All those refugees"? I recall the one (unthinkably dumb) peace activist who stood in front of an armored D9 and subsequently got run over. What were the headlines? "Peace Activist Run Over By Israeli Bulldozer in Gaza"? How about, "Fluffy the Cat Run Over By Car When Fluffy Didn't Get Out From Underneath Car When Engine Started"?
And to be fair, yes, there was the one (?) incident where a Palestinian house was demolished with residents inside. Also to be fair, Israel gave the usual advance warning about the impending demolition of the house. "I am going to shoot my rifle at those terrorists over yonder, please stop standing directly in front of it."
Anyway, I do apologize if this post has been heavy with sarcasm... I just woke up and my diplomatic braincells are still warming up.
-
Israel is expected to have the moral high ground in the issue. Their average living conditions are just vastly better than in average Palestinians, they are a democracy etc.
You're damn right that Israel is democratic. But is it Israel's fault that the Pallies aren't? Why should Israel suffer from dual standards just because Pallie school teachers instruct their pupils that they'll get 72 young hotties if they kill one Jew?
When I call for one standard, I'm not suggesting that Israel lowers hers. I'm suggesting the world stop its hypocrisy and start demanding of the Pallies that they start respecting human rights. If we justify (or 'understand') Pallie terrorism because they're Palestinians, or because they're Arabs, or because they're poor, or because they're not democratic, etc etc than what we are guilty of is considering the Palestinians as less than us. That is racism. I demand the Pallies stop incitement and terrorism because I consider them as equals.
THen comes the Pal stuff. They are a corrupt and nearly anarchist regime, education is nearly nonexistant and if it exists, it's pretty often in the hands of groups like Hamas and so on. Their official regime is in ruins after years of intifada, internal and external warfare, lack of cash, occupation, struggle and that kind of ****. Like in many nations approaching total collapse. Also, their culture is pretty different.
In such case we may understand why the suicide bombings take place, but that does not mean we condone them. With no future, one might grab a piece of TNT and head to fight off the oppressor. OK. The oppressor happens to be a car full of kids. Not ok.
You were doing well, until you forgot the fact that by far and away, most Pallie terrorists/'activists'/'misunderstood democracy lovers'/whatever are actually middle class, well off and have the ability to make a go of it.
Besides, if Pallies wanted peace, they would educate their children to peace. It's as simple as that. But they don't. They are taught that the Jew must die. That ALL of Israel is an occupation, and therefore that 'Palestine' won't be free until Israel is destroyed. That shahada, or death for Allah, is something to be attained.
And then what do we see? We see young children on official television start to repeat these messages.
And then what do we see? We see 14, 15 and 16 year old boys and girls go to the frontlines and endanger themselves - but not because they hate Israel! No! Because, as revealed in the notes they leave at home (and which are proudly reproduced in the Palestinian papers the next day), they proudly claim that they went to the frontlines to seek shahada. These kids are looking for death not because they are desperate or occupied or whatever, but because they have been taught that it would be a good thing.
And then what do we see? We see summer camps for 14 year old girls named after a 16 year old shahida!
To summarise it, the PA encourages children to die, children start expressing and acting upon their new found wish to die, and the the PA glorifies their memory. It's a self perpetuating cycle and it is THAT which has caused this terrorism, not Israeli heavy handedness.
Giving good links is not just tampering to some elitism, it's about what kind of impression you give and how people will weigh the info you give them. I do not find a page like the PMW trustworthy. Cite Reuters or something like that. Do not cite a site in which's front page there are just words "welcome to pmw.org" and which's content is just slabbed together. I don't like those rules because they are "elitist", I like those rules because IMHO objective and calm reporting gives everyone a equal chance of figuring out what is happening and form their own opinion.
PMW may have an awful website, and you may even disagree with their conclusions. But they are the only organisation in the world that exclusively monitors and translates official PA media. I wasn't linking you to that site for a lesson in webpage publication, but to read the words of the PA to its citizens translated verbatim into English. I can assure you that if Reuters were to supply the same service, I would link you to their (much prettier) site. But they don't. So I can't.
Look past the ugly website. Can you justify (or even 'understand') the PA telling its people that if you die without wanting to kill Jews, then you don't actually die a Muslim at all? Because that's what it tells its constituents. I'd link you to the site, but, oh, it's ugly and 'just slabbed together'.
I don't see you condemning the Sabra massacre. Oh, but do we justify that, do we?
I unreservedly condemn all those that took part in the massacres of Sabra and Chatilla. Those that took part should be tried for war crimes. Absolutely nothing in the world justifies deliberate attacks on civilians, because this is terrorism. The Phalange Christians that carried out that massacre should be shot.
I don't see you condemning East Timor situation!
I know little of the East Timor situation. As far as I know, Australian-led forces have stabilsed the country, killed off the Indonesian militants and are currently helping East Timor to establish itself among the countries of the world. Not much to condemn there!
ALL deliberate targeting of civlians is wrong. It's as simple as that. Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians. People who attempt to justify or 'understand' terrorism are almost as bad as the terrorists themselves.
-
Welcome to HLP, erratus. Nice blog. :)
:welcome:
-
Originally posted by vyper
Yes double standards. The jews employed terrorist tactics against the British in Palestine prior to our withdrawal, yet when the Palestinians do it to you - all of a sudden it's a "Wrong" method?
Sorry, Sunshine. The Jews employed guerrilla tactics against the British in Palestine prior to your withdrawal. Guerrilla tactics against occupying forces can be justified. Though many Israelis or pro-Israelis might disagree with me, I never and will never condemn Palestinian military activities against Israeli military targets. Terrorism is WRONG. Targeting legitimate military targets is not terrorism.
'Oh, but Israel is a strong army,' I hear you whinge. 'What chance do the Pallies have against tanks?'
Hizbullah waged a very effective guerrilla campaign against the Israeli military (with only the occasional lapse into terrorism), and succeeded in removing the Jewish state from Lebanon. Guerrilla warfare can and does work. It worked for Michael Collins, it worked for the Hizbullah, it worked for the Hagana, and - if they stuck to soldiers and not civilians - it would work for the Pallies in a matter of months.
In pre-State Palestine there were, undoubtedly, a few cases of Jewish terrorism. Despite total condemnations by the Jewish leadership at the time and since, those actions will continue to remain a stain on Israel's history.
But let us never forget that Palestinian violence against civilian targets (i.e. terrorism) was far more prevalent than Jewish terrorism.
-
Remeber, terrorism and guerrilla tactics are often interchangeable. While the Irgun and Stern gang were more selective with their targets, it still resulted in a very large number of innocent civilians being dead, like when they blew up King David Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_King_David_Hotel) in 1946. It should be noted however that they warned them.
On the other hand, they often used actions similar to Palestinian tacitcs like bombing british police stations and at one or two occasions palestinian cafès. So they aren't innocent either.
-
Originally posted by erratus
You're damn right that Israel is democratic. But is it Israel's fault that the Pallies aren't? Why should Israel suffer from dual standards just because Pallie school teachers instruct their pupils that they'll get 72 young hotties if they kill one Jew?
[/b]
One could argue that under given circumstances there is simply no way for PA to become democratic. Political change under such situation would result in lot of bloodshed. Besides, at this moment I am not eager to give Hamas any more power that it has. In the future, yes, democracy should be the goal. One could also argue that Israel is at least partially guilty of the situation, but meh. Yeah yeah, it partially is, so are the Pals, [insert XX pages of discussion here].
I don't think that immoral activities of side A should authorisize immoral activities of side B. "They did it too!" is kindergarden attitude - a violent and shortsighted method which only results in more violence.
When I call for one standard, I'm not suggesting that Israel lowers hers. I'm suggesting the world stop its hypocrisy and start demanding of the Pallies that they start respecting human rights. If we justify (or 'understand') Pallie terrorism because they're Palestinians, or because they're Arabs, or because they're poor, or because they're not democratic, etc etc than what we are guilty of is considering the Palestinians as less than us. That is racism. I demand the Pallies stop incitement and terrorism because I consider them as equals.
[/b]
Go for it. Demand it. I demand it too. However:
Understanding the reasons and motives != racism. I have much easier time in understanding why someone with no future becomes a suicide bomber than understanding why eccentric millionaire from Germany becomes a suicide bomber. It does not imply some weird racial thing - I do not think Palestinians are lesser people because their society, so far, is a ****ing mess. Got that? Fine. Thank you.
You were doing well, until you forgot the fact that by far and away, most Pallie terrorists/'activists'/'misunderstood democracy lovers'/whatever are actually middle class, well off and have the ability to make a go of it.
[/b]
Source plz.
Besides, if Pallies wanted peace, they would educate their children to peace. It's as simple as that. But they don't. They are taught that the Jew must die. That ALL of Israel is an occupation, and therefore that 'Palestine' won't be free until Israel is destroyed. That shahada, or death for Allah, is something to be attained.
If Jews wanted peace, they would educate their children to not to shoot unarmed kids. :rolleyes:
BLAH BLAH PALLIES SUCK
k mate!
ALL deliberate targeting of civlians is wrong. It's as simple as that. Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of civilians. People who attempt to justify or 'understand' terrorism are almost as bad as the terrorists themselves. [/B]
What. is. this. ****ing. bull****.
"Understanding terrorism" has two meanings. One: the way you use it, it's like silent condoning. "Oh, well they're just wee laddies, nothing worse than a frat prank, you know."
The other way is try to figure out the reasons behing terrorism. Why it happens. What causes people to become suicide bombers, or kidnappers, or religious freaks, or whatever. Semantics, yes.
-
They weren't born wanting to do it.
-
Originally posted by Lynx
Remeber, terrorism and guerrilla tactics are often interchangeable.
Totally untrue. I taught Guerrilla Wafare and Counter-Terrorism at the War College at Fort Leavenworth.
Simply speaking, guerrilla warfare is a set of tactics that a smaller, or less technologically advanced, force uses against a superior military force. Rather than a frontal confrontation, the guerrilla force will sabotage his enemy's military assets. A school-bus full of children has no military value.
A guerrilla force will also use creative ways to kill his soldiers, such as ambush and booby traps. It is strictly hit and fade. Only in this regard is it in ANY way similar to the tactics favored by terrorists.
The goal of the guerrilla fighter is to weaken a superior enemy's ability to fight before he faces his enemy openly.
A terrorist's goal is to use fear and terror to meet his goals. Hence the term "terrorist". He accomplishes this by targeting those things that will get an emotional reaction from his enemy, and spread fear through the families of his enemy. Targeting and using children and other civilians is a prime example of this. By doing this he can "persuade" his enemy's citizens to pressure their government to cave to the terrorist's demands.
There is more to it than that, but I have no wish to cloud the issue anymore than it already is.
-
Originally posted by Janos
Source plz.
If Jews wanted peace, they would educate their children to not to shoot unarmed kids. :rolleyes:
As long as you asked somebody else for a source, so am I asking you.
-
Why is terrorism only defined in terms of what "they" do to "us"? 100,00 civilians dead in Iraq, and you're telling me thats not terrorism?
Bin Laden is responsible for the deaths of 3000 innocent people.
Bush is responsible for the deaths of 100,000+ (remember Afghanistan?) innocent people.
Which one is the terrorist again? The same applies to Israel/Palestine. According to every statistic available, including Israeli sources, Israel has killed more innocents since the start of the second intifada than suicide bombers have killed Israeli civies.
When the US trains and finances death-squads and assasins in Latin America, thats not terrorism?
-
Originally posted by Lynx
Remeber, terrorism and guerrilla tactics are often interchangeable. While the Irgun and Stern gang were more selective with their targets, it still resulted in a very large number of innocent civilians being dead, like when they blew up King David Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_King_David_Hotel) in 1946. It should be noted however that they warned them.
On the other hand, they often used actions similar to Palestinian tacitcs like bombing british police stations and at one or two occasions palestinian cafès. So they aren't innocent either.
I never meant to imply that those Irgun bastards were innocent. However (as much as I think it was wrong), the King David Hotel was a legitimate target. It was the seat of British power in Palestine. (This is different from targeting a parliament building in which elected officials work.) To use an American example, targeting the Pentagon is legitmate but targeting Capitol Hill is not.
Oh, and terrorist and guerrilla tactics are NOT interchangable. One group may choose to use both terror and guerrilla warfare (in which case the group delegitimises itself). But an individual action is either terrorism or warfare, a legitimate target or otherwise.
-
"To use an American example, targeting the Pentagon is legitmate but targeting Capitol Hill is not."
actualy I'd say both of those whould be legitimate targets, what wouldn't be a legitimate target would be like cafès and ****.
-
Originally posted by Janos
I don't think that immoral activities of side A should authorisize immoral activities of side B. "They did it too!" is kindergarden attitude - a violent and shortsighted method which only results in more violence.
I covered that. Pallies should up their miserable standards. Israel should keep its fine standards.
Source plz.
Give me a couple of days to work on that. And don't let me get away with not answering you.
If Jews wanted peace, they would educate their children to not to shoot unarmed kids. :rolleyes:
And that is where you show your considerable bias and/or ignorance. The commission started way back in 1996 has consistantly found that Israel's text books and education policies changed considerably after the signing of the Oslo accords. Palestinian history (what little there is of it!) was taught, as were the Palestinian plight, perspectives and consequences of the 1948 and 1967 wars.
That same commission (which, I might add, was formed as part of the negotiated Wye River Memorandum) has found that the Pallies changed two books! Two! That's peace education for you. Pretty good stuff!
"Understanding terrorism" has two meanings. One: the way you use it, it's like silent condoning. "Oh, well they're just wee laddies, nothing worse than a frat prank, you know."
The other way is try to figure out the reasons behing terrorism. Why it happens. What causes people to become suicide bombers, or kidnappers, or religious freaks, or whatever. Semantics, yes.
Yeah - I provided one way. A look at how Palestinian education practises have seen children express their wish to die a shahid's death on TV and in written notes and then go out and die. And how the PA celebrates their death, thus encouraging more terrorism. And you dismissed such efforts to 'figure out the reasons behing [sic] terrorism' as 'blah blah'.
What this shows, Sunshine, is that any evidence that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions of the conflict are instantly dismissed. That whole 'blah blah' paragraph that you helpfully deleted was not the rantings of a Zionist, but evidence of what the PA does. If they teach their kids that until Israel is destroyed then the occupation will continue, then I say they don't get a state.
-
Originally posted by vyper
They weren't born wanting to do it.
You mean the Pallies? You're right! They were educated in the PA school system.
-
Originally posted by Eviscerator
Totally untrue. I taught Guerrilla Wafare and Counter-Terrorism at the War College at Fort Leavenworth.
Hear hear!
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Why is terrorism only defined in terms of what "they" do to "us"? 100,00 civilians dead in Iraq, and you're telling me thats not terrorism?
Bin Laden is responsible for the deaths of 3000 innocent people.
Bush is responsible for the deaths of 100,000+ (remember Afghanistan?) innocent people.
Which one is the terrorist again? The same applies to Israel/Palestine. According to every statistic available, including Israeli sources, Israel has killed more innocents since the start of the second intifada than suicide bombers have killed Israeli civies.
'Fraid not. I won't comment on alleged US crimes. But a working definition of terrorism is deliberate violence or the threat of violence against civilian targets in order to affect government policy.
I'll admit that Israel can be heavy handed in its military responses, but its targets are combatants.
Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the rest of the murderous Pallies target Israeli civilians.
Israeli actions are not terrorism. Most violent Palestinian actions are.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
"To use an American example, targeting the Pentagon is legitmate but targeting Capitol Hill is not."
actualy I'd say both of those whould be legitimate targets, what wouldn't be a legitimate target would be like cafès and ****.
Well the Pentagon is part of the military establishment and is thus a target. The White House, seat of the Commander-in-Chief, might also be considered a target, but that's a bit of a stretch.
Congress is not part of the military establishment and should thus not be considered a target.
-
it's part of the government, therefore legitimate.
killing off congress would be quite an effective means of shuting down our government.
-
Originally posted by erratus
'Fraid not. I won't comment on alleged US crimes. But a working definition of terrorism is deliberate violence or the threat of violence against civilian targets in order to affect government policy.
I'll admit that Israel can be heavy handed in its military responses, but its targets are combatants.
Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the rest of the murderous Pallies target Israeli civilians.
Israeli actions are not terrorism. Most violent Palestinian actions are.
I think maybe the question is whether the Israeli response/s and the inevitable civillian casualties - unintentional as they may be - is proportionate to the act or threat they are in reprisal too.
To me - and I'll admit I'm far from being in a position of first hand knowledge - it often seems as if the IDF actions do very little that will actually reduce the threat of terrorism; i.e. that any operation has a reciprocal effect through both what happens and what is seen to happen in the media (including neutral sources) which acts as a stimulant for continuing 'revenge' attacks.
I'm all for killing terrorists - but I don't think you can 'win' (achieve security and peace) by simply doing that, and especially not if innocent people get caught in the middle. People don't give a **** about intent, but about consequences; maybe that's unfair, but I think it's true.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I think maybe the question is whether the Israeli response/s and the inevitable civillian casualties - unintentional as they may be - is proportionate to the act or threat they are in reprisal too.
To me - and I'll admit I'm far from being in a position of first hand knowledge - it often seems as if the IDF actions do very little that will actually reduce the threat of terrorism; i.e. that any operation has a reciprocal effect through both what happens and what is seen to happen in the media (including neutral sources) which acts as a stimulant for continuing 'revenge' attacks.
Allow me.
As most of us know, the current intifada started in the fall of 2000. Things really escalated drastically at the end of 2001 / beginning of 2002. Then the IDF sent soldiers - myself among them - into Jenin, to eradicate the terrorist infrastructure.
The results? A couple of dozen IDF reservists (legitimate targets, however, as am I when drafted) killed during house-to-house operations. Around twice that many Palestinian "millitants" killed as well - the final number was between 50 and 75, IIRC. And the results? Goals attained? Look here (http://www.wischik.com/lu/senses/israel-terrorist-attacks.html). Even the graph of a person who openly is not "in love" with Israel shows clearly an immense drop in attacks after the operation in Jenin, which ended around April 2002.
Terrorism CAN be eradicated through wise and careful use of force. Overwhelming force, such as bombarding a building to get one sniper (*ahem*) isn't required. Simply tender loving care when planning things.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Allow me.
As most of us know, the current intifada started in the fall of 2000. Things really escalated drastically at the end of 2001 / beginning of 2002. Then the IDF sent soldiers - myself among them - into Jenin, to eradicate the terrorist infrastructure.
The results? A couple of dozen IDF reservists (legitimate targets, however, as am I when drafted) killed during house-to-house operations. Around twice that many Palestinian "millitants" killed as well - the final number was between 50 and 75, IIRC. And the results? Goals attained? Look here (http://www.wischik.com/lu/senses/israel-terrorist-attacks.html). Even the graph of a person who openly is not "in love" with Israel shows clearly an immense drop in attacks after the operation in Jenin, which ended around April 2002.
Terrorism CAN be eradicated through wise and careful use of force. Overwhelming force, such as bombarding a building to get one sniper (*ahem*) isn't required. Simply tender loving care when planning things.
But - does that graph also account for changes in the living standards of the Palestinian population? Or, for example, how the civillian casualties due to IDF operations correlate to civillian casualties due to terrorist attacks? (as a matter of interest) I feel these may be important with regard to the long-term 'success' of stopping terrorism; as that graph shows, the frequency of attacks does have a tendency to wax & wane.
Because, to be clear, what it'd like to see is a solution of some sort which is mutually beneficial. Now, I know that this big wall thing is credited in particular with reducing attacks, but it's also been condemned as a breach of human rights-stroke-international law in the effect it has on ordinary Palestinians. Because I think that the situation is that you will always have terrorism if it's only a military response; even if that terrorism is reduced to a comparative trickle. I realise this will need to be on the part of whoever takes control of the PA, of course.
I have to be honest; regardless of frequency of attacks, all I've seen - again from my own distant perspective - is a constant spiral of tit-for-tat reciprocal violence that appears to be perpetual. i.e. no long term solution or peace.
I hope I'm wrong.
EDIT; what i mean is, even if the wall or the mentioned op in Jenin reduced terrorist attacks then, have they actually done anything which still stop would be terrorists wanting to join up?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Because I think that the situation is that you will always have terrorism if it's only a military response; even if that terrorism is reduced to a comparative trickle. I realise this will need to be on the part of whoever takes control of the PA, of course.
EDIT; what i mean is, even if the wall or the mentioned op in Jenin reduced terrorist attacks then, have they actually done anything which still stop would be terrorists wanting to join up?
I agree 100% there - change has to begin at home. But until we can educate virus writers to not write viruses, we have to use anti-viruses, don't we?
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
I agree 100% there - change has to begin at home. But until we can educate virus writers to not write viruses, we have to use anti-viruses, don't we?
Yep, it's a fair point. It just seems to me, that it oftens seems to do more harm than good (or at least in the eyes of the world it does).
I'll admit, it's hard to suggest alternative strategies (well, except the wall; I think that really will cause a hell of a lot of problems in future); but I can't shake my own doubts about whether it'll do any good.
To be honest, I've kind of given up on thinking the various Palestinian groups or the PA will make any move towards peace. But I think Israel still has some capability to make 'the first move', because the IDF is the dominant power...I think Israel has more leeway to be pro-active, but I'm not sure that would happen because of politics.
-
no settlements=no necessity for military occupation=no more terrorism
...or something like that. It might not work that way, but I don't think peace is possible with the ongoing occupation.
The way I see it, the reason for killing are such
Israelis: they kill us (suicide bombers etc)
Palestinains: they kill us + they oppress and humiliate us + they're occupying our land.
So, equally harsh acts on both sides, but to be fair the Palestinains have a better reason for doing it.
-
The problem is that Israel won't pull out whilst terrorist attacks go on (it would be seen as a retreat, which isn't politically - and probably not morally - acceptable), and it's near(near?) impossible to get the terrorist groups to stop & negotiate as long as the Israelis are still occupying the territories....
-
Short term gains are still short term. If you're willing to live in a perpetual state of war Sandwich then carry on, but I doubt your children nor history will approve of that choice.
-
^history always approves of the choice that is made
-
Thats why Hitler is such a popular guy, eh?
-
Originally posted by vyper
Short term gains are still short term. If you're willing to live in a perpetual state of war Sandwich then carry on, but I doubt your children nor history will approve of that choice.
You forget Sandwichs religious views here:
http://csmonitor.com/2004/0707/p15s01-lire.html
Short term and long term gains are irrelevant, because Jesus is coming shortly to kill us all anyways.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Thats why Hitler is such a popular guy, eh?
(Dont tell anyone, but i think the allies won the war)
-
Mien gott!
Quickly, we must hurry back to avenge the Motherland!
...you never said history is written by the victor, you said "history always approves of the choice that is made"
-
Originally posted by FireCrack
(Dont tell anyone, but i think the allies won the war)
Oho, touche!
And Rictor, you're right. He didn't say that the victors wrote history. He was merely pointing out that, in the end, Hitler's regime did fail, which most of society sees as desirable.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The problem is that Israel won't pull out whilst terrorist attacks go on (it would be seen as a retreat, which isn't politically - and probably not morally - acceptable), and it's near(near?) impossible to get the terrorist groups to stop & negotiate as long as the Israelis are still occupying the territories....
Thus the whole fiasco in the gov't over Sharon's adamant moving forward with pulling out of (ironic combination of words there) Gaza. :rolleyes:
And Rictor, did't you just read the past page and a half? You cannot simply call it "killing" and expect to be taken seriously. Well, actually you probably could since most people are evidently ignorant of what happens here. But it's like the bad translation of the King James version one of the ten commandments - "Thou Shalt Not Kill", when the actual word in "murder", not "kill". There's a massive difference, one that removes much percieved hypocrisy in the bible.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Like I said, you're only reading one article, where the soldiers opened fire immediately. I happened to read an article that reported that the girl - who was actually a shape-shifting monster with dripping fangs and tentacles - pulled a handheld howitzer out of her backback and started firing at the Prime Minister of Malaysia, who just so happened to be in the area. The Israeli soldiers in the nearby outpost saw this, shouted at the girl/monster-with-drippy-fangs-and-tentacles to stop her belligerent actions, but she/it didn't respond. So after 15 minutes of shouting to stop, the soldiers opened fire and killed the girl/monster.
That's the only version I read, so it must be true. Those must be the events exactly as they occurred, and it's unthinkable that any details were modified or ommitted from the account of the eye-witness reporter who was there and caught it all on his newfangled holographic 3D-video recorder.
...I hope I've made my point.
Nope. You didn't. In any version there is the girl allways ends up dead. Like I said - they could have shoot her in the arms or legs.
And she was alive when that commander shot at her again.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Thus the whole fiasco in the gov't over Sharon's adamant moving forward with pulling out of (ironic combination of words there) Gaza. :rolleyes:
And Rictor, did't you just read the past page and a half? You cannot simply call it "killing" and expect to be taken seriously. Well, actually you probably could since most people are evidently ignorant of what happens here. But it's like the bad translation of the King James version one of the ten commandments - "Thou Shalt Not Kill", when the actual word in "murder", not "kill". There's a massive difference, one that removes much percieved hypocrisy in the bible.
Is it really? The bible was passed over verbally for generation before being writen down. Are you sure it made it in the written form 100% unchanged? Religios/political leaders and people in general have been known to do such things in the past, wether intentional or not. Are you sure there wasn't a "kill" there before?
On the other hand, even if it was murder, does it mean government/law defined term of murder, or God's definition?
Killing a 10 year old (WHEN YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO) is murder in my book anyday.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Why is terrorism only defined in terms of what "they" do to "us"? 100,00 civilians dead in Iraq, and you're telling me thats not terrorism?
Bin Laden is responsible for the deaths of 3000 innocent people.
Bush is responsible for the deaths of 100,000+ (remember Afghanistan?) innocent people.
Which one is the terrorist again? The same applies to Israel/Palestine. According to every statistic available, including Israeli sources, Israel has killed more innocents since the start of the second intifada than suicide bombers have killed Israeli civies.
When the US trains and finances death-squads and assasins in Latin America, thats not terrorism?
So freakin true!:yes:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Thus the whole fiasco in the gov't over Sharon's adamant moving forward with pulling out of (ironic combination of words there) Gaza. :rolleyes:
Of course, the problem with that is that it's seen as more a relocation than pullout in many (most?) quarters.... isn't there a bit of a land grab being made with the wall boundaries in the West Bank anyway?
The Palestinainas aren't going to massively accept it anyways, as long as it's a dictated pull-out rather than one they actually have a say in; they'll treat it with suspicion (especially as it seems to be heading towards almost a 'walled city' scenario ala Escape from New York in Gaza, with the wall encircling the region and Israeli control over the borders, coast and air).
Rictor probably knows the 'against' argument better than me, though.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The problem is that Israel won't pull out whilst terrorist attacks go on (it would be seen as a retreat, which isn't politically - and probably not morally - acceptable), and it's near(near?) impossible to get the terrorist groups to stop & negotiate as long as the Israelis are still occupying the territories....
Actually it's more like they complete the security barrier then start forcing the settlers out from behind the cover of the wall then after they are out the army relocates the wall (yes its a portable wall per sae) to the green line and simply waits the rest out.
See if they were to pull out today you would have thousands of dead settlers by morning. So I think what Sharon is planning is completing the barrier then evacuating the settlers under its cover... boom there you go.
Not that I would agree with him doing it in the first place but that doesn’t dictate what he WILL do. *shrug* :ick:
Originally posted by Rictor
Mien gott!
Quickly, we must hurry back to avenge the Motherland!
...you never said history is written by the victor, you said "history always approves of the choice that is made"
Not that this is particularly relevant but Germany is a Fatherland. ;)
-
Hamas official said ready to consider 10-year hudna to enable negotiations
:lol:
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/507141.html
Yusef, who was recently released from prison after his arrest during Operation Defensive Shield in April 2002, called on Israel and the international community to reconsider its characterization of Hamas as a terrorist organization. Hamas' desire to participate in political decision-making among the Palestinian leadership is a reflection of the organization's "maturity," Yusef was quoted as saying by Israel Radio.
sigh. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Nope. You didn't. In any version there is the girl allways ends up dead. Like I said - they could have shoot her in the arms or legs.
And she was alive when that commander shot at her again.
You know, a couple of reserves ago (2 years ago I think), they taught us what to do when we have a suicide bomber in pre-BOOM stage. You don't shoot him/her in the arms, legs, torso, or anything like that that could allow them time to activate their explosive belt/bag.
You shoot them right in the gray matter.
Now, I'm not saying that this girl was a suicide bomber - she wasn't. But I'm trying to perhaps explain why shooting a person who is blatantly acting suspicious (and, I might add, against the known rules of a person who intends to see the light of the next day) in the arms / legs does not cut it - generally.
However, I do concede that from what I understand of this scenario, it could have been handled much better, with the girl remaining alive. :blah:
-
Yusef said he would not rule out a halt to suicide bombings against Israeli targets during final status negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
"Final status"
WTF does that mean?
-
I hope it's not related to the "Final Solution"... :shaking:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
"Final status"
WTF does that mean?
he has jsut contradicted himself... hudna = (supposed) ceasefire but what hes saying here is that when they reach the final stages of negotiations that we should not rule out a possible stop in the sucicide bombings. so in the final stages of the negotiations we may get a pleasent suprise of not being bombed for a litte whil. thanks a freaking lot! :rolleyes:
-
I hope ya'll aren't actually still playing with the concept of 'peace' between Israel and Palestine. Ain't gonna happen.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
it's part of the government, therefore legitimate.
killing off congress would be quite an effective means of shuting down our government.
Yes, it would - but I don't agree that all government agencies are legitimate targets in war. Garbage cleaners are government workers, as are some lawyers, as engineers designing ways to make our life more efficient or cleaner or whatever.
I'm not sure what the rules are, but I would suggest that any agency directly involved in the military machine is legitimate, and any agency that is not, is not.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
no settlements=no necessity for military occupation=no more terrorism
...or something like that. It might not work that way, but I don't think peace is possible with the ongoing occupation.
Which would explain the terrorism before any settlements were there? Or before the occupation actually began?
-
Originally posted by Splinter
Hamas official said ready to consider 10-year hudna to enable negotiations
You'll note that whenever these organisations suggest a ceasefire, they always use the term hudna. It's for a reason.
The Koran tells us that Muhammed, when he wasn't strong, made a treaty with the tribe that controlled Mecca (this tribe was the Koreish). Off the top of my head that truce was for ten years. However, after about two years Muhammed became quite militarily powerful and thus, cancelled the truce and wiped out the Koraish. That truce was called a hudna. In an Islamic context, the word hudna cannot be simply translated as truce or ceasefire. It's a tactical ploy by Hamas or whoever to stop the fighting because they have been made weak through IDF actions. If Israel hears that Hamas wants a hudna, then Israel should go in harder - and not let these bastards regain their breath, let alone their strength.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
But - does that graph also account for changes in the living standards of the Palestinian population? Or, for example, how the civillian casualties due to IDF operations correlate to civillian casualties due to terrorist attacks? (as a matter of interest) I feel these may be important with regard to the long-term 'success' of stopping terrorism; as that graph shows, the frequency of attacks does have a tendency to wax & wane.
Because, to be clear, what it'd like to see is a solution of some sort which is mutually beneficial. Now, I know that this big wall thing is credited in particular with reducing attacks, but it's also been condemned as a breach of human rights-stroke-international law in the effect it has on ordinary Palestinians. Because I think that the situation is that you will always have terrorism if it's only a military response; even if that terrorism is reduced to a comparative trickle. I realise this will need to be on the part of whoever takes control of the PA, of course.
I have to be honest; regardless of frequency of attacks, all I've seen - again from my own distant perspective - is a constant spiral of tit-for-tat reciprocal violence that appears to be perpetual. i.e. no long term solution or peace.
I hope I'm wrong.
EDIT; what i mean is, even if the wall or the mentioned op in Jenin reduced terrorist attacks then, have they actually done anything which still stop would be terrorists wanting to join up?
An excellent post. There is no doubt that the Palestinian standard of living has plummeted in the last four years, what with the general closures etc.
But did you know that the highest standard of living the Palestinians have ever obtained were in the years prior to first Intifada and (six years later) the creation of the PA? Which means that when Palestinians act violently toward Israel, Israel will close its borders to protect itself.
It makes sense. 80% of Palestinians now say that they support suicide bombing. Of course Israel isn't going to let Palestinians have access to Israel! Oh, the bleeding hearts claim, one in five Pallies don't want to kill you! How sweet.
When the PA came on the scene, the Palestinian standard of living went further downhill - this despite billions of dollars being poured into the territories by the international community and despite (or because!) the Palestinians were being ruled by themselves for the first time in their less-than-hundred years of existance.
But while this was happening, a pollster called Khalil Shikaki, from Ramallah, found something very surprising. In four polls, taken in '97, '98, '99 and 2000, Palestinians placed Israel above the PA, the USA and France when rating standards of democracy and human rights. So, despite being 'oppressed' by the Izzies, the Pallies actually thought the illegal Zionist Entity was the best in the world in regards to human rights!!!!
The polls show that what the world says about Israel is mostly bollocks. Israel opened universities for the Pallies, it opened the economy for the Pallies. Did you know that during the seventies, the Pallie economy was the fastest growing economy in the world! Why? Because from 1967 Israel controlled it and there was no violence. When Jordanians, Egyptians or Palestinians controlled it and/or when there was violence, the Pallie economy went to poo.
So Arafat and Fatach (which were in his pocket) launched the violence. Hamas got on board because they had never climbed onto the peace train. Now, because of heavy Israeli responses, Palestinians hate Israel and are - once again - calling for its destruction. Arafat got what he wanted. And then they buried him in his parking lot! Ha!
Food for thought.
Oh. The other day someone asked me to prove something. Check out the following links. The first is the most relevant, and they lose relevancy as they go down. I hope each site I've linked to is pretty enough for person these links are for!
http://newyorker.com/PRINTABLE/?fact/011119fa_FACT1
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-radu042902.asp
http://frictionmagazine.com/politik/columns/wardiary_122101.asp
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/evil.htm
Goodness me. I went completely off-track. The reason I replied to this post was because the poster wanted a mutually beneficial peace. So do I. Oslo was that attempt. Two communities would have full access to each other. They would share their economies, their education, their land, etc. And it really, rea.ly didn't work. The drafters of Oslo figured peace, then security.
Sharon has turned the tables with the security barrier and disengagement from Gaza. He is saying security, then peace. And he knows the only way to get security is by keeping a distance. The security barrier and disengagement plan IS mutually beneficial. In five years time, the Pallies will have a state and they'll have the security barrier to thank for it.
-
Originally posted by erratus
An excellent post. There is no doubt that the Palestinian standard of living has plummeted in the last four years, what with the general closures etc.
But did you know that the highest standard of living the Palestinians have ever obtained were in the years prior to first Intifada and (six years later) the creation of the PA? Which means that when Palestinians act violently toward Israel, Israel will close its borders to protect itself.
It makes sense. 80% of Palestinians now say that they support suicide bombing. Of course Israel isn't going to let Palestinians have access to Israel! Oh, the bleeding hearts claim, one in five Pallies don't want to kill you! How sweet.
When the PA came on the scene, the Palestinian standard of living went further downhill - this despite billions of dollars being poured into the territories by the international community and despite (or because!) the Palestinians were being ruled by themselves for the first time in their less-than-hundred years of existance.
But while this was happening, a pollster called Khalil Shikaki, from Ramallah, found something very surprising. In four polls, taken in '97, '98, '99 and 2000, Palestinians placed Israel above the PA, the USA and France when rating standards of democracy and human rights. So, despite being 'oppressed' by the Izzies, the Pallies actually thought the illegal Zionist Entity was the best in the world in regards to human rights!!!!
The polls show that what the world says about Israel is mostly bollocks. Israel opened universities for the Pallies, it opened the economy for the Pallies. Did you know that during the seventies, the Pallie economy was the fastest growing economy in the world! Why? Because from 1967 Israel controlled it and there was no violence. When Jordanians, Egyptians or Palestinians controlled it and/or when there was violence, the Pallie economy went to poo.
So Arafat and Fatach (which were in his pocket) launched the violence. Hamas got on board because they had never climbed onto the peace train. Now, because of heavy Israeli responses, Palestinians hate Israel and are - once again - calling for its destruction. Arafat got what he wanted. And then they buried him in his parking lot! Ha!
Food for thought.
Goodness me. I went completely off-track. The reason I replied to this post was because the poster wanted a mutually beneficial peace. So do I. Oslo was that attempt. Two communities would have full access to each other. They would share their economies, their education, their land, etc. And it really, rea.ly didn't work. The drafters of Oslo figured peace, then security.
Sharon has turned the tables with the security barrier and disengagement from Gaza. He is saying security, then peace. And he knows the only way to get security is by keeping a distance. The security barrier and disengagement plan IS mutually beneficial. In five years time, the Pallies will have a state and they'll have the security barrier to thank for it.
The problem is that the security of Israel does nothing to protect the security of the territories; if you read this article (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101faessay83605/khalil-shikaki/the-future-of-palestine.html) by the aformentioned Khalil Shikaki, it makes a number of interesting points about the potential exploitation of the pullout to allow more extremist elements to take control of Palestine; as there was no co-ordination or negotiation with the PA over the pullout, these extremists can claim victory and use that to undermine any legitimate authority the PA does have. The article itself is equally a call for democratic reform & proper elections for the PA; very interesting stuff, actually.
(NB: was written pre-Arafats death, so the election stuff is obviously deprecated)
However, from what I can see there is no guarentee the disengagement plan is actually anything beyond the 'walling up' of Gaza, not a unilateral move to a 2-state solution
And could the Palestinians ever truly accept a solution they had no say in? Certainly, given the history of animosity, I think they'd doubt that an imposed solution by Israel would be in anything other than Israels best interests - especially one from a man they consider a war criminal. So... they have no guarentees there will be a Palestinian state, and no say regardless - clearly not very different from the current situation IMO.
As an aside, I also found this, which maye be of interest; http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2004/p12a.html#popularity
(analysis in link, this is just the bold stuff)
(1) Withdrawal from Gaza
* Little less than two-thirds of the Palestinians (64%) support the Egyptian initiative and 32% oppose it, but only 53% support the deployment of Egyptian military advisers and security officials in the Gaza Strip
* High levels of support for various forms of international presence in the context of the Sharon disengagement plan with 60% for the deployment of an armed international or multilateral force in the Gaza Strip that would be responsible for security in the Rafah international border crossing and the Egyptian-Palestinian border
* Support for the modified Sharon disengagement plan as approved by the Israeli government does not exceed 34% and only one quarter believes the plan will actually be implemented
* A majority of 59% would oppose armed attacks from the Gaza Strip if the withdrawal from the Strip was complete
* An almost even split on the future of the homes in the settlements with 49% wanting to keep them intact and 48% wanting them destroyed
* An overwhelming majority (90%) supports Hamas’ participation in the administration of the Gaza Strip after the Israel withdrawal
(2) Peace Process: Intifada, Victory, Armed attacks, and Reconciliation
* only 40% believe the Palestinians came out winners so far in the ongoing armed conflict that has started in September 2000 and 37% believe no one won. Belief in Palestinian victory is much higher in Gaza (54%) than in the West Bank (32%)
* A majority of 59% supports continued suicide bombings inside Israel if an opportunity arises. Despite this, support for mutual cessation of violence remains very high (79%)
* 77% feel that their safety and that of their families are not assured these days
* support for reconciliation between the two peoples remains very high (72%) even though 43% believe such reconciliation is not possible ever
(3) Local and National Elections
* Opposition to holding local elections in stages is greater than support (49% to 45%) as more people want to hold these elections in all cities, towns and villages simultaneously
* In local elections: 28% will vote for Hamas and Islamic Jihad candidates, 26% for Fateh’s, 17% for independents, and 9% for family candidates
* A solid majority of 70% supports the participation of refugee camp residents in the municipal council elections within which these camps are located
* Almost three quarters support giving women a quota in the general political elections
* A majority of 88% encourages the participation of Hamas in the general legislative and presidential elections if they take place soon
(4) Reform, Democracy, and Corruption
* An overwhelming majority (92%) supports inside and outside calls for fundamental political reforms in the PA
* Positive evaluation of the status of democracy in the Palestinian areas does not exceed 25% and 50% believe that people can criticize the PA without fear
* 87% believe that corruption exists in the institutions of the PA and two thirds believe that officials and others involved in or accused of corruption are often not charged or brought to account
(5) Popularity of Yasir Arafat, Marwan Barghouti, and Political Factions
* In an open question regarding the election of the PA president, a majority of 54% votes for Yasir Arafat. No one else received 2% or more of the vote with the exception of Marwan Barghouti and Mahmud Zahhar. But in a closed question Arafat received 49%
* In another open question, this time regarding the election of a vice president, Ahmad Qurai (Abu Ala’) received 9%, followed by Marwan Barghouti (8%), but in a closed question Barghouti came first with 25%
* The popularity of Fateh has remained unchanged from last March (28%) but that of Hamas increased from 20% to 24%.
* Combined Islamist strength (Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and independent Islamists) increased from 29% last March to 35%
(there is a lot more stuff on that site; the following pages shows that ~60% oppose the Sharon disengagement plan, 55% would still support attacks on Israeli targets after the plan was carried out, 60% would oppose attacks if the plan involved further pulling out; (see 14) , 68% doubt the plan will ever be carried out; and more stuff than I could possibly read justnow)
I think there is a lot in that poll that shows people want a fair, peaceful solution and that it is possible... hopefully the death of Arafat can pave the way to a democratic government able to begin to work to implement that wish.
-
Does anyone else find it ironic that the only Muslim nations in the Middle-East that have/are having free elections and heading towards democracy are those under Israeli or American "occupation"?
-
Nope. I find it tragic that both countries push around the populations of occupied countries to get the results they want and then claim it's democratic.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The problem is that the security of Israel does nothing to protect the security of the territories; if you read this article (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101faessay83605/khalil-shikaki/the-future-of-palestine.html) by the aformentioned Khalil Shikaki, it makes a number of interesting points about the potential exploitation of the pullout to allow more extremist elements to take control of Palestine; as there was no co-ordination or negotiation with the PA over the pullout, these extremists can claim victory and use that to undermine any legitimate authority the PA does have. The article itself is equally a call for democratic reform & proper elections for the PA; very interesting stuff, actually.
Um, hang on. You've got your parties muddled up. Do we want Israeli occupation to end, or do we want democracy? Democracy cannot be imposed on a people overnight, despite what the US continues to say.
If you want Israel to disengage from the territories only after massive PA reform and an internalisation of democratic values by the average Palestinian, then I'd suggest that you don't hold your breath.
Look how far the Pallies have come in the past ten years! Hell, yeah. Impressive movement toward a corruption-free, open-marketed democratic statelet!
Either stop calling for an end to occupation or stop calling for Israel to help in democratising the Pallies. Israel can't do both.
I think that the Pallies should be allowed to attempt to form a system of government by themselves. I think that any call that suggests they need help doing that smacks of racism. The Jews didn't need help forming a democracy, despite the fact they have never had a democracy before. Why should the Muslims be any different?
Or are you applying two different standards to two groups of people?
However, from what I can see there is no guarentee the disengagement plan is actually anything beyond the 'walling up' of Gaza, not a unilateral move to a 2-state solution
As for the 'walling up' of Gaza, do you honestly and sincerely believe that, should your wildest dreams come true and the Pallies finally realise that killing children is a bad thing, the border between 'Palestine' and Israel will be as open and unguarded as that between the US and Canada? Oh, come on!
The border between Israel and 'Palestine' will look much like the border between Israel and Jordan - a big electric fence with mines on both sides. Border crossings will be secure and tightly controlled.
If you want Israel to pull out of Gaza (with or without cooperation) and for Gaza to be part of a Palestinian state, you're just going to have to accept the fact that it will be separated from Israel.
And Israeli cooperation with the Pallies regarding disengagement? The Pallies have consistantly cooperated with terrorists. Upon gaining power, Abu Mazen stretched out an olive branch - not to Israel - but to Hamas! Now, that's dedication to security cooperation for you!
And could the Palestinians ever truly accept a solution they had no say in?
The Japanese and Germans seemed to. Oh, but they're success stories. Can't use those examples!
If the polls you cited are accurate, it would show that the Pallies prefer to have an Islamic Republic of Palestine, which means an unnegotiated pullout by Israel of Gaza will just speed things up.
Between 1956 and 1967 do you know how many Israelis (in Israel) were killed by terrorists? 30. And during all that time you had neighbouring states that were out to destroy Israel.
So, bring it on! Let Hamastan be formed in Gaza. Let 'em arm up and try to hurt Israel. And then you, no doubt, will be first in line to criticise Jerusalem for attacking Hamas targets in response. Will we see condemnations by you bleeding heart types when Hamastan attacks Ashdod? Or will they be utilising their eternal right to fight occupation? What bollocks.
-
Originally posted by erratus
Um, hang on. You've got your parties muddled up. Do we want Israeli occupation to end, or do we want democracy? Democracy cannot be imposed on a people overnight, despite what the US continues to say.
If you want Israel to disengage from the territories only after massive PA reform and an internalisation of democratic values by the average Palestinian, then I'd suggest that you don't hold your breath.
Look how far the Pallies have come in the past ten years! Hell, yeah. Impressive movement toward a corruption-free, open-marketed democratic statelet!
Either stop calling for an end to occupation or stop calling for Israel to help in democratising the Pallies. Israel can't do both.
I wasn't calling for both, I also think you misunderstand the articles point. Without any form of negotiation - and by extension fair representation of the Palestinian populace by an elected government - extremist/terrorist groups will be able to use the IDF pullout to claim victory and - more worryingly - thus validation of their own tactics. It will also emphasise the lack of influence the current government has in its ability to negotiate a peaceful solution, which may serve to strengthen the power base of said extremists.
Of course, Israel can play a role in facilitating democracy by lifting checkpoints within the territories to allow everyone to vote during the election... I've heard conflicting reports over how much the IDF has done in this regard.
(EDIT)
Now...one thing; I'm not entirely sure you've read me right. I would like a negotiated solution resulting in an independent 2-state solution (because I don't think any other solution can work). Obviously, that would need an end to the occupation.
But, what i'm saying is that this pullout, will not facilitate that type of solution, for several reasons (terrorists can claim victory and thus gain power, inability for Gaza to reopen air or sea ports & thus trade, and of course the issue of what will happen RE: the West Bank). (IMO, of course)
Originally posted by erratus
I think that the Pallies should be allowed to attempt to form a system of government by themselves. I think that any call that suggests they need help doing that smacks of racism. The Jews didn't need help forming a democracy, despite the fact they have never had a democracy before. Why should the Muslims be any different?
Or are you applying two different standards to two groups of people?
I'm not sure where you're getting this(apparent statement from me) from, to be honest. So I can't reply without knowing what I'm supposed to have said.
Originally posted by erratus
As for the 'walling up' of Gaza, do you honestly and sincerely believe that, should your wildest dreams come true and the Pallies finally realise that killing children is a bad thing, the border between 'Palestine' and Israel will be as open and unguarded as that between the US and Canada? Oh, come on!
The border between Israel and 'Palestine' will look much like the border between Israel and Jordan - a big electric fence with mines on both sides. Border crossings will be secure and tightly controlled.
If you want Israel to pull out of Gaza (with or without cooperation) and for Gaza to be part of a Palestinian state, you're just going to have to accept the fact that it will be separated from Israel.
And Israeli cooperation with the Pallies regarding disengagement? The Pallies have consistantly cooperated with terrorists. Upon gaining power, Abu Mazen stretched out an olive branch - not to Israel - but to Hamas! Now, that's dedication to security cooperation for you!
See the article I posted in the post you quoted over the whole meaning and purpose of co-operation with respect to the pullout.
And also see the rulings declaring the wall illegal; I think anything I could say would be paraphrasing these. And of course the issues over the confiscation of Palestinian land to build the barrier and the cutting off of towns from resources (I think Qalqilya was a prime example of this?);
IIRC the wall also goes inside the borders of the territory captured by Israel in 1967, so it can be construed as a land grab (valid or not this view may be, it is still a cause for concern or indeed anger).
( I don't believe it's an unfair or irrational position if I hold an opinion based upon a ruling of international law)
Originally posted by erratus
The Japanese and Germans seemed to. Oh, but they're success stories. Can't use those examples!
If the polls you cited are accurate, it would show that the Pallies prefer to have an Islamic Republic of Palestine, which means an unnegotiated pullout by Israel of Gaza will just speed things up.
Between 1956 and 1967 do you know how many Israelis (in Israel) were killed by terrorists? 30. And during all that time you had neighbouring states that were out to destroy Israel.
So, bring it on! Let Hamastan be formed in Gaza. Let 'em arm up and try to hurt Israel. And then you, no doubt, will be first in line to criticise Jerusalem for attacking Hamas targets in response. Will we see condemnations by you bleeding heart types when Hamastan attacks Ashdod? Or will they be utilising their eternal right to fight occupation? What bollocks.
So what, you're blaming me for showing a poll? If Hamas is gaining support, maybe you should be asking why? What makes people support a terrorist group (excluding Hamas' political/social role in building hospitals, schools, mosques or similar) which is dedicated to driving Israel out of the territories through force?
Look, all I did was post a few polls, an article by a guy about the need for co-operation (in terms of timing, some formation of security service to maintain a semblance of control), and give my reading of it. Both the polls and the article came from the same person - stroke - group you cited earlier, so as to make sure you couldn't complain about inaccuraces (presuming you trust your earler source).
In fact, I don't think I even gave any deep analysis or meaning to said polls; I distinctly said they were 'interesting' and left you draw your own conclusions. You appear to have also drawn mine for me, which is a bit..odd.
I think what i posted earlier explains perfectly my opinion of the problems posed by unilateral withdrawal; trying to make it look like I'm some bleeding heart pro-terrorist person just seems...bizarre.
I mean, I'm not even sure what your point is. I've stated mine; I don't think this pullout will work in terms of peace. I don't think Israeli security is a method to guarentee a desire for peace amongst Palestinians. I don't think I need to reiterate what I've already posted.
Of course, you could use the Treaty of Versailles as evidence of where imposed peace fails; there are lots of examples of how an imposed peace can fail. But given the long history of strong hatred over the whole Palestinian situation, I think it's the least likely place where an imposed solution will be accepted.
-
My point is simple. Israel tried to coordinate in state building and security seeking activities with the Palestinians. The attempt failed momentously. Indeed, copious evidence has been revealed which proves that the PA acted to directly lessen Israeli security. See http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/capt/capt.htm ([URL)
Moreover, history has taught Israel that its most secure time in the last 57 years was for the ten or so years when it was the most separated from its muderous neighbours.
All countries act in their own interests. Israel attempted peace (with state building and security seeking coordination) with the Palestinians because those in charge thought it would enhance Israel's interests. The plan backfired, to put it mildly.
Israel is now seeking to enhance it's interests by acting unilaterally.
Coordinating something with someone usually means actions by at least two parties. The whole Oslo experiment was an attempt to coordinate an Israeli disengagement from Gaza (and most of the West Bank). In exchange for this disengagement, the Pallies promised to end incitement and terrorism. Both increased.
How many times and in how many different ways do I have to repeat this: coordination with the Palestinians has hurt Israel considerably and Israel has learnt its lesson.
The ICJ's decision on the security barrier was a joke. And no, not because it went against what I thought it should have been. It was a joke because it ruled that if a sub-state actor were to attack a state, the state could not legally act against that actor. If applied retroactively, it puts many, many actions carried out by the UK against the IRA and assorted terrorists in Northern Ireland in the illegal category.
That's a joke. This was one of the reasons that most serious commentators rejected the opinion out of hand. The topic of the court's opinion is really only to be found in bleeding heart webspace these days - not in the pages of serious journals.
I have no problem with either Shikaki's polls or your decision to post them in this thread. You claimed that you wanted a democratic 'Palestine'. You also claimed that should Israel withdrawal uniltarally, it would gain influence and/or political points for the Islamist parties/terrorist groups. The polls revealed that a majority of Palestinians already want these Islamists in power. So with or without a coordinated pullout, all it would take is one election. I can assure you that after the Islamists got in power, 'Palestine' would not be a democratic utopia. Anyone been to Algeria recently? Or Iran, for that matter.
Moreover, the very fact that Israel is leaving the territories - coordinated or not - will be considered a victory by ALL the Pallie factions. Why do you think that shortly after the Oslo accords were signed, Arafat invoked the PLO stages plan? Was Arafat signalling defeat of PLO policies? Of course he wasn't.
During and after the coming disengagement, Sharon will claim sort of victory (don't know how). Hamas will claim a victory and so will Fatach. It's politics, sunshine.
And what's to stop the Pallies reopening sea and airports in Gaza? As long as they don't use them for terrorist purposes (did someone say 'Karine A'?) Israel will let them be.
-
Originally posted by erratus
My point is simple. Israel tried to coordinate in state building and security seeking activities with the Palestinians and it failed momentously. Indeed, copious evidence has been revealed that the PA acted to directly lessen Israeli security. See http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/capt/capt.htm ([URL)
Moreover, history has taught Israel that their most secure time in the last 57 years was for the ten or so years when they were the most separated from its muderous neighbours.
All countries act in their own interests. Israel attempted peace (with state building and security seeking coordination) with the Palestinians because those in charge thought it would enhance Israel's interests. The plan backfired, to put it mildly.
Israel is now seeking to enhance it's interests by acting unilaterally.
Coordinating something with someone usually means actions by at least two parties. The whole Oslo experiment was an attempt to coordinate an Israeli disengagement from Gaza (and most of the West Bank). In exchange for this disengagement, the Pallies promised to end incitement and terrorism. Both increased.
IIRC (maybe in this thread) Sandwich shown a graph that indicated a reduction in terrorism between the signing of the Oslo accord and up to the point of the second intifada
Originally posted by erratus
How many times and in how many different ways do I have to repeat this: coordination with the Palestinians has hurt Israel considerably and Israel has learnt its lesson.
The ICJ's decision on the security barrier was a joke. And no, not because it went against what I thought it should have been. It was a joke because it ruled that if a sub-state actor were to attack a state, the state could not legally act against that actor. If applied retroactively, it puts many, many actions carried out by the UK against the IRA and assorted terrorists in Northern Ireland in the illegal category.
What anti-IRA actions are you referring to?
The ICJ ruling was based on the removal of access to land and resources, amongst various things. I don't remember the British army, for example, forcibly annexing parts of Belfast. And also the Irish troubles aren't really comparable because N.Ireland itself is divided over the issue of which country it wishes to be unified with - not independence.
Originally posted by erratus
I have no problem with either Shikaki's polls or your decision to post them in this thread. You claimed that you wanted a democratic 'Palestine'. You also claimed that should Israel withdrawal uniltarally, it would gain influence and/or political points for the Islamist parties/terrorist groups. The polls revealed that a majority of Palestinians already want these Islamists in power. So with or without a coordinated pullout, all it would take is one election. I can assure you that after the Islamists got in power, 'Palestine' would not be a democratic utopia. Anyone been to Algeria recently? Or Iran, for that matter.
I didn't claim that, Shikaki did. I merely agree with him.
And again I'd add that Hamas do play a social / political role with the territories; you have to factor in that effect in judging what their popularity stems from. And of course there is the simple & tragedy reality that the Palestinians support attacks upon Israelis as long as they are occupied; I think that a proper peace and a degree of stability would at least act to check the extremists.
Originally posted by erratus
Moreover, the very fact that Israel is leaving the territories - coordinated or not - will be considered a victory by ALL the Pallie factions. Why do you think that shortly after the Oslo accords were signed, Arafat invoked the PLO stages plan? Was Arafat signalling defeat of PLO policies? Of course he wasn't.
During and after the coming disengagement, Sharon will claim sort of victory (don't know how). Hamas will claim a victory and so will Fatach. It's politics, sunshine.
But Israel aren't leaving the territories, are they? Only Gaza - in fact, I'm sure I've read a quote from Sharon suggesting there will be no further pullouts for a long time. And also that those evicted from Gaza will be allowed to resettle in the West Bank enclaves.
I have read a suggestion - I forget where - that one of Israels key objectives could be to consolidate the various enclaves in the West Bank into a single larger and more easily defended settlement.... and the amount of territory claimed by Israel in the West Bank now amounts to something like 50% of the land IIRC.
So if this solution 'works', then the Palestinians will have been forced to accept a vastly reduced territory than that seized originally by Israel, without any guarentee of a permanent solution or even a Palestinian state.
Also, I think Israel leaving, with absolutely no negotiation or peaceful action taken to cause this, will certainly favour the armed fighters when each / all side claims victory. I mean, nobody negotiated with Israel to pull out - surely that means the terrorists forced them out (or at least, that's the way it'll be portrayed).
Originally posted by erratus
And what's to stop the Pallies reopening sea and airports in Gaza? As long as they don't use them for terrorist purposes (did someone say 'Karine A'?) Israel will let them be.
As part of the pullout Israel are maintaining control of the airspace, borders (albiet Egypt may be taking control of that border) and coastline of Gaza. I think it would be highly unlikely the IDF would allow any traffic from there.
Look, i think I'm really just beginning to repeat myself here; it's fair enough that you disagree with me (it's your perogrative, of course), but I'm not sure there's anything else I can really say to expand upon my particular viewpoint, because I think I've said everything I can.
-
We have both been repeating ourselves because we are both convinced the other is wrong. And who would have thought the conflict has been going on for half a century or more?
IIRC (maybe in this thread) Sandwich shown a graph that indicated a reduction in terrorism between the signing of the Oslo accord and up to the point of the second intifada
I would be very surprised if Sandwich had of posted such a graph. Indeed, I would be very surprised if such a graph exists. More Israelis died as a result of terrorism between 1993 and 2000 than any other previous seven year period.
Letting the Pallie leadeship in, giving them arms, money and access to Israelis did NOT increase security but had the opposite effect.
What anti-IRA actions are you referring to?
Internship, military tribunals (without access to appeal), curfews and - if you believe an SAS whistleblower - extra-judicial killings. We can throw in the gunning down of three IRA activitists in Gibraltar as a case in point.
The fact is, most of these terrorist bastards claim to be in some sort of army. They even give themselves rank and have strict military discipline within their group. So I say, treat them like combatants! Shoot them on sight. If you capture them, give them POW status - which is a hell of a lot more unpleasant than how Israel treats her security prisoners.
The ICJ ruling was based on the removal of access to land and resources, amongst various things. I don't remember the British army, for example, forcibly annexing parts of Belfast. And also the Irish troubles aren't really comparable because N.Ireland itself is divided over the issue of which country it wishes to be unified with - not independence.
The ICJ opinion was based on taking as binding UN General Assembly resolutions. Not only are GA resolutions not binding, but the GA does not have the capacity to make nor interpret international law. The opinion was flawed in all sorts of ways. One of those ways was the opinion that no country can defend itself against non-state actors.
We have to accept the opinion or reject it. There is no point just taking those bits of the opinion that seem to reflect our own sentiment.
Moreover, I was not comparing the Northern Irish conflict with that conflict in which I live. I merely pointed out that - should the opinion have been binding - lots of countries would have found themselves with tied hands upon realising a security threat in their own backyards.
And again I'd add that Hamas do play a social / political role with the territories; you have to factor in that effect in judging what their popularity stems from.
I know full well why and how Hamas are popular. It stems straight from the corruption of the PA. The PA was given billions of dollars and spent it all on their wives. Hamas built schools and hospitals - thus gaining the support of the people - and used those social welfare mechanisms to spread it's 'let's kill a Jew for breakfast' indoctrination.
And of course there is the simple & tragedy reality that the Palestinians support attacks upon Israelis as long as they are occupied; I think that a proper peace and a degree of stability would at least act to check the extremists.
Wrong. When there was pure occupation, there was little or no terrorism. There was a great economy. The Palestinians were the most liberal and most educated of all the world's Arabs.
As soon as there was self-rule, the economy went downhill, as did the Pallies' level of education. They are now among the poorest Arabs, the least educated and the most religiously extreme.
The end of occupation will NOT reduce attempts at terrorism. It will, however, reduce the success of terrorism. Which is why I'm all for it.
But Israel aren't leaving the territories, are they? Only Gaza - in fact, I'm sure I've read a quote from Sharon suggesting there will be no further pullouts for a long time. And also that those evicted from Gaza will be allowed to resettle in the West Bank enclaves.
I have read a suggestion - I forget where - that one of Israels key objectives could be to consolidate the various enclaves in the West Bank into a single larger and more easily defended settlement.... and the amount of territory claimed by Israel in the West Bank now amounts to something like 50% of the land IIRC.
The fifty percent mark is wrong, but the principle stands. Sharon knows that Israel will have to give up Gaza, so he's doing it now - in an attempt to gain browny points. Then he'll say 'it's time for the Pallies to do something', which, of course, they won't - and he knows that. The real reason he is unilaterally pulling out of Gaza is because he wants to buy time to finish the West Bank security barrier. When that barrier is finish, there will be no more suicide bombers in Israel proper. This is a good thing.
And then Sharon will be able to start negotiating with the Pallies in regards to their state and the final borders.
It's ridiculous to regard the Green Line as sacrosanct. The Green Line is a ceasefire line, nothing more. It was never negotiated. The only reason it is where it is, is because that was where the Israelis stopped the Jordanians in their march to Tel Aviv.
The Pallies will get what the Israelis want them to get. Why the hell should Pallie terrorism be rewarded with everything they want? Israel is interested in granting the Pallies a state because it is in Israel's interest to do so. And it's in Israel's interest to retain some of the West Bank, so Israel will.
It's not as if the Pallies had ever had a state or anything that the nasty Jordanians took over. The most amount of self-rule the Pallies have EVER had was during that period in which Israel allowed them to have it. And they bombed Israel in reply. Nasty.
So if this solution 'works', then the Palestinians will have been forced to accept a vastly reduced territory than that seized originally by Israel,
... from the Jordanians...
without any guarentee of a permanent solution or even a Palestinian state.
Yup! It's beautiful in its simplicity. Israel just might be one of the first countries in history to tell terrorism that terrorism doesn't work. Because terrorism always works. And it has worked in part over here, of course. But if the Pallies get a vastly reduced piece of land because of terrorism, than they'll just have to live with that.
-
Terrorism does work mate, or have you forgotton how your little country came into being?
-
Originally posted by Gank
Terrorism does work mate, or have you forgotton how your little country came into being?
Actually, my country came into being as a result of British colonialism. British troops invaded my country, killed almost every indigenous inhabitant and then flooded it with Irish slaves.
A hundred and twelve years later, it became a sovereign state.
As for Israel (the country in which I presently live), it came into being because of a successful guerrilla warfare campaign waged by Zionists. As I have stressed numerous times, guerrilla warfare can be - and often is - legitimate.
I'd suggest you read about the Just War.
Don't feel bad if you've realised just how ignorant you are about this conflict. Not many people know all that much about the conflict on your island.
-
However, the multiple political assasinations or the bombing of the british embassy in Rome of Israel activists before the founding of the state don't fall under guerilla warfare.
-
Originally posted by Lynx
However, the multiple political assasinations or the bombing of the british embassy in Rome of Israel activists before the founding of the state don't fall under guerilla warfare.
You're absolutely right, and these actions are justly condemned. But you'll find that these actions were not carried out by the Hagana (the main Jewish militant group), nor sanctioned by any of the leading Zionist organisations such as Keren Hayesod, the World Zionist Organisation or whoever. In fact, the WZO (which later formed the core of the provisional government upon Independence) condemned these and other terrorist actions outright.
Do we ever, ever hear the PA condemn Palestinian terrorism because it is wrong? Never! The best they'll do is lament that Palestinian terrorism does not enhance Palestinian interests. Which means if it DID enhance Pallie interests, they'd be all for it.
But does the world hold the PA to account for such a disgusting attitude? Of course not. And you wonder why I rant about dual standards.
-
Another thing...as far as I know, there were no suicide bombers younger than 17 or 18(You may prove me wrong now).
So a 10 year shouldn't have been seen as such a risk. Unless that guy was blind or something.
-
The groups Irgun Zvai Leumi & Lohamei Herut Israel come to mind.
EDIt; I believe there is a Lehi ribbon awarded by the states to members of the former Lehi underground.
-
Originally posted by Lynx
Another thing...as far as I know, there were no suicide bombers younger than 17 or 18(You may prove me wrong now).
So a 10 year shouldn't have been seen as such a risk. Unless that guy was blind or something.
The ten-year-old was actually a thirteen-year-old, despite the title of this thread. About three months ago a 13-year-old boy was used as a mule by his terrorist handlers and caught at a checkpoint. (His school bag was filled with explosives.)
Last Friday, three Palestinian youths, the youngest was 14, were caught trying to bypass an IDF checkpoint. They were found with knives and bullets in their possession.
There have been a couple of suicide bombers (and bomber wannabes) that were aged 16. The youngest female suicide bomber ws 17. She has had two summer camps for 14-year-olds named after her, at least one of which was funded by UNESCO.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
The groups Irgun Zvai Leumi & Lohamei Herut Israel come to mind.
EDIt; I believe there is a Lehi ribbon awarded by the states to members of the former Lehi underground.
The fact that Israel has had anything at all to do with those terrorist bastards is a black mark on Israel's history. They should have been put in jail, not given ribbons.
-
Originally posted by erratus
The fact that Israel has had anything at all to do with those terrorist bastards is a black mark on Israel's history. They should have been put in jail, not given ribbons.
But it is still part of your history & part of the formation of Israel.
Oh, and I am really trying not to post any big londed winded replies (it's a Saturday, and frankly I can't be arsed at the mo :) ), but I did find yon graph; http://www.wischik.com/lu/senses/israel-terrorist-attacks.html
It doesn't show prior to 93, but it does show a massive increase after the 2nd intifada, though. I'll leave interpretation of it to be open.
Also, and you were wrong about the Gibraltar thing being an assasination. The SAS were there to trail the suspects as they believed they had planted a bomb; they shot them after a police car spooked the suspects and one of them made a move towards what was believed to be a detonator.
There are certainly issues regarding the conduct of the security services and the Army in N.Ireland to be answered, of course. And certainly there are ongoing controversies and court cases (such as over possible collusion to protect informants in Loyalist or Republican paramilitary groups).
Of course, all the military actions in the world in N. Ireland can't hide the fact that peace was only won & is being maintained through continued negotiation.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
But it is still part of your history & part of the formation of Israel.
Yes, but you'll find that Israel glorifies only the positive roles that the Irgun and co played in Israel's formation - whilst quietly trying to sweep their crimes under the carpet. The Pallies proudly claim to be terrorists. There is a clear difference.
Oh, and I am really trying not to post any big londed winded replies (it's a Saturday, and frankly I can't be arsed at the mo :) ), but I did find yon graph; http://www.wischik.com/lu/senses/israel-terrorist-attacks.html
It doesn't show prior to 93, but it does show a massive increase after the 2nd intifada, though. I'll leave interpretation of it to be open.
Any graph formatted a similar way for before 1993 would reveal almost no terror attacks. Yes - the outbreak of violence in 2000 until today has been the most intense in Israel's history. However my claim stands - the period between 1993 and 2000 saw more Israelis die from terrorism than any other previous seven year period.
Also, and you were wrong about the Gibraltar thing being an assasination. The SAS were there to trail the suspects as they believed they had planted a bomb; they shot them after a police car spooked the suspects and one of them made a move towards what was believed to be a detonator.
Of course, all the military actions in the world in N. Ireland can't hide the fact that peace was only won & is being maintained through continued negotiation. [/B]
I didn't claim the Gilbratar affair was an assassination, though from the structure of my paragraph, I can see where the confusion might arise. What I was implying was that what happened in Gilbratar would be illegal if the ICJ's opinion was applied to the Northern Irish conflict. Those terrorists were non-state actors. The ICJ would have issues.
Peace is being maintained in Northern Ireland ONLY because the leaders of the main political parties (and paramilitaries) realised that violence would not solve the conflict.
The Pallies have yet to realise this. Until they do so, negotiations will only lead to more Israelis dying.
-
You know Jewish/Israeli terrorists were the first to use a letter bomb? An SAS Commander's brother got killed by it by accident.
They also tried to blow up the cabinet in parliament, but apparently the bomb either a) never went off or b)the agent lied to his superiors and never actually planted it.
I never realized how much of a kick in the teeth we got after stopping Hitler from wiping you all out.
-
Originally posted by erratus
Actually, my country came into being as a result of British colonialism. British troops invaded my country, killed almost every indigenous inhabitant and then flooded it with Irish slaves.
Presuming you're an ozzie only 20% or so of the transported criminals/rebels were actually Irish.
Originally posted by erratus
As for Israel (the country in which I presently live), it came into being because of a successful guerrilla warfare campaign waged by Zionists. As I have stressed numerous times, guerrilla warfare can be - and often is - legitimate.
Massacaring villages isnt guerilla warfare, nor is assasinating UN delegates. And if the Israeli government and people condemn terrorism, how do you explain the fact that they've elected several people who were former members of said Irgun and Lehi among other terrorist groups to lead them? Begin I believe was a former member for one. Dress it up whatever way you like, you're no better than the pallies.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Also, and you were wrong about the Gibraltar thing being an assasination. The SAS were there to trail the suspects as they believed they had planted a bomb; they shot them after a police car spooked the suspects and one of them made a move towards what was believed to be a detonator.
They were gunned down on the street in broad daylight, no weapons or detonators were found on them. Its pretty commonly accepted by everyone that it was an assassination Aldo, much like its fairly well known SAS men constructed the bombs which went off in Dublin and Monaghan in 73. The British government has a well earned reputation for being ****ing nasty when it comes to Ireland.
-
Originally posted by vyper
I never realized how much of a kick in the teeth we got after stopping Hitler from wiping you all out.
That was totally uncalled for, lad. You really should learn to control those knee-jerk responses.
-
Originally posted by vyper
I never realized how much of a kick in the teeth we got after stopping Hitler from wiping you all out.
:eek2: You sorry motherf*****...
-
Okay, we stopped Hitler wiping your race out and what do we get in response? Terrorism against British nationals... yeah I've got no right to complain about that.
We saved your arses, even if it was a side effect of saving our own.
-
I'm not Jewish, but I simply can't resist...
Originally posted by vyper
Okay, we stopped Hitler wiping your race out and what do we get in response? Terrorism against British nationals... yeah I've got no right to complain about that.
We saved your arses, even if it was a side effect of saving our own.
YOU did absolutely nothing. YOU weren't even a plan when WW2 raged. YOU have nothing to complain about. Got it?
Just like some of those nationalist idiots in Poland... "**** Jews, **** Jews, **** Jews!". "Why?" "**** JEWS **** JEWS **** JEWS!!!"
Some people never change.
-
And you'd better read your history book again. If not for the fact that the nazi couldn't invade England, and the fact they couldn't do anything else 'til they did it, history would be really different. As vyper said, the fact they save nearly everybody else asses is only a side-effect of saving their own, but trying to say they did nothing during WW2 is nothing short of total and utter moronism. And BTW, want me to search of all the link Mossad (the israeli equivalent to CIA) had with terrorist operation, governement putch and the like ? They weren't know as the best in their field not too long ago by helping old ladycrossing the street, ya know ?
-
Strangely enough, the fascist movement in the UK itself was quite strong, Germany actually hoped for (and rumour has it - invited) England to be an ally in their war.
What is not so generally known is the way the Reich manipulated history, curiously enough, using legends of Atlantis and architectural digs in Egypt to prove that they were related to the Pharoh's, the Atlanteans etc. It was THIS feeling of superiority coupled with Himmlers assertations that the Jews were a 'contaminent' in their pure Genepool, also convincing the public the Jews had a hidden agenda helped a lot with this.
So, the catalyst for WWII was a country trying to change history using media and blaming it's own internal problems on minorities...... :nervous:
-
:D
You should be even more subtle Flipside, I'm sure nobody understood the point you were trying to make :p
-
Originally posted by Flipside
So, the catalyst for WWII was a country trying to change history using media and blaming it's own internal problems on minorities...... :nervous:
... with the help of the church which was quite happy of having a competitor removed...
-
[q]YOU did absolutely nothing. YOU weren't even a plan when WW2 raged. YOU have nothing to complain about. Got it?
[/q]
And you aren't Israeli but you'd still complain about the Palestinians.
Oh, and I don't care whether you think I've got anything to complain about: my relatives fought and died for your freedom and very survival, so ****ing shut up.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
... with the help of the church which was quite happy of having a competitor removed...
Indeed, the religious aspect played a very large role in Germany's belief that the UK would unite with and support them in any action they undertook. It was by playing upon conservatism in the Church that they managed to gain control of Flocks, the first Hitler Youths were indoctrinated through Sunday schools iirc...
Oh, and my Grandad, GRHS, fought in France, in fact, he was one of a very small number of people to see a V2 taking off. Just wish he'd chosen (or been allowed) to tell us how he managed to get into such a position.
What needs to be remembered about World War 2 is that, while sons were away fighting, not only did their families not know if they were alive, but they didn't know if their families were alive. It was a truly vicious and terrible war, whatever the reasons that it were fought for. Most of Europe has not endured that kind of war in a long long time, except Pearl Harbor and 9/11 most of America has never had to deal with that kind of situation.
Many people in Palestine, Israel, the Ukraine etc, live with those realities every single day of their lives.
-
Originally posted by vyper
I never realized how much of a kick in the teeth we got after stopping Hitler from wiping you all out.
Thanks. I love you too.
Originally posted by vyper
Oh, and I don't care whether you think I've got anything to complain about: my relatives fought and died for your freedom and very survival, so ****ing shut up.
This, however, stops here and now. General bad-mouthing a people-group is one thing, but I will NOT tolerate personal insults of this nature against anyone, for any reason.
We're here for a COMPUTER GAME first and foremost, FFS, and the fact that we allow these threads is nothing but grace. Learn to debate in a civilised manner or you won't be allowed to debate at all.
-
(http://ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/navy_seals_torturing_iraq/cover-image-navyseal8.jpg)
http://ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/navy_seals_torturing_iraq/navyseal1.html
Gotta love that liberation, eh?
note: these photos are not new new, since evidence suggests they are from May 2003, but rather new in the sense that they haven't been publicly available before.
-
There not nearly as bad as Abu Ghraib. Funny how they came from an extremist website though.
Stepping on prisoners or sitting on them doesn't seem too outrageous.
-
The guy who's been obviously punched in the nose and has blood pouring down his front probably thinks otherwise :nervous:
-
Stepping on prisoners or sitting on them doesn't seem too outrageous.
Ehhhh.... :wtf:
-
...you do notice the bloody head, right?
And in what way is the website extremists?
-
Thing is, torture isn't just physical, it includes humiliation and mental extremes as well. Anything that breaks those rules, such as shown above, is torture.
Are we sure no-ones hacked Deepblues account and is trying to start another flame? That happened in one of these threads yesterday.....
-
'Battle for Hearts and Minds'
The removal of them, presumably.
-
Indeed, they keep them both in jars.....
-
Blah, I don't even care anymore.
-
I said the original source was an extremist website. This is still pretty bad though. But seriously, I have a bloody nose worse then that every couple of weeks (I have a artery/vein very close to the surface and during cold weather the passage dries up, then I sneeze and blood starts pouring. whee).
-
0% Sympathy for Terrorists...
-
Yes, if he is one of those. Thats where the question is really. The original source (extremist website) blacked out all the (non-US forces) faces so we really don't have any way of telling.
-
These aren't neccesarily Terrorists, they are combatants. And I couldn't wish that treatment on anyone even if I am fully aware it happens everywhere.
It would be sheer vindictiveness to wish pain or suffering on them, my main concern shouldn't be making them 'pay' but making them 'stop' :)
-
Originally posted by Flipside
These aren't neccesarily Terrorists, they are combatants. And I couldn't wish that treatment on anyone even if I am fully aware it happens everywhere.
It would be sheer vindictiveness to wish pain or suffering on them, my main concern shouldn't be making them 'pay' but making them 'stop' :)
You don't know that though, thats the point. And in this case, combatants = terrorists. (blowing up police stations, etc.)
-
uh, this is not taing place in a prison. Look at the photos, they were taken during what appears to be a house search. Even in Abu Graib, by the US military's own admition, up to 90% of the inmates were innocent. These guys aren't even in prison, they're just random people it would seem. Unless of course you consider 25 million people to all be terrorists, which is evidently what certain people are doing.
also, that doesn't look like a bloody nose to me. There's blood coming down the shoulder, and one of of the photos behind the head on the wall.
-
Dude, thats what a bloody nose looks like when you let it run. I know. The thing is thier isn't enough evidence to really base ideas on. For all we know he could have had a weapons cache in his house. (besides if it isn't a bloody nose, what the hell is it? We can see his shoulders clearly and theres nothing there)
-
Well, let's face it, considering suicide bombs are the order of the day in Iraq, most of the people guilty of blowing up Police Stations aren't hard to find, at least, if you know their DNA.....
And even if he were what is defined as a Terrorist or Insurgent or whatever, I am not there to play out my own little revenge on them. I don't give a damn if Bin Laden dies a slow painful death, or lives to 110, as long as he stops threatening those I love.
Until this is stopped being seen as some kind of 'vengeance' nothing will be achieved, it's as simple as that.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
0% Sympathy for Terrorists...
Even if they are terrorists, that sort of statement only makes you look as bad as them. i.e. completely lacking in morality. You have to maintain a sense of morality, of law, or you edge ever closer to becoming the same as them.
NB:If you look at one of the other pictures, there's a big piece of blood spatter on the fridge. Now, my forensics experience is limited to an elective course, but it looks apparent to me like that guys head was smashed against the fridge.
(http://ancapistan.typepad.com/photos/navy_seals_torturing_iraq/navyseal2.jpg)
EDIT; anyways, it'd be an odd coincidence if an Iraqi just happened to have a nosebleed when he came across a bunch of Seals with a camera, wouldn't it?
-
I was suggesting that he may have been punched in the nose. (BTW if his head had been hit against the fridge it wouldnt have much blood on the fridge itself, the blood would stick to the hair. and there would not be nearly enough force to cause his head to bleed like that unless he has REALLY weak skin on the back of his head)
-
Anyhoo its pretty much a moot point since these are so old. If they were more recent (aka post Abu Ghraib) then it would be much more important and something to be extremely concerned about.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Even if they are terrorists, that sort of statement only makes you look as bad as them. i.e. completely lacking in morality. You have to maintain a sense of morality, of law, or you edge ever closer to becoming the same as them.
They wouldn't have been any slower in doing that to us. Matter of fact, this is a blessing considering that we dont cut off their heads. What they do is 10 times worse than what we do to them.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
They wouldn't have been any slower in doing that to us. Matter of fact, this is a blessing considering that we dont cut off their heads. What they do is 10 times worse than what we do to them.
And with that sort of attitude you become them.... they kidnap and kill, you torture prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. They murder & mutilate contractors in Falluja, you besiege the place. They crash 3 planes into the Pentagon and Twin Towers, you start a war with Iraq leading to anywhere between 10 and 100 thousand civillian deaths.
Such is the slippery slope of morality.
Originally posted by Deepblue
I was suggesting that he may have been punched in the nose. (BTW if his head had been hit against the fridge it wouldnt have much blood on the fridge itself, the blood would stick to the hair. and there would not be nearly enough force to cause his head to bleed like that unless he has REALLY weak skin on the back of his head)
He would have had the front of his head smacked against it; the blood vessels there are very prone to burst. Just look at footballers injured heading the ball, for example - minimal contact, heavy bleeding, no blood on hair.
-
They murder & mutilate contractors in Falluja, you besiege the place. They crash 3 planes into the Pentagon and Twin Towers, you start a war with Iraq leading to anywhere between 10 and 100 thousand civillian deaths.
And that relates to the picture, how?
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
And that relates to the picture, how?
It relates to your 'we're better than them, we can do this' type statement.
I would have thought that was obvious - the chain of action & reaction where neither side is acting in a humanitarian or humane way.
-
What I said was that this is a spanking compared to the way they treat their prisoners.
Be grateful the terrorists are still alive.
-
It doesn't matter, they represent the American Army, and, more importantly, the United States of America. When they are shown performing acts like this, then all of a sudden it no longer becomes relevant whether the victim is a Terrorist or not, because the US shouldn't do stuff like that, I'd like to think they are better and more mature than that.
Saying you may torture and humiliate prisoners, but at least you don't cut their heads off is a rather questionable justification.
-
I didn't say that we are permitted to do it, but now that it's been done then I just compare the two incidents of cutting off heads to this, and so far I'd rather get beat up than have my head sliced off while I'm still alive. Didn't see you guys shedding any tears for people, civilians too, getting their necks sliced. It seems that terrorists getting beat up is bigger news.
Gee, I wonder why? :doubt:
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I didn't say that we are permitted to do it, but now that it's been done then I just compare the two incidents of cutting off heads to this, and so far I'd rather get beat up than have my head sliced off while I'm still alive. Didn't see you guys shedding any tears for people, civilians too, getting their necks sliced. It seems that terrorists getting beat up is bigger news.
Gee, I wonder why? :doubt:
Maybe because we expect coalition troops to respect the law & the declaration human rights?
-
Or maybe because everyone is always looking for things America screws up on, and then throws it back in our face. I swear, I've seen more "problems with America" topics than for any other country.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
I said the original source was an extremist website.
:wtf: http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/12/05/news/national/1b9193edfb87b84887256f60000aec4a.txt
Associated Press is extremist now? Or is it the online photo album they found them on? Some of you Yanks are starting to lose your grip on reality with all this terrorist bs. See whats happening:
http://www.sundayherald.com/46389
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041203-053525-8262r.htm
Maybe if yis stopped kicking in Iraqi nobodys heads and actually went out and caught some real terrorists your war on terror might get some support.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Or maybe because everyone is always looking for things America screws up on, and then throws it back in our face. I swear, I've seen more "problems with America" topics than for any other country.
Because America is the most powerful country in the world, its mistakes have the greatest impact upon the rest of the world. And the US is making a hell of a lot of mistakes at the moment; as the rest of the world would surely tell you.
-
You're the most important country in the world, of course you are a focus of attention, and when something like this happens, people are going to sit up and pay attention. To see a country that could, any time it so wished, launch a successful offensive against just about any other country in the world, behave in such a manner is frightening.
It is pointed out to you because we want you to be aware of not, not because we hate the US but because we want you to know what your own country is supplying as an advertisement for itself, and for it's citizens.
It's not always easy to accept criticism, I'm lucky, the UK criticises itself on a daily basis, it's a National hobby, but, sometimes it helps to take a step back and think of things from the other guys point of view ;)
-
You are free to do so with any other country... I've seen people here complaining about the politics of their countries also. But the US finds ways to be heard louder than the rest... shouting loud and clear that they were going on a war against "terrorism" and all...
-
Originally posted by Flipside
You're the most important country in the world, of course you are a focus of attention, and when something like this happens, people are going to sit up and pay attention. To see a country that could, any time it so wished, launch a successful offensive against just about any other country in the world, behave in such a manner is frightening.
It is pointed out to you because we want you to be aware of not, not because we hate the US but because we want you to know what your own country is supplying as an advertisement for itself, and for it's citizens.
It's not always easy to accept criticism, I'm lucky, the UK criticises itself on a daily basis, it's a National hobby, but, sometimes it helps to take a step back and think of things from the other guys point of view ;)
So you're indicating we dont already know? Most people on the HLP find out this stuff long before it's posted. I've known we beat the **** out of prisoners and make pictures of our troops giving the thumbs up. Woo hoo! What else is new?
-
Then yu haven't taken a step back and considered that we didn't.... you see how it works ;)
And growing numb to it or closing your eyes to it because you've seen it before, won't make it go away.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
So you're indicating we dont already know? Most people on the HLP find out this stuff long before it's posted. I've known we beat the **** out of prisoners and make pictures of our troops giving the thumbs up. Woo hoo! What else is new?
So we should ignore it because we already know it?
We know terrorists blow up themselves and innocent people, and insurgents kidnap and murder innocent civillians - should we ignore that the next time it happens?
-
I think anyone who believes in the progress of human achievement, traditionally a strong aspect of the American cultural mentality, ought to be disturbed by this apparent failure at overcoming our animalistic rage.
-
The point is Tin Can that most of the punishment being done is not against terrorists, its against ordinary citizens. I can't comment on this specific case (and neither can you, we simply don't know one way or another) but in every instance, from Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to Fallujah, innocents are bearing the brunt of it.
The proportion of insurgents killed/captured is tiny compared to the number of civies either rotting in prison or six feet under.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The point is Tin Can that most of the punishment being done is not against terrorists, its against ordinary citizens. I can't comment on this specific case (and neither can you, we simply don't know one way or another) but in every instance, from Abu Ghraib and Gitmo to Fallujah, innocents are bearing the brunt of it.
The proportion of insurgents killed/captured is tiny compared to the number of civies either rotting in prison or six feet under.
Can you show me?
Also, Aldo and Flipside, just because I know it happened means that I'm "turning my back on it" or "denying it happened"? Where the **** did this come from?
-
I didn't say you pretended it didn't happen, read my post again, more slowly this time. :rolleyes:
-
I've known we beat the **** out of prisoners and make pictures of our troops giving the thumbs up. Woo hoo! What else is new?
I'm highly doubtful that, if another video of a beheading came out, you would have a similar reaction as you do to this news :doubt:.
-
And growing numb to it or closing your eyes to it because you've seen it before, won't make it go away.
I did read it Flipside. I specifically said "turning my back on it" which is basically the same thing as "closing your eyes" to the subject.
It's a metaphorical referance, pertaining to "ignoring" the subject or baseline argument being stated. Both references, "turning your back" or "closing your eyes" can be refered to, pertaining to the subject and not physical reference, be the same thing.
I did read your post.
Jetmech: I wouldn't be surprised, if thats what you mean.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Can you show me?
Also, Aldo and Flipside, just because I know it happened means that I'm "turning my back on it" or "denying it happened"? Where the **** did this come from?
The original article which I linked to is now registration only (if you have or can get a Financial Times password, I'll gladly show you).
However, it was only citing a widely available Red Cross report and the report of Major Anthony Taguba who was involved in investigating the abuses.
Here's another article that quotes the same report
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/
GENEVA - Intelligence officers of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq estimated that 70 percent to 90 percent of Iraqi detainees were arrested by mistake, the Red Cross said in a report that was disclosed Monday, and Red Cross observers witnessed U.S. officers mistreating Abu Ghraib prisoners by keeping them naked in total darkness in empty cells.
-
Ok Rictor, good evidence. I believe you.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Can you show me?
Also, Aldo and Flipside, just because I know it happened means that I'm "turning my back on it" or "denying it happened"? Where the **** did this come from?
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
So you're indicating we dont already know? Most people on the HLP find out this stuff long before it's posted. I've known we beat the **** out of prisoners and make pictures of our troops giving the thumbs up. Woo hoo! What else is new?
I didn't say you denied it, only that you don't seem to care about it. Y'know, casually dismissive of the situation & the problem it presents (especially in the much vaunted war 'for' hearts & minds in the Arab world).
Albeit you do seem to justify it by the 'not as big a crime' arguement, which is about the same as justifying serial murder by the 'well, at least I'm not Stalin' arguement.
Originally posted by Rictor
The original article which I linked to is now registration only (if you have or can get a Financial Times password, I'll gladly show you).
However, it was only citing a widely available Red Cross report and the report of Major Anthony Taguba who was involved in investigating the abuses.
Here's another article that quotes the same report
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4944094/
This might also be of interest;
Three Misconceptions about the Laws of War (http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-miscon.html)
Jelena Pelic is an advisor of the ICRC's legal division, this is linked on their index page (http://www.icrc.org/eng)
EDIT; specifically (emphasis added by me);
Under humanitarian law no one who has been detained, including an "unlawful combatant," may in any way be subjected to acts prohibited by the Conventions such as murder, violence to life and person, torture or inhumane treatment, or outrages upon personal dignity; nor may they be denied the right to a fair trial. "Unlawful combatants" are in this sense fully protected by humanitarian law. It is simply misleading to suggest that they have minimal or no rights. One of the purposes of the laws of war is to protect the life, health and dignity of all persons affected by armed conflict. It is inconceivable that calling someone an "unlawful combatant" should suffice to deprive him or her of rights guaranteed to every individual.
-
[q]Thanks. I love you too.[/q]
The point I was making was how hypocritical the attitude of most Israelis/Jews is over this. You condem terrorism by the Palestinians who have as much historical right as you to be there, yet your own nation was founded on terrorist actions against the very people who helped save your kind from a genocidal mad man.
Yes, that sounds rational. :wtf:
[q]This, however, stops here and now. General bad-mouthing a people-group is one thing, but I will NOT tolerate personal insults of this nature against anyone, for any reason.
We're here for a COMPUTER GAME first and foremost, FFS, and the fact that we allow these threads is nothing but grace. Learn to debate in a civilised manner or you won't be allowed to debate at all.[/q]
Well that's nice for you Sandwich but I don't take kindly to someone telling me I can't have an opinion on your countrymen's actions because of my age. The point may not have been conveyed very politely but it still stands: Just because he doesn't like what I'm saying doesn't give him the right to dismiss the history.
If we were to go by Fr3z3r's way of thinking, your generation has no claim to the "Holy Land" nor do the Palestinians have any over the occupied territory. Like it now?
Haven't we recently established you started out as Christian or something anyway?
-
does anyonw know were a copy of the geneva convention might be found?
-
Give it five years, we'll be saying this about the European Rapid Reaction Force by then.
Go figure.
-
full text here
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVFULL!OpenView
and "reference guide" (might be quicker if you're looking for something specific)
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
-
Some pretty important stuff regarding the Genevan Convetions, taken directly from Rictor's link:
However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)
The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren’t as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.)
A declaration of war is not required in order for the Geneva Conventions to apply.
Individual or mass deportations from an occupied territory are prohibited regardless of motive. If evacuation is required, civilians may be moved within an occupied territory or outside if absolutely necessary, but must then be returned home as soon as hostilities in the area have ceased. (Convention IV, Art. 47)
The Geneva Conventions cannot be used to justify the intervention, direct or indirect, in the internal affairs of a country. (Protocol II, Art. 3)
Guerrillas who follow the rules spelled out in the Geneva Conventions are considered to have combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces.
In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)
Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)
In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)
This is pretty important, because of this (http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/definitions2.html#combatantstatus). Check it out.
-
It's basically a "You do it, that means we can do it too!" stance that these troops have taken against Iraqi prisoners. They are no better then the Iraqi fighters and terrorists themselves IMO.
-
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/12/05/returning_fallujans_will_face_clampdown/
Welcome to the new and liberated Fallujah! Among the any improvements are:
Police-state like measures (remember when someone else made an entire population wear badges to identify themselves? Yeah, that ended really well.)
Under the plans, troops would funnel Fallujans to so-called citizen processing centers on the outskirts of the city to compile a database of their identities through DNA testing and retina scans. Residents would receive badges displaying their home addresses that they must wear at all times. Buses would ferry them into the city, where cars, the deadliest tool of suicide bombers, would be banned.
Cars are banned, eh? Awesome.
Forced labour.
One idea that has stirred debate among Marine officers would require all men to work, for pay, in military-style battalions. Depending on their skills, they would be assigned jobs in construction, waterworks, or rubble-clearing platoons.
And of course, the Iraqis are the ones coming up with all this. Of course.
"It's the Iraqi interim government that's coming up with all these ideas," Major General Richard Natonski, who commanded the Fallujah assault and oversees its reconstruction, said of the plans for identity badges and work brigades.
Bellon asserted that previous attempts to win trust from Iraqis suspicious of US intentions had telegraphed weakness by asking, " 'What are your needs? What are your emotional needs?' All this Oprah [stuff]," he said. "They want to figure out who the dominant tribe is and say, 'I'm with you.' We need to be the benevolent, dominant tribe.
So that was the problem all along, the US was being too soft. Its so obvious now.
-
Just wait until the iraquis will "express their will" of "being part of the US"...
;)
-
Even if this works, and that's a colosally huge gigantic if, isn't it just going to stretch the US troops further and further across the country? I mean, what happens if there are insurgents taking over Mosul, Tikrit or parts of Baghdad?
-
Now that he has 4 years ahead Bush can easily recall the mandatory levy in the US...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Even if this works, and that's a colosally huge gigantic if, isn't it just going to stretch the US troops further and further across the country? I mean, what happens if there are insurgents taking over Mosul, Tikrit or parts of Baghdad?
:wtf: :wtf:
With something like this, I'm hoping it doesn't work, cause, well, its a fricking plan for a police state.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
:wtf: :wtf:
With something like this, I'm hoping it doesn't work, cause, well, its a fricking plan for a police state.
Ah, but there's no criminals in a police state.
Or is it no innocents?
-
Originally posted by vyper
And you aren't Israeli but you'd still complain about the Palestinians.
I 've never said I complain about the Palestinians.
Oh, and I don't care whether you think I've got anything to complain about: my relatives fought and died for your freedom and very survival, so ****ing shut up.
First:
When I said "YOU", I meant vyper, not English people. Sorry about the confusion.
Second:
vyper, MY relatives fought and died too. They fought and died in september 1939, then in the Battle of Britain (where they helped RAF significantly, has to be said), then in Italy. So it's not like I don't understand your point of view.
However, I still think you (vyper) and I have nothing to complain about here. I respect what your ancestors did, but I think you have no right to claim that things that took place before you (heck, maybe even your parents) were born justify your present "demands".
-
"In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack."
so, the people we are fighting are not covered by the convention, how lovely.
-
The only good thing is getting people out to work. If everyone is busy, being paid, and eating food...then the other problems will start to disappear. Why? Because the majority of people aren't going around blowing stuff up because they disagree with whats going on...its because they disagree AND the current situation has gained them nothing. They have no jobs and have nothing to do.
-
Arbeit Macht Frei...
Quite interesting concept...
-
No, it means they should be treated with regards to local law - i.e. as criminals. I don't have to read it (which I'm doing at the mo, but I really do have to actually do work as well ;) ), to know that there will be nothing in the Geneva convention that allows torture to be used against prisoners, regardless of their combatant status.
EDIT; oh, and let's not forget the international convention on human rights.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
The only good thing is getting people out to work. If everyone is busy, being paid, and eating food...then the other problems will start to disappear. Why? Because the majority of people aren't going around blowing stuff up because they disagree with whats going on...its because they disagree AND the current situation has gained them nothing. They have no jobs and have nothing to do.
The other problem is when you get the various insurgents / terrorists who target anyone working for western companies, etc; that sort of fear is going to be a major problem IMO.
It's possibly beneficial; obviously one thing Iraqis need is money to live. Albiet they'll both need to rebuild the utilities quick-sharp, and they'll have to work particularly hard if they (the US) don't want to look like they're press ganging people.
Oh, and if you have a bunch of Iraqis working in a large group overseen by armed US troops, a lot of the Arab world is going to take one look and think 'slavery'.
-
Why can't we just have one thread with all the war stuff in it?
-
Bush is persistent on getting Canada to take part in his north american multi-billion dollar missile defence system.
But does Canada need a missile defence system? Its Canada, no one's going to nuke Canada...
-
No-ones going to nuke Scotland either, but we still ended up with a nuclear sub base.....
-
I don't know. So we can have the same arguements over & over again?
-
the damn missile defense system doesn't ****ing work anyway --- they had to rig the tests to get it to bat better than .500 and it still was less than .750!
-
Why can't we give thread names a little more logical names to them to.
So we can prevent travestys like this
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,28369.msg575929.html#msg575929
I should read the forums closly first but I didn't see anything that looked like this.
As for the matter of what they are doing. Will this prevent the insurgents from sneaking back in? Will this encourage inhabitants to aid insurgents?
Frankly, this is not the way to deal with the Sunnis.
Premis 1.
The Sunnis are afraid of losing power or being persecuted in an unified Iraqi state but the Shiites and the Kurds.
Premis 2.
Majority of the violence is occuring in the Sunni Triangle.
Premis 3. The US wants peace in the area and to participate in elections.
Premis 4. It is possible such a tightly controlled population might resent such actions.
I think it is logical to assume this:
Conclusion. This will only make things worse.
-
Vyper:
"The NMO which is very familiar with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its officials towards Zionist activities within Germany and the Zionist emigration program takes the view that:
1. Common interests can exist between a European New Order based on the German concept and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as embodied by the NMO.
2. Cooperation is possible between the New Germany and a renewed, folkish-national Jewry.
3. The establishment of the Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty, with the German Reich, would be in the interest of maintaining and strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East.
"On the basis of these considerations, and upon the condition that the German Reich government recognize the national aspirations of the Israel Freedom Movement mentioned above, the NMO in Palestine offers to actively take part in the war on the side of Germany.
"This offer by the NMO could include military, political and informational activity within Palestine and, after certain organizational measures, outside as well. Along with this the "Jewish" men of Europe would be militarily trained and organized in military units under the leadership and command of the NMO. They would take part in combat operations for the purpose of conquering Palestine, should such a front be formed.
"The indirect participation of the Israel Freedom Movement in the New Order of Europe, already in the preparatory stage, combined with a positive-radical solution of the European-Jewish problem on the basis of the national aspirations of the Jewish people mentioned above, would greatly strengthen the moral foundation of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.
"The cooperation of the Israel Freedom Movement would also be consistent with a recent speech by the German Reich Chancellor, in which Hitler stressed that he would utilize any combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England".
Original document in German Auswertiges Amt Archiv, Bestand 47-59, E224152 and E234155-58. Complete original text published in: David Yisraeli, The Palestinian Problem in German Politics 1889-1945 (Israel: 1947 pp. 315-317).
Letter from Lehi addressed to Hitler, 1941. Dont confuse the holocaust survivors with the likes of Irgun, Lehi or Haganah, non of these boys were in concentration camps, nor did the care about those who were:
"If I knew it was possible to save all the children in Germany by taking them to England, and only half of the children by taking them to Eretz Israel, I would choose the second solution. For we must take into account not only the lives of these children but also the history of the people of Israel."
David Ben Gurion, Israel's first head of State, speaking to Labor Zionists on December 7th 1938.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
It's basically a "You do it, that means we can do it too!" stance that these troops have taken against Iraqi prisoners. They are no better then the Iraqi fighters and terrorists themselves IMO.
Yes these abuses are wrong without a doubt. These soldiers are definately in the wrong and shouldn't have done it, but to say they are no better than the Iraqi fighters is a little far IMHO. I bet your actions would be a little different if your brothers were shot and killed or severly wounded and you track one down I bet in a fit of rage you would do the same thing. I don't doubt I'd probably would in the same situation. I don't sympathize with them and they DEFINATELY shouldn't have done it, but I do understand that it happens sometimes and it should be brought to everyone's attention. The American Army and the Marine Corp doesn't condone this kind of action and ANY soldier/s and/or marine/s that is caught peforming these actions will be taken care of. You read UCMJ, it isn't very nice to violators.
Originally posted by aldo_14
No, it means they should be treated with regards to local law - i.e. as criminals. to know that there will be nothing in the Geneva convention that allows torture to be used against prisoners, regardless of their combatant status.
EDIT; oh, and let's not forget the international convention on human rights.
You are exactly right. They should be treated with the laws of the National or Local Government. But I wonder if they should be prosecuted under those kinds of laws however, since many areas of that part of the world heat up spoons and burn your tongue to see if you are lying. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by MicroPsycho
multi-billion dollar
probably the reason hes being so persistant.
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
You are exactly right. They should be treated with the laws of the National or Local Government. But I wonder if they should be prosecuted under those kinds of laws however, since many areas of that part of the world heat up spoons and burn your tongue to see if you are lying. :doubt:
That's why I added 'international humanitarian laws'. Also, I believe the US overturned the laws and punishments of the previous regime simply due to the political necessity of it; just look at the debate over whether the death penalty should be applicable to Saddam.
And, of course, we're still going into the 'they're bad so we're ok if we're not quite so bad' arguement here.
-
Well you could also argue that for the past 30 years these are the same people that have been living under a man that if you disagreed with him publicly that you would be put in prison and shot. And that firmness and fear is the only thing these people understand. It's not my opinion, but it is something to think about.
I think it is something worth trying. Nothing else hasn't worked yet, and maybe giving them something to do and a little money in their pocket might actually help. I honestly don't believe in this winning hearts and minds non-sense. You simply can't. Look at Vietnam. In 10 years they hadn't complished hardly anything. I don't think we should be there personally, but since Dubya has gone up and overthrown Saddam we can't just leave anytime soon unfortunately. You have to stablize the region now, so you won't have a breeding ground for terrorist. It's funny how politicians are so easily to commit our forces to causes sometimes without thinking about how it affects the men, but then again we volunteered for it. :)
-
It's not being built by Halliburton, is it?
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I did read it Flipside. I specifically said "turning my back on it" which is basically the same thing as "closing your eyes" to the subject.
It's a metaphorical referance, pertaining to "ignoring" the subject or baseline argument being stated. Both references, "turning your back" or "closing your eyes" can be refered to, pertaining to the subject and not physical reference, be the same thing.
I did read your post.
Jetmech: I wouldn't be surprised, if thats what you mean.
Dear God, you truly are surfboarding along the paranoia event horizon aren't you? You take one phrase included in a sentence which accuses you of being aware of it and not wanting to get involved into me accusing you of pretending it didn't happen.
So far in this post you have changed your opinion 3 times, first they were all terrorists, then the terrorists did worse to us, and finally, it wasn't important anyway because you'd seen it all before. To cut a long story short, you don't even know why you are supporting this other than the fact it was performed by American Soldiers.
-
LOL! I don't think Haliburton does ADA work. They need a better system than the one they have planned right now. It is almost a waste, but I guess their thinking is a little protection is better than none. Like a station having Watchdog Sentry Guns around it.
-
The placebo strategy isn't exactly the sanest method of defence, though.
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
You have to stablize the region now, so you won't have a breeding ground for terrorist.
And this is the right way to do that :rolleyes:
-
Now all they need to do is change their ID badges to different colours depending on whether they are Sunni or Shiite, and they can give people little gold stars for every terrorist they hand on! :)
-
maybe and maybe not, but they have to try something different. I'm not saying this DEFINATELY going to work, but it is worth a shot.
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
Well you could also argue that for the past 30 years these are the same people that have been living under a man that if you disagreed with him publicly that you would be put in prison and shot. And that firmness and fear is the only thing these people understand. It's not my opinion, but it is something to think about.
I think it is something worth trying. Nothing else hasn't worked yet, and maybe giving them something to do and a little money in their pocket might actually help. I honestly don't believe in this winning hearts and minds non-sense. You simply can't. Look at Vietnam. In 10 years they hadn't complished hardly anything. I don't think we should be there personally, but since Dubya has gone up and overthrown Saddam we can't just leave anytime soon unfortunately. You have to stablize the region now, so you won't have a breeding ground for terrorist. It's funny how politicians are so easily to commit our forces to causes sometimes without thinking about how it affects the men, but then again we volunteered for it. :)
Even if it does work - which I doubt - what happens when the troops leave? Unless the Iraqi government continues the same strategy, then you run a massive risk of ending up with the same situation as post-Saddam.
The whole strategy of 'hearts and minds' is actually the soundest thing that could be done not only in Iraq, but in this much vaunted 'war on terror'; you can't hope to have acceptance from a people who hate you. Musharraf was spot on (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4072631.stm). I mean, it's not working because the strategy is screwed up; the principle is simple & pretty much sound.
NB: it's always easier to start wars when you don't fight in them. Such is the curse of politicians.....
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
NB: it's always easier to start wars when you don't fight in them. Such is the curse of politicians.....
Tell me about it. My unit just got back from Germany last May and is redeploying to Iraq next Fall. Sounds like fun. At least I get to see the world. :)
-
[q[not English people.[/q]
I could hurt you badly right now. *points to location* S-c-o-t-l-a-n-d
Nevertheless, point taken.
As for the details Gank, I think that merely reinforces the point that Israel as a nation was born of some very questionable actions - therefore attempting to take a moral highground is not the best plan for the Isralies.
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
Yes these abuses are wrong without a doubt. These soldiers are definately in the wrong and shouldn't have done it, but to say they are no better than the Iraqi fighters is a little far IMHO. I bet your actions would be a little different if your brothers were shot and killed or severly wounded and you track one down I bet in a fit of rage you would do the same thing. I don't doubt I'd probably would in the same situation. I don't sympathize with them and they DEFINATELY shouldn't have done it, but I do understand that it happens sometimes and it should be brought to everyone's attention. The American Army and the Marine Corp doesn't condone this kind of action and ANY soldier/s and/or marine/s that is caught peforming these actions will be taken care of. You read UCMJ, it isn't very nice to violators.
They are trained soldiers who know the rules of engagement. In war you know that your comrade in arms could die. That's why it's called war. That's no excuse. It makes them no better then the terrorists.
Sure, you can be pissed. But trained soldiers should focus their anger towards the Iraqi resistance that is still actice instead of beating up chained people who aren't even proven to be part of any extremist faction. And even if they are, a trained soldier should know better.
I don't think it's going to far to claim that they are no better the terrorists because they too just ignore international law and the rules of engagement.
I know you almost think the same, but I disagree with you saying that claiming this is going to far.
-
Somehow I'm glad I'm not "seeing the world" dude :)
-
Understandable...I've been through that training. Unfortunately it doesn't deal much with ROE once you get down to the Spc -PV1. You get a few classes on it, but I honestly think it is not enough.
-
Of course, the secondary issue is; is or was this policy? That was a key thing in the Abu Ghraib scandal, and also with Guantanamo and IIRc the 'exporting' of suspects to countries with, shall we say, somewhat more relaxed policies on torture.
If it's an individual group, it's still reprehensible. But if this is condoned or simply ignored by superior officers, then it's a humanitarian crime. And the thing that occurs to me is, how many of these occurances will go unpunished simply because they are unpublicised? What goes on behind closed doors?
And if I'm asking that, then you can bet that there are people out there in the Muslim world particularly who have already drawn their conclusions and made up their justification for the next suicide bombing or kidnapping. And that, I think, is the reason why this is such a massive problem.
EDIT; crikey, that was a meandering comment.
-
Wait people, are we even readin the same thing?
We're talking about depriving people of essential liberties, so that the occupation forces can better fight people the citizens find preferable anyway. What's this talk of working/not working? Whats the goal anyway? Stability? Forget it. Free elections? Yeah, they'll be real free with a hundred and forty thousand foreign troops around. Winning "hearts and minds"? That boat sailed long ago.
This plan is treating Iraqi citizens as if though they were property. And what I'm hearing is that you don't actually disagree with that, only the specific plan that is to imposed on the property. Simple fact is, the US has no right to do this. I mean, for ****'s sake, ID badges! Forced labour under military supervision! You can considers it a good idea or a bad idea or whatever you damn well please, but imposing absurd rules and restrictions in the liberties of Iraqis smacks of tyranny.
The US rebeled because Britain decide to tax their ****ing tea, and now all of a sudden this is considered acceptable behaviour? Mandatory badges!? Everyone agrees that the US can't just pull out now, becuase bla bla bla oh it would be a massacre. Yeah, well simply put, t'aint your decision to make. Right now Allawi and puppet regime provide an ounce of legitimacy, cause oh yeah, they're fighting the big bad terrorists right alongside the US. Quick question: who do you think that most Iraqis consider a bigger threat, the US or the insurgency?
What has happened is that one dictatorship has been replaced with another, and how likely do you think this is to change after the January elections? Do you honestly believe that we'll see a government that reflects the wishes of 95% of the Iraqi people and that will tell the US to get lost? Uh huh, right.
My problem is not with the policies (well, them too) but with the presumption that the US has the right to impose those policies.
/rant
-
isn't it Raytheon?
If Martin (Canadian PM) signs on the missle shield I'm getting together an angry mob and going to trash Parliment. The opposition among Canadians is almost universal, but the Liberals are, as always, trying to be everything to everyone. They've got a minority government, so they have to deal with 3 other parties. The Conservatives, the second largest, are pro-US and therefore pro-Star Wars. The Bloc and NDP are against it, which means that its down to which side of the fence the Liberals decide to lean towards.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Of course, the secondary issue is; is or was this policy? That was a key thing in the Abu Ghraib scandal, and also with Guantanamo and IIRc the 'exporting' of suspects to countries with, shall we say, somewhat more relaxed policies on torture.
If it's an individual group, it's still reprehensible. But if this is condoned or simply ignored by superior officers, then it's a humanitarian crime. And the thing that occurs to me is, how many of these occurances will go unpunished simply because they are unpublicised? What goes on behind closed doors?
And if I'm asking that, then you can bet that there are people out there in the Muslim world particularly who have already drawn their conclusions and made up their justification for the next suicide bombing or kidnapping. And that, I think, is the reason why this is such a massive problem.
EDIT; crikey, that was a meandering comment.
I highly doubt it was policy. There are too many people with too good of careers to just waste them on something like that. I don't think it is likely that higher up officers would have condoned or ignored these abuses or perhaps even given the order. Those who got arrested for it can shout "I was ordered to do it!" a millions times over, but under UCMJ any order that is unlawful under UCMJ or the Geneva Convention should not be followed. I don't think any of the abuses went any higher than Platoon Leaders or maybe with a slight chance the Company Commander.
-
Working = (basically what the article quoted as the aim) The insurgents don't get back in Falluja, there's no more security problems, and the Fallujans fall in step behind the American forces because they are the 'biggest and baddest tribe'. Thus, the insurgency ends through lack of support and free elections occur.
(aye, right)
Anyways, point is not that I expect it to work, but that if this did occur, the methods would be monumentally ****ed up and so only lead to future problems.
-
Yea, it would most likely be Raytheon.
-
it's called martial law.
-
Where's Sheridan when we need him?
Sorry, couldn't resist ;)
-
You mean Sherman?
-
Nope, I mean Sheridan from Babylon 5, If you haven't seen the series though, it won't make much sense :(
-
No it goes far beyond that.
-
Origionally posted by NEM
BUT IT IS IN ARIZONA
This will take time to load, there are several pictures. Please be patient. And then, then email this thread, and the pictures, and the comments above, to ever media outlet inthe country, in the world. Show them how this government, and it's backers, are doing what the Nazis did in Germany, and in Europe, in the 1930s and 40s. THIS MUST BE PASSED ON TO EVERYONE TO SEE....
Here we go.
(http://www.cardhouse.com/travel/az/billboards/boardquit.jpg)
(http://www.cardhouse.com/travel/az/billboards/boardfight.jpg)
(http://www.cardhouse.com/travel/az/billboards/boardonenation.jpg)
I would suggest that someone here post this on that unnamed place, too.
the middle one is just a political message, although a dumb one
the first and third are the problem - they're encouraging an atmosphere of supression of the first ammendment
-
It is frightening, since it reminds me of the Lenin posters around Moscow about 20 years ago, and Hitlers posters proclaiming 'Defend the Fatherland' and 'God is on the Fuhrers side' that were posted all round Germany pre-World War 2.
It's not truly breaking any rights as such, but I do find it scary that people can have this kind of Neo-Arian attitude to the world :(
I've said it before, but I'll put it here again for clarification.
1 : 1940's German Film industry goes into overdrive of changing history, claiming that the Germans were related to Atlanteans and Pharohs and that they were the deciding factor in most influencial events in world history.
2000's American Hollywood performing a very similar role.
2 : 1940's Germany uses Jews and Gays as a scape goat for increasing financial instability caused by poor spending regimes and World War I.
2000's America uses Muslims and Gays as scapegoats for poor spending regimes and over-spending on wars.
3 : 1940's Germany adopts the policy of 'Disagreement = Treachery'.......
While America does not have concentration camps etc (Though I notice the residents of Fallujah are going to have to wear badges.....) There comparison is honestly becoming more and more scary.
-
****. I used to live there, too...This is embarrassing beyond words.
-
this isn't only happening in arizona, i've heard about them in michigan, georgia... lots of places
i haven't seen any in iowa yet
flipside: they're not violating rights per-say, but the first and third are encouraging an atmosphere of supression of the first ammendment
-
The fact that it's happening PERIOD is enough to turn my stomach.
-
Well then it's obvious. The honorable and the free shall have to stand up and take arms against the tyranny.
Sorry, listening to some "epic" songs and it got my revolutionary blood flowing :)
-
Actually, come to think of it, America does have G-Bay. In which people are abused and tortured, so yes, they do have a concentration camp as well.
Yay! You've got the full hand! :(
-
History Repeats itself in another form i just hope USA don't turn to worlds enemy or that would be really bad..
It's sad to see that one Superpower is changing so much and so far that change it's been bad
but that "one nation under god" is really scary, does they really believe that?
-
Classic.
The US out of the UN? Ah, would that it were true.
-
Stand up, all victims of oppression
For the tyrants fear your might
Don’t cling so hard to your possessions
For you have nothing, if you have no rights
Let racist ignorance be ended
For respect makes the empires fall
Freedom is merely privilege extended
Unless enjoyed by one and all
And so on
-
Not being funny, but surely if the US got out of the UN, all that would achieve is to remove a veto-ing factor that is crippling them from doing what little they do anyway?
-
HIG: yes people actually believe that
here is a rebutall against he people who believe that stuff, which will help you understand their claims http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
-
ugh.
this makes me puke...
**** bush. **** america.
Lijepa naša domovino
Oj junaèka zemljo mila
Stare slave djedovino
****... i dont know my national hymn after that sentence...
oh well :sniff:
LONG LIVE CROATIA.
-
I dont find it scary at all. I dont think thats leading to anything bad. Just people exercising their freedom of speech. SUre it may be offensive to some people (including me for all but the first one, that seems to be just a campaign sign) but they can just ignore it :cool:
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
I dont find it scary at all. I dont think thats leading to anything bad. Just people exercising their freedom of speech. SUre it may be offensive to some people (including me for all but the first one, that seems to be just a campaign sign) but they can just ignore it :cool:
People ignored Hitler to begin with...
-
Has anyone actually stopped to consider what would happen if this trend continued?
I would say world wide revolution, except for one problem: nukes. Any attack on the US, and the nukes would be deployed. Any attack from the US on any developed nation means nukes would be delpoyed.
This is my scenario:
The United States will plunge into a dark age of no civil liberty, no freedoms, a system of "elections" when in reality they are all rigged. The citizens of the US won't realize untill it's too late, because the changes are so gradual.
When finally they do realize, they won't be able to do anything. Any form of political or military resistance would be crushed. Mass emigration would occur, and the other sovereign nations of the world would play host to American "refugees".
The United States either A) Doesn't like this or B) Doesn't care.
If A), they will attempt to put a stop to it by barring exit from the country. Other countries notice, put embargoes on the US, and the US is crushed under a failing economy, or option A2) They launch a desperation attack on the European countries. The world is engulfed in a third world war. Option A3) The world wins, the US is crushed, and must now take a back seat in world affairs. Option A4) The US wins, and takes total control of the world. Option A5) Nuclear weaponry is deployed, plunging the world into a nuclear winter.
Option B) If the US doesn't care, the refugee flood continues. Eventually, news about the US is brought around the world. Either option B2) The above happens, or option B3) The world doesn't do anything, and the US plunges deeper and deeper into debt/chaos/whatever, until it finally crumbles.
There is an option C, where the US goes back on track, but that option is getting dimmer and dimmer.
-
The problem is Matthew is that if someone put up a sign saying 'Bush has let the US down' in Arizona, I can promise you there would be an outcry. Freedom of Speech is a great thing, but when it is being controlled so that you only have freedom if you speak what the government wants to hear, then things get dangerous.
It's not really this on it's own that is the risk, it's the piling of one pebble upon another until you end up with an avalanche you cannot stop. :(
-
MatthewPapa: they're creating an atmosphere of supression of the first ammendment
what part of that don't you understand
-
Kaz, let me ask you something. Why are you rallying against religion as if though it were the sole source of blind faith and ignorance in the world? Nationalism, devoid of any religious sentiment, can be just as threatening. Would it really make that much of a difference if Bush ditched all the stuff about God but kept pandering a small-minded nationalist agenda? Many tyranies have been explicitly aethiest, but all that ends up happening is that other people and ideas fill the gap: the leader, the army, the greatness of the nation and righteousness of the cause etc etc.
edit: just to clarify, I'm not really pro-relgion (and not anti-religion either) and I certainly don't support the Christian Right, but it seems odd to me to focus to intently on that one aspect of the problem, when there are plently of other, and more crucial, factors.
-
Look like theyre in the middle of nowhere to me....
Sure if they were in a large population center but not this.
-
Originally posted by MatthewPapa
Look like theyre in the middle of nowhere to me....
Sure if they were in a large population center but not this.
The last one, perhaps. But the first two are just sky...
-
Meh, religion is just the catalyst for it, it doesn't play any true role in the proceedings, but it's used as the grease to allow these policies to slide along.
Take this whole slide back in time to believing in creationism. Now, I know there are people on this board who believe in that, and your beliefs are your own, but my own personal belief is that by keeping the people uninformed, you can get away with more.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
[B***az, let me ask you something. Why are you rallying against religion as if though it were the sole source of blind faith and ignorance in the world?[/B]
it's the single biggest
Originally posted by Rictor
Nationalism, devoid of any religious sentiment, can be just as threatening.
yes it can, the germans know this well and their nationalism-phobic
Originally posted by Rictor
Would it really make that much of a difference if Bush ditched all the stuff about God but kept pandering a small-minded nationalist agenda?
it would make me less angry - because then they're not trying to deny me my right to be free of religious persecution, but it would still be angry and still work against bush
but i could contain my anger much better
Originally posted by Rictor
Many tyranies have been explicitly aethiest, but all that ends up happening is that other people and ideas fill the gap: the leader, the army, the greatness of the nation and righteousness of the cause etc etc.
indeed, however it's much more difficult to exploit atheism, especially true atheism
there are many people who claim to be atheist who are actually not since they're still spiritual
-
You know, ever since this new language filter was introduced, there been ***'s popping up all over the place, it's getting harder and harder to understand the meaning of the posts :(
-
Hey, at least bush isn't censored anymore.
Hehe, those were the days.
-
büsh
-
did you read that thing in the first pic saying: Paid by Arizona citizens
****. nobody here in cro would do that because we would kill him
-
:lol: :lol:
Awesome name. Welcome to HLP.
-
ummm... im not so new...
-
:welcome:
-
I have difficulties pronouncing it.
Peni...pici...pecep...
Oh, the final part to the Greeting:
Welcome to HLP. There are exits to the left and rear. Do not attempt to use them. Under your seat you will find empty beer cans, cookie crumbs, corpses of newbies, dog eared dungeon Porn mags left by Shrike... oh, and a Flamethrower. Unfortunately, we're out of napalm, so you'll have to bludgeon people to death with them.
In the event of serious conflict, there are plasma rifles in the forward locker, though these can only be opened by an Admin, [V], God, or Hyperintelligent shade of the colour Blue. If, for whatever reason, you find yourself crawling around in the ductwork, there's a better than average chance you'll encounter a Shivan. They're easy to spot with the five legs and all. If you're lucky, it's just Carl, who responds well to food rewards. If not, then at least you die quickly. Be aware that the entrance to the main control room is guarded by subspatial claymore mines.
Do not mention FS3. Karajorma's FAQ is your friend. Worship SCP team as Gods. Have a nice day.
-
then dont...
you guys are slow :D
and its pronounced pecenipicek
it means roasted chicken(actually its baked chicken but i prefer the roasted one)
-
Religion doesn't cause anything. The center of stupidity is the inability to see in shades of gray. Now with that said, religion is often plagued with just that shortcoming, but taking away religion is A) impossible and B) completely irrelevant.
-
a) completly possible in the long run (infact probably in the long run)
B) completely relevant -- religious worldviews are, by requirement, irrational - irrationalism is dangerous
-
To be brutally honest, I think most of America knows, by now, just how big a mistake invading Iraq was, humanitarianaly, Politically and Financially.
The problem is that a lot of American's don't want to have to admit it, because they think that saying they made a mistake is somehow going to lessen them in some way, yes the world will giggle a bit, but none of those countries deserve to be throwing the first stone, least of all France or Russia ;)
It's changed from an issue of rights to an issue of pride for America, and the more stubborn and defensive it gets, the louder those who don't want to accept will shout.
-
Yes, but it is arguably an invaluable portion of us. It is the source of art and emotion, which are integral to religion. Dyonisus, remember, was the god of wine, theatre, and irrationality.
I wouldn't trade my irrationality for anything. Besides, I think religion is the result of irrationality, not the cause.
-
Being irrational is part of being human. Emotions are irrational. Art is irrational. All philosophy is irrational.
Religion is not in and of itself a bad thing. People use relgion as a pretext to do bad things, but there are plently of other pretexts that have nothing to do with relgion. Like or or not, spirituality is simply part of the human identity.
-
Well, the funny thing is that people say we need to bring religion 'up to date' for the fact of the matter is religion IS changing to suit the times constantly. I seem to recall that Jesus spoke with and had great respect for healers, 1500 years later we were burning them at the stake.
That is because Religion is about honesty with ones self and accepting the possibility that there is something more than you, however, The Church is about control, misinformation and greed.
-
ford: religion is both the result of irrationality, and the cause of further irrationality
because it makes people think they're justified in what they think
religion was once an important part of civilizational developement - we've outgrown such childish things now
no - not all philosophy is irrational, i know some very damn rational philosophy
furthermore Emotion, Art aren't where logic needs to worry - emotion and art are not issues of whether something is factual or not
logic doesn't belong in emotions play ground, and emotion doesn't belong in logic's play ground
religion is in and of itself a BAD thing - because it is the resultant of irrational consideration of subjects involving facts --- spirituality os part of the human identity, it doesn't means it's a GOOD one
our basic irrationality is something to be overcome
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Being irrational is part of being human. Emotions are irrational. Art is irrational. All philosophy is irrational.
Do you even know the meaning of 'irrational'?
- Emotions; Aren't irrational as long as you control them and not the other way around.
- Art; It is a form of expression. If expresion is irrational we should all stop talking while were at it.
- Philosophy; It's the foundation of every belief, science and fact of this world. Is that irrational?
-
flipside the last thing religion is about is honesty - and has nothing to do with admitting something greater than ones self can exist
it's entirely to do with making oneself feel important, and significant (this is from a psychological analysis!)
-
According to one theory I've heard, religion is born out of a "fundamental psychological need for man to be able to transact with his enviroment."
Apparently.
-
That depends on the religion, and is why I hate churches ;)
-
Taken from Hemingway's "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place," one of my favorite stories and a superb example of existential thought:
"Good night," the other said. Turning off the electric light he continued the conversation with himself, It was the light of course but it is necessary that the place be clean and pleasant. You do not want music. Certainly you do not want music. Nor can you stand before a bar with dignity although that is all that is provided for these hours. What did he fear? It was not a fear or dread, It was a nothing that he knew too well. It was all a nothing and a man was a nothing too. It was only that and light was all it needed and a certain cleanness and order. Some lived in it and never felt it but he knew it all was nada y pues nada y nada y pues nada. Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada. Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee. He smiled and stood before a bar with a shining steam pressure coffee machine.
Yeah, art and philosophy are rational.
Religion is art and philosophy. It is an exploration our perceptions, of the half of our existence that cannot be described with equations. It's not just fairy tales made up to explain lighting and thunder. Our mythologies are a psychoanalysis of humanity. The fact that most people are too stupid to understand the abstract nature of their own religion doesn't detract from this point.
-
I define irrational as illogical. I can't really define it without just reverting to using synonyms. The presence of feelings or emotions or convictions which run contrary to a)survival b)the advancement of your position in life.
...in other words, doing things differently than say, a Vulcan (you get the point) would.
Art is, in objective terms, useless. As are most emotions such as love, fun, justice, freedom. Pondering existential questions s useless, since there is no answer, and even if there was, it wouldn't really benefit you (except mentally) to know it. Many, maybe most, of the things which humans do are well beyond the scope of rational self-preservation, and sometimes directly contrary to it. Dying for a loved one, how is that rational? Having hope despite a hopeless situation, how is that rational? Craving freedom and justice for their own sake, how is that rational? Displaying compassopn even when it benefits you nothing, how is that rational?
-
philosophy _can_ be irrational, but philosophy can also be rational/logic -- my philosohpy is
-
The fact that you're so sure is inherently irrational.
-
Without philosophy we'd still be in the stoneage...
We wouldn't create fire because we wouldn't think of what it could mean. We wouldn't create tools because we wouldn't think why it could be usefull. The very basic foundation of humanity is philosophy.
Philosophy can be wrong, but so can mathematics. The fact that something is wrong doesn't make it irrational. The fact that something is wrong only presents the oppertunity to learn from our mistakes.
In short; The question ' Why?' is the most important question of our existence.
-
It's called Imperialism. Take it from a Brit, we have a bit of experience in this area.
The difference between this and most other western attempts at such acts is that this is being done as a state act so blatently.
-
Were it not for religion, the Sun would not rise in the morning. This is true.
-
I only watched about a dozen or so episodes.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Many, maybe most, of the things which humans do are well beyond the scope of rational self-preservation, and sometimes directly contrary to it. Dying for a loved one, how is that rational? Having hope despite a hopeless situation, how is that rational? Craving freedom and justice for their own sake, how is that rational? Displaying compassopn even when it benefits you nothing, how is that rational?
Game theory...
-
Ford: no it's not - it means i have EVIDENCE
-
Tiara, that's not philosophy, that's science! The discovery of the usefulness of fire was a leap for the scientific side of us, not the philosophical. To pursue philosophy is to pursue questions to which you accept there are no answers. Mathematical conclusions may be wrong, but they're only wrong because there is a "right."
Kazan, you have no evidence because there is none. One of the greatest failures of the human mind is the ease with which a person becomes convinced that he is right. You may know what you believe is right and wrong, and I may even agree with you, but nobody knows. As Shakespeare, among others, said: "The fool doth think himself wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." You haven't experienced the complexity of your existence until you have lost confidence in everything you believe to be true.
-
no the pursuit of philosophy is the pursuit of a way to live/way to think
and can be completely rational
i have no evidence or what? eh? what was i being specific about?
-
The only antidote to misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
You can make your opposition known, sure, but otherwise, get over it.
-
Originally posted by Gank
:wtf: http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/12/05/news/national/1b9193edfb87b84887256f60000aec4a.txt
Associated Press is extremist now? Or is it the online photo album they found them on? Some of you Yanks are starting to lose your grip on reality with all this terrorist bs. See whats happening:
http://www.sundayherald.com/46389
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041203-053525-8262r.htm
Maybe if yis stopped kicking in Iraqi nobodys heads and actually went out and caught some real terrorists your war on terror might get some support.
Please understand me. The associated press got a hold of the pics when they were FIRST POSTED ON AN ISLAMIC EXTREMIST website. Thats why all the prisoners have their faces blacked out (a rather bad job of it at that). The AP doesn't do that.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
no the pursuit of philosophy is the pursuit of a way to live/way to think
and can be completely rational
i have no evidence or what? eh? what was i being specific about?
Kazan, you're confusing philosophy with ethics. Ethics is the decision you reach about how you think you ought to live your life. Philosophy is the act of questioning those very things.
It doesn't matter what you're talking about. Unless you're discussing something purely in a scientific or mathematical context, you have no indisputable evidence of anything.
-
ngtm1r: no, really, you think
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Where's Sheridan when we need him?
Sorry, couldn't resist ;)
Hehe, I have to rewatch the 3 and 4 seasons. Best ones out of the lot.
-
Wait, what just happened to the thread?
-
Have fun.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
the middle one is just a political message, although a dumb one
the first and third are the problem - they're encouraging an atmosphere of supression of the first ammendment
How on earth does the third one SUPRESS the first ammendment. That suggestion in itself is completely hypocritical.
-
Woah. Combinage.
-
Ok, what needs to be borne in mind is that, if you trace the roots of science far enough back that you get to the questions that started it all, How, Why etc...
From these exact same questions stemmed religion, simply different answers were found, the rightness of those opinions, as such, is neither here nor there, but Science and Religion are both children of the same Human curiosity.
Edit : Great. now I have to cope with a thread that bounces all over the place and tends to censor words like 'Funny' and 'Bold'.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
How on earth does the third one SUPRESS the first ammendment. That suggestion in itself is completely hypocritical.
ROTFL you need an education
you supress the first ammendment by making an environmental hostile to the expression of it
-
For some reason people have this strange notion that science and religion can't coexist. That belief is flawed in its self.
-
I see they finally are just making 1 thread for all this. Good Idea.
-
Yes, as threads pop up they'll get tossed in here.
-
deepblue: religion is the antithesis of science
thrilla: no, bad idea, damn annoying idea
-
Originally posted by Kazan
ROTFL you need an education
you supress the first ammendment by making an environmental hostile to the expression of it
That is an expression of the first ammendment. And you certainly don't need to result to insults in order to satisfy your ego.
Double standards suck.
(I'm sure you wouldn't complain if it was a minority group message)
-
Religion has nothing to do with science!
STUPIDITY is the antithesis of science. A smart religious person does not pretend that his spirituality can tell him how the world works.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
deepblue: religion is the antithesis of science
thrilla: no, bad idea, damn annoying idea
NO IT ISN'T!!!
Religion is a belief system. Science is proof of existence.
I think we just found the root of your problem.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Religion has nothing to do with science!
STUPIDITY is the antithesis of science. A smart religious person does not pretend that his spirituality can tell him how the world works.
Thank you.
-
religion is believing that something is factual without evidence for it
that's the antithesis of science
-
The thing is about science is this....
It contains a collection of laws and rules that say that just about everything interacts and affects everything else, from the Sub-atomic to the Pan-Galactic. When you step back and look at science from a distance, instead of playing the theological version of conkers with the Church, it's about as close to a religious experience that I've come to outside of a bedroom...... ;)
-
But the question that religion addresses is unprovable. Therefore, it is not defying what science tells us is true.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
religion is believing that something is factual without evidence for it
that's the antithesis of science
No, thats faith. However, religion does not always rely ENTIRELY on faith.
They can still coexist perfectly as long as you have an open mind.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
But the question that religion addresses is unprovable. Therefore, it is not defying what science tells us is true.
Bingo again.
-
Actually, events in religious books have, on several occasions, been backed up by science. Such things as the Walls of Jercho etc (Not the act of blowing the bugle, but the fact that Jericho was where it was said to be, and it did indeed have very thick walls.)
In fact, once of the most interesting programs I ever watched on Discovery was about a wooden vessel that had been found buried in a Glacier, which matched the Ark for size and composition. Though, it is suspected there were far more than one.
I'll see if I can find a link, it was utterly fascinating.....
-
But I'm not talking about Biblical events; those are immaterial. I'm talking about the question that makes religion what it is: The question of god.
-
Well, religion wasn't always about 'God' as such, he's actually pretty much a n00b on the religious scene. We had Sprites, which mutated into Spirits and then all got bundled into one big 'God'. The evolution of Religion is very similar to the evolution of science, it is the search for the one big 'Answer'.
Neither are right or wrong, but one could not come into existence without the other one popping up as well. And neither science nor religion would function properly without the catalyst of the other.
-
Sweet zombie jesus, what have I missed here then?
-
I would argue, however, that our need for god has always been the same regardless of what we call it or whether it is plural or singular. I see polytheistic gods as nothing but multiple faces of one god, just as one god is comprised of multiple sides. God is a figurative description for our need to connect with our universe. And in a way, god is also a projection of ourselves onto our surroundings.
-
Exactly, God is the personification of what we don't understand, that does not always equate to ignorance.
And yes, we need 'Gods'. As I said earlier, without religion, the Sun wouldn't rise in the morning, there would merely be a big bright thing in the sky from time to time, there would be no curiosity, no awe, no wondering what it is or how it got there or why it moves.
-
I never argued that god is in any way related to ignorance. That was Kazan. :D
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Please understand me. The associated press got a hold of the pics when they were FIRST POSTED ON AN ISLAMIC EXTREMIST website. Thats why all the prisoners have their faces blacked out (a rather bad job of it at that). The AP doesn't do that.
:wtf: Did you even read the article? Here I'll quote it for you seeing as you'll probably just keep arguing your bull****.
An Associated Press reporter found more than 40 of the pictures among hundreds in an album posted on a commercial photo-sharing Web site by a woman who said her husband brought them from Iraq after his tour of duty. It is unclear who took the pictures, which the Navy said it was investigating after the AP furnished copies to get comment for this story.
The images were posted to the Internet site Smugmug.com. The woman who posted them told the AP they were on the camera her husband brought back from Iraq. She said her husband has returned to Iraq. He does not appear in photos with prisoners.
The wife said she was upset that a reporter was able to view the album, which includes family snapshots. Hundreds of other photos depict everyday military life in Iraq, some showing commandos standing around piles of weapons and waving wads of cash.
The images were found through the online search engine Google. The same search today leads to the Smugmug.com Web page, which now prompts the user for a password. Nine scenes from the SEAL camp remain in Google's archived version of the page.
"I think it's fair to assume that it would be very hard for most consumers to know all the ways the search engines can discover Web pages," said Smugmug spokesman Chris MacAskill.
Before the site was password protected, the AP purchased reprints for 29 cents each.
Idiot.
-
hehehehe That wasn't directed at anyone, I just thought I'd head off the argument before it was raised by anyone ;)
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
Tell me about it. My unit just got back from Germany last May and is redeploying to Iraq next Fall. Sounds like fun. At least I get to see the world. :)
Landstuhl by any chance? how busy were things there April/May?
-
flipside: some parts of the bible being based upon reality doesn't make the entire thing true
you should know that
-
You are missing the entire point of the argument.
-
Oh, even if the events are true, I don't believe the context for one moment ;)
I think the point that is trying to be made is that Religion is not the enemy of science, though certain religious views may fly in the face of what science believes, but is, in fact, the natural twin brother of it, both as different as can be, and yet related. They were both bred from that same awe and need to understand, only they chose different routes.
-
I've never seen science & religion as incompatible, myself. Strange bedfellows sometimes, but they are really just ways of looking at how the universe works; how different is religion from philosophy, anyways?
-
So why the constant need for religion to meddle in science's affairs? Such as evolution and stuff? :confused:
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
So why the constant need for religion to meddle in science's affairs? Such as evolution and stuff? :confused:
I think it's simply because there are some people take a very narrow & literal view. Some religious people think science destroys their faith, some aetheists presumably think religion destroys science.
I mean, the basic thing is that usually the person who shouts loudest has the least useful thing to say; that's why they have to shout.
-
Originally posted by Gank
:wtf: Did you even read the article? Here I'll quote it for you seeing as you'll probably just keep arguing your bull****.
Idiot.
No need for name-calling.
Thats just what I heard, however I geuss I was wrong.
Sorry. :p
-
I would say that is more a case of the Church meddling rather than religion. The thing is, a purely scientific society would, by now, be practising cloning, humans, genetic manipulation, would be using animals and 'defective' humans for experiments, would probably encourage Euthenasia and Abortion for population control etc. Because that would be, from a purely logical point of view sensible for the human race.
However, the Human Race is not a group of opinionless, emotionless automatons, they have feelings and wants and needs. In a way, religion tries to act as our conscience to sciences' logic. It doesn't work very well at the moment, because of both lack of trust and powermongering, but that, I think, is the way things ought to be.
-
i think it's clearly demonstrated that certain religious individuals destroy science*
*or attempt to
-
Certain, yes. But not all; and you should never 'punish' the majority for the actions of the minority (ad I have no doubt it is a minority).
EDIT; or the inverse, obviously.
-
Oh certainly, and there always will be those who will, just as there will always be scientists who are avidly opposed to any kind of religion. I doubt that will ever change, those who fear the unknown will lash out at anything.
That's just human nature, even a Utopia would have Anarchists, we just can't help it ;)
-
45% of the US population thinks the world is less than 10K years old
so yes it's a monitory - of total US population
only around 76% of the US is christian, about 13% is atheist/agnostic
-
45% of the US population thinks the world is less than 10K years old
Again, this is because they're stupid, not because they're religious. Stupid people think their religion will explain everything that has nothing to do with religion.
The great art and philosophy of the world is doomed to be oversimplified by the vast majority of the population.
-
Well, it's like using braces to make teeth straight....
You don't just grab the tooth and force it into where you want it to be, you ease it, a little at a time, first of all you convince them that religion is against things that pretty much anyone would be against.... Murder, Rape, Torture etc.
Then you start edging them into your line of thinking... What is murder, to answer that question you have to ask, what is life, and when does it start? Hence the motion begins...
Once you have peoples trust, and as long as you sound like you know what you are talking about, they will choose to believe you, because you were there, and the scientists weren't.
The same applies for teachers, they hold ni their hands the responsiblity for creating a free-thinking person, if they knowingly abuse that privilege then they not only abuse the children, but they abuse the entire name of 'teacher'.
-
I don't see the point in linking morality to religion either. Conduct towards other people strikes me as a seperate thing.
-
I always reckoned the sins defined by religion came from morality, not the other way round.
-
Morality isn't linked to religion, but by introducing people using what can be described as the 'basic morailties', i.e. our own pack instincts against theft and murder etc, it provides an easy introduction, what religion does is use those morals and couple them with what is frequently Dogma or incomplete evidence, and twist it to say what they wish. However, that is the Church doing this, not peoples religion.
Religion is not the source of morality by any means, but fear of having those basic rights abused is what pushes many people to join churches.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Morality isn't linked to religion, but by introducing people using what can be described as the 'basic morailties', i.e. our own pack instincts against theft and murder etc, it provides an easy introduction, what religion does is use those morals and couple them with what is frequently Dogma or incomplete evidence, and twist it to say what they wish. However, that is the Church doing this, not peoples religion.
Religion is not the source of morality by any means, but fear of having those basic rights abused is what pushes many people to join churches.
Well, my view of religion is that it's main purpose is to provide a framework for espousing those moral value, wrapping it up in a nice easy-to-swallow 'you'll get your reward in heaven' style coating.
-
I can't believe that, primarily for the reason that even being a steadfast atheist, I have still had what you could call religious experiences. So I think the religious tendency is an emotion seperate from what governs morality.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I can't believe that, primarily for the reason that even being a steadfast atheist, I have still had what you could call religious experiences. So I think the religious tendency is an emotion seperate from what governs morality.
I tend to disregard the spiritual aspect and simply view it as (principally) a symbolic way to espouse morality. At least, for the more regimented - stroke - organised religions.
(I'm a very cynical person, I know)
-
aldo_14, isn't using reward systems linked to morality a bit immature for the user of such method?
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, my view of religion is that it's main purpose is to provide a framework for espousing those moral value, wrapping it up in a nice easy-to-swallow 'you'll get your reward in heaven' style coating.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
aldo_14, isn't using reward systems linked to morality a bit immature for the user of such method?
Why?
-
Because it means they would do it just to suit their needs, so instead of a moral system you would have... a reward system with applied moral values. In the future when those rewards were taken for granted, or ignored, wouldn't they consider morals to be useless? Or am I confusing what you said?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Because it means they would do it just to suit their needs, so instead of a moral system you would have... a reward system with applied moral values. In the future when those rewards were taken for granted, or ignored, wouldn't they consider morals to be useless? Or am I confusing what you said?
Noooooo...... it's giving a consequence for a good deed that means all good deeds are in the persons ultimate interest. i.e. a more tangible extension to 'a good deed is its own reward'.
I view it (religion) as a different way to structure a moral framework.
-
What about when a good deed is against your self interest? How will that work out?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
What about when a good deed is against your self interest? How will that work out?
It's never against their self interest, because their self interest is in ultimately going to heaven, or reincarnation as a better being, etc. Y'know, something supernatural which overrides personal interests.
-
I'm not following you then... when the future generations of those people taught by that same method start ignoring those metaphysical rewards ("screw heaven", "screw reincarnation", etc... ) how will they behave and think about the morals that were encouraged by the reward method they turned their backs on?
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
I'm not following you then... when the future generations of those people taught by that same method start ignoring those metaphysical rewards ("screw heaven", "screw reincarnation", etc... ) how will they behave and think about the morals that were encouraged by the reward method they turned their backs on?
I think you missed my point... what I was saying was that religion can offer that sort of reward to stop that sort of thing and that IMO that's probably why we ended up having the likes of deadly sins and commandments and whatnot; to reflect societal morals & encourage people to obey them.
Like, people kept on falling off roofs, so there's a line about building battlements on your house in the Bible. That sort of thing.
I didn't say it was the best way, or the only way - obviously, cos I'm an aetheist and consider myself a pretty damn 'good' person - but it is a way. And it works for some, and it doesn't for others.
-
:o
Misinterpreted then... sorry.
-
No worries, half the time I don't know what the hell I'm on about anyways :D
-
Holy **** this is the biggest thread I've ever been responsible for...
Nice merge. ;)
-
I mean this only as a way of clarifying several miscolorizations that have been kicked around of late. The only way it'll get out of hand is if you force the issue, I'll likely not post in this thread again.
There was a certain Professor of Religion named Dr. Christianson, a studious man who taught at a small college in the Western United States. Dr. Christianson taught the required survey course in Christianity at the particular institution. Every student was required to take this course his or her freshman year regardless of his or her major.
Although Dr. Christianson tried hard to communicate the essence of the gospel in his class, he found that most of his students looked upon the course as nothing but required drudgery. Despite his best efforts, most students refused to take Christianity seriously. This year, Dr. Christianson had a special student named Steve.
Steve was only a freshman, but was studying with the intent of going onto seminary for the ministry. Steve was popular, he was well liked, and he was an imposing physical specimen. He was now the starting center on the school football team, and was the best student in the professor’s class.
One day, Dr. Christian son asked Steve to stay after class so he could talk with him. “How many push-ups can you do?”
Steve said, “I do about 200 every night.”
“200? That’s pretty good, Steve,” Dr. Christianson said. “Do you think you could do 300?”
Steve replied, “I don’t know… I’ve never done 300 at a time.”
“Do you think you could try?” again asked Dr. Christianson.
“Well, I can try,” said Steve.
“Can you do 300 in sets of 10? I have a class project in mind and I need you to do about 300 push-ups in sets of ten for this to work. I need you to do this on Friday. Let me explain what I have in mind.”
Friday came and Steve got to class early and sat in the front of the room. When class started, the professor pulled out a big box of donuts. No, these weren’t the normal kinds of donuts, they were the fancy BIG kind, with cream centers and frosting swirls. Everyone was pretty excited it was Friday, the last class of the day, and they were going to get an early start on the weekend with a party in Dr. Christianson’s class.
Dr. Christianson went to the first girl in the first row and asked, “Cynthia, do you want to have one of these donuts?”
Cynthia said yes. Dr. Christianson then turned to Steve and asked, “Steve, would you do ten push-ups so that Cynthia can have a donut?”
“Sure.” Steve jumped down from his desk to do a quick ten. Then Steve again sat in his desk.
Dr. Christianson put a donut on Cynthia’s desk. Dr. Christianson then went to Joe, the next person, and asked, “Joe, do you want a donut?” Joe said yes. Dr. Christianson asked, “Steve would you do ten push-ups so Joe can have a donut?” Steve did ten push-ups. Joe got a donut. And so it went, down the first aisle, Steve did ten push-ups for every person before they go their donut.
Walking down the second aisle, Dr. Christianson came to Scott. Scott was on the basketball team and in as good condition as Steve. He was very popular and never lacking for female companionship. When the professor asked, “Scott do you want a donut?”
Scott’s reply was “Well, can I do my own push-ups?”
Dr. Christianson said, “No, Steve has to do them.”
Then Scott said, “Well, I don’t want one then."
Dr. Christianson shrugged and then turned to Steve and asked, “Steve, would you do ten push-ups so Scott can have a donut he doesn’t want?” With perfect obedience, Steve started to do ten pushups.
Scott said, “HEY! I said I didn’t want one!”
Dr. Christianson said, “Look, this is my classroom, my class, my
desks, and these are my donuts. Just leave it on the desk if you don’t want it.” And he put a donut on Scott’s desk.
Now by this time, Steve had begun to slow down a little. He just stayed on the floor between sets because it took too much effort to be getting up and down. You could start to see a little perspiration coming out around his brow.
Dr. Christianson started down the third row. Now the students were beginning to get a little angry. Dr. Christianson asked Jenny, “Jenny, do you want a donut?” Sternly, Jenny said no. Then Dr. Christianson asked Steve, “Steve, would you do ten more push-ups so Jenny can have a donut that she doesn’t want?” Steve did ten...Jenny got a donut.
By now, a growing sense of uneasiness filled the room. The students were beginning to say “NO” and there were all these uneaten donuts on the desks. Steve also had to really put forth a lot of extra effort to get these push-ups done for each donut. There began to be a small pool of sweat on the floor beneath his face, his arms and brow were beginning to get red because of the physical effort involved.
Dr. Christianson asked Robert, who was the most vocal unbeliever in the class, to watch Steve do each push-up because he couldn’t bear to watch all of Steve’s work for all of those uneaten donuts. He sent Robert over to where Steve was so Robert could count the set and watch Steve closely.
Dr. Christianson started down the fourth row. During his class, however, some students from other classes had wandered in and sat down on the steps along the radiators that ran down the sides of the room. When the professor realized this, he did a quick count and saw that now there were 34 students in the room. He started to worry if Steve would be able to make it.
Dr. Christianson went on to the next person and the next and the next. Near the end of that row, Steve was really having a rough time. He was taking a lot more time to complete each set.
A few moments later, Jason, a recent transfer student, came to the room and was about to come in when all the students yelled in one voice, “NO! Don’t come in! Stay out!” Jason didn’t know what was going on. Steve picked up his head and said, “No, let him come."
Professor Christianson said, “You realize that if Jason comes in you will have to do ten push-ups for him?”
Steve said, “Yes, let him come in. Give him a donut.”
Dr. Christianson said, “Okay, Steve, I’ll let you get Jason’s out of the way right now, Jason, do you want a donut?”
Jason, new to the room hardly knew what was going on. “Yes,” he said, “Give me a donut.”
“Steve, will you do ten push-ups so that Jason can have a donut?” Steve did ten push-ups very slowly and with great effort. Jason, bewildered, was handed a donut and sat down.
Dr. Christianson finished the fourth row, and then started on those visitors seated by the heaters. Steve’s arms were now shaking with each push-up in a struggle to lift himself against the force of gravity. By this time, sweat was profusely dropping off of his face, there was no sound except his heavy breathing; there was not a dry eye in the room.
The very last two students in the room were two young women, both cheerleaders, and very popular. Dr. Christianson went to Linda, the second to the last, and asked, “Linda, do you want a donut?”
Linda said, very sadly, “No, thank you.”
Professor Christianson quietly asked, “Steve, would you do ten push-ups so that Linda can have a donut that she doesn’t want?”
Grunting from effort, Steve did ten very slow push-ups for Linda. Then Dr. Christianson turned to the last girl, Susan. “Susan, do you want a donut?”
Susan, with tears flowing down her face, cried “Dr. Christianson, why can’t I help him?”
Dr. Christianson with tears of his own, said, “No, Steve has to do it alone. I have given him this task and he is in charge of seeing that everyone has an opportunity for a donut whether they want it or not. When I decided to have a party this last day of class, I looked in my grade book. Steve, here is the only student with a perfect grade. Everyone else has failed a test, skipped class, or offered me inferior work. Steve told me that in football practice, when a player messes up, he must do push-ups. I told Steve that none of you could come to my party unless he paid the price by doing your push-ups. He and I made a deal for your sakes. Steve, would you do ten push-ups so Susan can have a donut?”
As Steve very slowly finished his last pushup, with the understanding that he had accomplished all that was required of him, having done 350 push-ups, his arms buckled beneath him and he fell to the floor.
Dr. Christianson turned to the room and said, “And so it was, that our Savior, Jesus Christ, on the cross, pleaded to the Father, ‘Into Thy hands I commend my Spirit.’ With the understanding that He had done everything that was required of Him, He yield up His life. And like some of those in this room, many of us leave the gift on the desk, uneaten."
Two students helped Steve up off the floor and to a seat, physically exhausted, but wearing a thin smile.
“Well done, good and faithful servant,” said the professor adding, “Not all sermons are preached in words.” Turning to his class the professor said, “My wish is that you might understand and fully comprehend all the riches of grace and mercy that have been given to you by God through the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
"He spared not only His only begotten Son, but gave Him up for us all now and forever. Whether or not we choose to accept His gift to us, the price has been paid. Wouldn’t you be foolish and ungrateful to leave it lying on the desk?”
-
I thought you left?
-
That's the ticket punish the achievers! hehehehe
It still very very very much depends on whether you believed in Jesus in the first place, if you didn't this cold hearted bastard has just made some poor bugger do 350 pressups for no reason.
-
And what about the metaphorical diabetics in the class? If they took the metaphorical donut they'd metaphorically die.
"Here, I know this will harm you, but I've worked damn hard for it so you should accept it."
-
An0n..... *sigh* ...just leave the donut on the desk.
-
And the moral of the story is?
oh wait, I get it, worship Jesus or we'll make you feel guilty.
-
Only 350 pushups? bah...
-
That proffessor would be in jail for doing that in Finland. Oh well.
-
Still they do not understand...
It illustrates in small measure the sacrifice that is the center of the Christian faith. Whether you believe that he was the Son of God or a simple man, the compassion and love of that act is staggering and very, very humbling.
There will come a day when all men will be called to account each by his own actions. The sacrifice of Christ is such that if anyone accept him into his heart, he will stand with him at the end and he will be forgiven. The only alternative is to be cast into the lake of fire along with the fallen angels.
-
Indeed. If you are like me and believe that Jesus was nothing more than an enlightened man, then it is all pointless.
-
At least I get a free pass. :D
-
So you are here trying to evangelize us? :wtf:
Interesting...
-
Originally posted by Gank
And the moral of the story is?
Presuming that is an honest question, and presuming you read it, the moral is this: Jesus did what He did for everyone, regardless of whether they desired it or not. If they chose to accept, great. If not, the deed is still done, waiting to be accepted if ever the person should decide otherwise. Even those who do not understand why this is going on "get a donut" if they so desire. If not, fine.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It illustrates in small measure the sacrifice that is the center of the Christian faith. Whether you believe that he was the Son of God or a simple man, the compassion and love of that act is staggering and very, very humbling.
You're right, he was a good old boy and he went through hell for something he believed in. That doesnt make him a god though, which is what christianity is about, so using guilt trips on people about it just makes the prof here look like a tosser.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Presuming that is an honest question, and presuming you read it, the moral is this: Jesus did what He did for everyone, regardless of whether they desired it or not. If they chose to accept, great. If not, the deed is still done, waiting to be accepted if ever the person should decide otherwise. Even those who do not understand why this is going on "get a donut" if they so desire. If not, fine.
prove it.
-
Oi vey, let's not go there.
-
I have a tale to tell:
Mike was a hard-working, tough-talking, beer-drinking, working-class man. He toiled for every penny he earned.
One day Mike decided to go and buy his friend George a hooker for his brithday. He went down to the docks and spent countless hours scouring for the filthiest, sluttiest hooker he could find. He found one named Tiar...err....'Claire'.
He took Claire back and gave her to George. George ****ed Claire, got AIDS and died.
The moral of the story: You can work as long and hard as you like, suffer as much as possible, all in order to try and do a good thing for a friend. But if the thing you're working hard for is a piece of **** to begin with that will ruin your life and destroy you, then you were jsut flat-out wrong to work towards getting it in the first place.
The literals of the story: Religion is the hooker. Faith is AIDS. Liberator is George. Priests are Mike. And I am the ****ing grave-digger who has to put up with the overwhelming stench of death caused by the stupidity of others in their quest for pussy/God.
-
(http://img6.exs.cx/img6/764/superbaby0oj.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Oi vey, let's not go there.
Please.
I posted this to start a discussion about religion with none of the insults or implied hostility that comes from a news story about yet another person be sued because they are Chrisitans.
-
You think that is why hostility starts? oh boy...
-
Originally posted by Gank
prove it.
I assume you are referring to the actuality/reality/existance of Jesus' sacrifice when you say "it"?
-
the donut sandy, the kids got theres, wheres mine?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Still they do not understand...
You are the one who can't understand, apparently.
Threads merged.
-
Once there was an ugly barnacle
who was so ugly that everyone died
The End
-
Ok...I've often been asked, as someone with a scientific view, what if you are wrong about God...
My own feeling is that Science has learned more from being wrong than it ever did from being right, still means I'm screwed, but hey, it's too late by then anyway ;)
Let me now take my turn to reverse that question, what if there is no God and no Jesus, what do those morality tales tell us now?
-
That it's bad to be the smartest in the class?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Ok...I've often been asked, as someone with a scientific view, what if you are wrong about God...
My own feeling is that Science has learned more from being wrong than it ever did from being right, still means I'm screwed, but hey, it's too late by then anyway ;)
Let me now take my turn to reverse that question, what if there is no God and no Jesus, what do those morality tales tell us now?
Then you just lived life as you wished, and that you lived it the way you thought it was right. If there is no God and no Jesus, then when you die you aren't going to know. You'll be dead! :)
-
What I'd like to ask, is what is more important - believing in God or being a good person?
If I were to, for example, spend my Sundays volunteering for charity, would I be worse than the person who spends their Sunday morning at church and their Sunday afternoon sitting on their arse?
-
Religion is alot like a tree. Its kind of old, about 10 feet tall and there's a guy way up at the top throwing apples at people.
no, wait, religion is actually like a car. American made, 10 miles per gallon and the mechanic always rips you off when you go in to fix it.
I'm spamming.
-
Originally posted by Gank
the donut sandy, the kids got theres, wheres mine?
Right... there. *points to heaven* ;)
-
The most important question is why should we even bother taking sides?
If science is right, we're ****ed and should do as we please. If Christianity is right, I can do as I please and beg forgiveness on my death bed.
So, with science lacking any punishment for non-believal, I think I'll live a life of sin and then beg forgiveness.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
What I'd like to ask, is what is more important - believing in God or being a good person?
If I were to, for example, spend my Sundays volunteering for charity, would I be worse than the person who spends their Sunday morning at church and their Sunday afternoon sitting on their arse?
It depends in whose viewpoint? Mine? I quite honestly don't care, and normally don't even bother to ask of people's religious preference I personally think that is more of a personal question.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Religion is alot like a tree. Its kind of old, about 10 feet tall and there's a guy way up at the top throwing apples at people.
no, wait, religion is actually like a car. American made, 10 miles per gallon and the mechanic always rips you off when you go in to fix it.
I'm spamming.
no ****, Sherlock?
-
Exactly! It's not about God, it's about Good ;)
The whole thing about these morality plays is that it assumes that people are learning a 'lesson from God'. They are not.
You could equally apply the press-up analogy to our treatment of the third world... Regardles of whether we need or want the goods, someone is suffering so that we can have the luxury of choice. Not so easy to make that choice when you are watching them suffer though ;)
So at the end of the day, it depends how you apply the morals with regards to yourself, not who you attribute them to.
-
Originally posted by an0n
The most important question is why should we even bother taking sides?
If science is right, we're ****ed and should do as we please. If Christianity is right, I can do as I please and beg forgiveness on my death bed.
So, with science lacking any punishment for non-believal, I think I'll live a life of sin and then beg forgiveness.
Except, an0n, that death bed conversions while they do happen, is more an act of fear than actual acceptance that Christ died so you wouldn't have to be tossed into hell without a second look.
-
You're assuming there is a Hell.
Jews don't believe in Hell and neither do a multitude of Christian religions.
Plus, the odds of picking the right religion out of the thousands that are out there are far less than the odds of science being right.
So I'll take the 'life of sin' option, if you don't mind.
-
Ahhh, I'm gonna do a Hippo, *bangs head on keyboard.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Except, an0n, that death bed conversions while they do happen, is more an act of fear than actual acceptance that Christ died so you wouldn't have to be tossed into hell without a second look.
Soo, the donut is there, but unless we eat it we're going to hell, or unless we feel sorry for the sap doing the push-ups we're going to hell?
Originally posted by aldo_14
Like, people kept on falling off roofs, so there's a line about building battlements on your house in the Bible. That sort of thing.
Really?
-
Requires QuickTime or equivalent.
http://www.hugi.is/hahradi/bigboxes.php?box_id=51208&f_id=1211
Honestly. If we wanted we could cut off a good portion of the northern US's power, stop selling you oil, wood, water and god knows how many other things.
As for not needing an army: WE DONT NEED AN ARMY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT PISSING THE REST OF THE WORLD OFF!
If the US did decide to invade us, the Brits and French would be all over them even if the rest of the world stayed out of it, WHICH THEY WOULDNT!
You want to know why Canadians hate Americans? This is why.
-
Water? You mean the bottled water? Also, the Bushies would probably be happy if you cut off wood exports, as it would give them an excuse to raze the national forests.
For those who lack the bandwidth/too lazy to download the movie, what precisely is it?
-
Some clips from CNN and FOX News. Couple of assholes trying to stir **** up or something.
-
oh my god, thats hilarious
"Well no, I don't think that every Canadian is dog-sledding at all times, but there is alot of dog-sledding, you know thats true."
Ann Coulter is always a laugh too.
-
Ann Coulter is an arogant and simply loud person. Pay no attention to her. She doesn't represent the rest of america. Just like Michael "narcissistic" Moore, she is on the lunatistic fringe.
-
Anything with the name "FOX" associated with it can be ignored if it's not a cartoon.
-
:lol:
Idiots.
-
Allowed to exist on the same continent as the United States of America?
My god.. I hoped it wasn't true that such arrogance existed. Guess I was wrong.
-
But frankly, trade benefits us both.
-
Michael Moore if far from the fringe. Its a shame actually, he's pretty mainstream, more so than I would like him to be.
And how dare you call Ann Coulter arrogant? She's a constant source of amusment. And Tucker Carlson, well, the man wears a red bow-tie. Nuff said. Don't you dare take them off the air, I need my jollies damnit.
Feh, if I was Carolyn Parish I wouldn't have been to uptight. They already fired her, so what is there left to loose? I have to watch the whole clip, but it wouild appear she's incapable of taking a joke and responding in kind.
-
Wow, i want to shoot these people...
-
Apparently the US is putting a shield around Canada... ahhhh Bless 'em :)
What a totally arrogant starstarstarstarstar!!!
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Michael Moore if far from the fringe. Its a shame actually, he's pretty mainstream, more so than I would like him to be.
I will make one point and leave it alone after that. He has taken farfetched information and contorted in an unreasonable fashion. Some of the things he purports has been directly disproven and from what I understand doesn't want to admit he was wrong. He is also a real dick to his "fans."
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Michael Moore if far from the fringe. Its a shame actually, he's pretty mainstream, more so than I would like him to be.
not down here he ain't.
-
So, he's just like the rest of them then? All he's done is stretch them in a different direction if he has done so.
-
You'll get no arguement from me on that one. However, if he chooses to distort information that doesn't discredit the position itself. What he says and the way in which he portrays the information is true, baring a few grey areas. The fact that he wants to present the information is such and such a way in order to make it appeal to the masses, well thats none of my concern. Personally, I don't thing its necessary to twist info in order to prove his claims but that's his thing. As I said, the claims themselves are still valid, regardless of how he chooses to prove or disprove them
And that's the end of that, since I don't want to derail the thread
-
I don't have quicktime, so what the hell is this?
-
American right-wing TV personalities trashing Canada for having a will of its own.
"They're lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent" and so forth.
-
I realise I made a bit of a generalization with my last comment in that post. Apologies if I've offended anyone.
I do realise that not all Americans are assholes like the ones in that clip. Some of the Americans that post here prove that, but then again, some of them affirm it.
-
Just some b itching over canada. I dont worry about it, cuz frankly I dont care.
-
:blah:
.
..
...
:lol: At least it's not like anyone is gonna take those idiots seriously.
I wish I could watch it. I enjoy laughing at stupidity.
-
You know, I wonder how many of these people realize what happened every time the United States invaded what is now Canadian territory.....
-
They got bored and left?
-
They froze to death?
-
Well, you know what they say...
The Yetties always Mount their Man!
Or was that Mounties and Get? :nervous:
-
They actually were beaten fairly soundly. The Battle of Quebec during the American Revolution, for example.
http://www.britishbattles.com/battle-of-quebec-1775.htm
Another example is the Battle of Queenston Heights: http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/events/queenston.html
-
WOW.
just... wow.
I feel so sorry for you guys. *goes off with a shotgun to search for Ann Coulter*
-
Why is it I've never heard about those battles before today...?
-
They're not really emphasized during history classes, as they were fairly minor battles compared to Yorktown or Saratoga.
-
'Canada is like Honduras, only colder and a lot less interesting'
This is comedy gold....
'No, theres not a lot of Dog sledding in Canada'
'Oh! Welcome to our century!'
...
-
:shaking:
That scared me beyond all reason... see, this is why I'm gonna soon be really pessimistic about the future. Because of people like Ann Coulter and Mr. Dogsled.
-
If I have this right, I believe the guy with the bow tie was one of the two who whas ripped apart by Jon Stewart a few months back.
-
yup
don't take it too seriously, especially the dogsled bit. He's not a nutjob AFAIK, just has a sense of humour. Ann Coulter however, well, you don't need to take her seriously either, no one else does.
-
I'm sorry, but I'd have been too busy pointing at Anne and going 'Bwahahahahahaahahaha!!' to be capable to responding to her ;)
-
Damnit. Is there somewhere I can find it in Windows Media Player Format?
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
You know, I wonder how many of these people realize what happened every time the United States invaded what is now Canadian territory.....
we still use the same weaponry...
-
OH
MY
GOD.
OK, I knew Ann Coulter was a psycho, but I didn't think she was that stupid. It'd be incredibly funny, but for the fact that she's completely sincere. That's terrifying. "Mr Dogsled" is quite funny, because he's not taking himself too seriously, but Coulter needs help. Preferably large-bore, high-velocity help.
-
I'll save Shrike the effort of merging threads.....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041209/ap_on_go_co/congress_intelligence
The Intelligence Bill got passed....
----------------------------------------------------
The intelligence director will not be part of the president's Cabinet but is to have the same access as the defense secretary and the secretary of state. He will have authority to move intelligence assets around the globe to keep an eye on terrorist groups like al-Qaida — as well as nations like North Korea (news - web sites) and Libya.
------------------------------------------------------
The legislation includes a host of other anti-terrorism provisions, such as allowing officials to wiretap "lone wolf" terror suspects and improving airline baggage screening procedures. It increases the number of full-time border patrol agents by 2,000 per year for five years and imposes new federal standards on information that driver's licenses must contain
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Some intelligent ideas interleaved with a few terrifying ones.....
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
Damnit. Is there somewhere I can find it in Windows Media Player Format?
You could just download QuickTime, or QuickTime Alternative (google it). Both work.
-
And they let her voice her opinion on TV b/c?
-
You could just download QuickTime, or QuickTime Alternative (google it). Both work.
No, I can't. It's my dad's computer, and he goes crazy when I install programs without his consent :doubt:. Just because I accidentally infected our PC with a couple dozen viruses when I was 9...
-
Only a couple of dozen? ;) Meh, I managed to overwrite the Boot Sector on my brothers 286.... those were the days ;)
I suppose the reason she is heard so much, though, is because she talks such a load of hilarious isolationist crap :)
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
They actually were beaten fairly soundly. The Battle of Quebec during the American Revolution, for example.
http://www.britishbattles.com/battle-of-quebec-1775.htm
Another example is the Battle of Queenston Heights: http://www.galafilm.com/1812/e/events/queenston.html
And this was all... what? Before we had even 3/4 of the country even CHARTED?
-
Still lost though :p
-
I think us Canadians should be pleased that we exist again in the American pscyhe...even if its as misinformed and arrogant as possible. They mentioned Canada! We were starting not to exist for a while :)
Frankly, if we cut off trade tommorow...both the US economy and the Canadian economy would fall apart so fast that both countries would be in an economic emergency in a week or less.
-
Pretty much yeah. 80% of what we export goes to the US or something like that. On the other side of the border, what we export to them they need. We need their money, they need our ****. I think they mentioned it in the clip.
-
Well, I just hope she gets a disease named after her :)
-
Go Canada!
-
Originally posted by Gank
Really?
:nod:
There's also a line in there - I think Bob keeps it in his sig - that says 'thou shalt not wear 2 kinds of fabric' or something similar.
Absurd stuff with no particular reason or relevance the modern world. I'm not even sure what the point of that one was in the first place...
Aha, found it;
Deuteronomy 22:8 When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.
Deuteronomy 22:9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.
Deuteronomy 22:10 Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together.
Deuteronomy 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.
-
1 : Don't fall off your house
2 : If you own a Vinyard, plant grapes.
3 : If your car is half Ferrari, half Skoda, you ain't going nowhere pal.
4 : The threads gotta match dude!
Commandments for a new age..... ;)
-
sig
-
Originally posted by Flipside
1 : Don't fall off your house
2 : If you own a Vinyard, plant grapes.
3 : If your car is half Ferrari, half Skoda, you ain't going nowhere pal.
4 : The threads gotta match dude!
Commandments for a new age..... ;)
Thouest shall not mix thy spirits as thou will have a screaming hangover when thouest next wakes.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Thouest shall not mix thy spirits as thou will have a screaming hangover when thouest next wakes.
If that isn't, it should be on the bible. I propose an amendment!
-
Watched it again...such total arrogance...these people have NO idea. If Canada disappeared over night...there would be such chaos in the US in terms of economics...were more than just two neighboring countries. We're two of the largest countries in the world, with combined natural resources that nobody else has...if that dries up on either side of the border it would be a disaster. Not just for Canada.
Yeesh...again, why do these people get airtime. On CNN even? Fox I can understand :D
As I said before...at least we're a mild topic of interest.
-
I am now urged to make an US vs. Canada land battle (brigade size) on SP:MBT. Reports shall follow.
Obviously, Canada will delay as US advances. No assault/defend stuff here.
-
Ann Coulte is really stupid and what arrogance. I always knew that US news channels let Stupid peoples to TV shows.
-
Lmao! Yea, well, it is retarded, and it's stupid that they were put on the air, but if you listen, you'll see that the hosts of the shows are quiet blatently saying "What the hell? You can't REALLY mean that?"
It's just basically real-life comedy. Fortunately, these views are not the views of most Americans, who, unfortunately, don't have any view whatsoever.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Watched it again...such total arrogance...these people have NO idea. If Canada disappeared over night...there would be such chaos in the US in terms of economics...were more than just two neighboring countries. We're two of the largest countries in the world, with combined natural resources that nobody else has...if that dries up on either side of the border it would be a disaster. Not just for Canada.
Yeesh...again, why do these people get airtime. On CNN even? Fox I can understand :D
As I said before...at least we're a mild topic of interest.
Cause CNN, in their effort to not look like Fox, has two guys, one from the left and one from the right, to argue everything. You've seen the Jon Stewart clip, right?
And to be honest, the US could in fact roll over Canada without much resistance. But they're not going to, cause other than the natural resources and cheap filming locations, which they already get, they really have no use for Canada.
And anyone who is offended by the dog-sledders remark is, well, stupid.
-
We don't roll over onto Canada cause it would cause such an upcry in not only the world, but in our own country, that there would be open revolt in the streets.
EDIT: And Canada would provide a hell of a resistance, too. Their military may be pathetically small compared to ours, but they would be fighting on their own turf, and fighting hard. Not only that, but our troops would have to deal with the Canadian winter.
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
:blah:
.
..
...
:lol: At least it's not like anyone is gonna take those idiots seriously.
I wish I could watch it. I enjoy laughing at stupidity.
wrong - millions of jackass americans take those people seriously every day
i could name two of them that post on this forum
-
Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
Why is it I've never heard about those battles before today...?
i had
-
Originally posted by Rictor
well, you don't need to take her seriously either, no one else does.
wrong, millions of moron americans do every day
-
Originally posted by Thrilla
And they let her voice her opinion on TV b/c?
because she's one of the brain childs of the ************** movement
-
Here we go, Kazan to spoil our fun :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
the Canadian winter.
yep, i hear it's something like the russian winter
*Snickers*
-
It's ****ing cold there Kazan. How else could they dog sled? :p
-
i was making a historical reference
-
*snaps on rubber glove*
Bend over, I have to take the stick out now.
-
I didn't know so much arrogance could be contained within a single person... why hasn't she imploded?
-
because the only way to unmake her is to throw her into mount doom
-
Good ****ing ride is what she needs
-
Originally posted by Gank
Good ****ing ride is what she needs
She's a closet S&M lesbosexual with plastics as skin.
-
So this is how it starts.
Then we'll be hearing about how the canadians are stealing US jobs etc etc. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
because the only way to unmake her is to throw her into mount doom
:lol:
I couldn't bring myself to get angry at those people. They're just too funny.
-
i can, because they're serious, they're corrupting america, and they're total freaking **************s
-
Originally posted by Janos
She's a closet S&M lesbosexual with plastics as skin.
Youre probably right, everybody knows the more conservative a person outside, the more perverted inside, like the way people who dont like gays are arse-bandits themselves.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Then we'll be hearing about how the canadians are stealing US jobs etc etc. :rolleyes:
:lol:
Well usually Ann Coultier doesn't complian about jobs being outsourced. However, some Americans are very stupid. They want to take advantage of inexpensive products from over seas, but don't want to face the possible consequences of international trade.
-
redmenace: it doesn't help that the sitting administration's tax policy that has been enacted into law gives tax cuts to firms that outsource
kerry's position was not discouraging it, but also not encouraging it
he was going to remove the tax incentive to outsource
-
Originally posted by Gank
Youre probably right, everybody knows the more conservative a person outside, the more perverted inside, like the way people who dont like gays are arse-bandits themselves.
no dont use that sexist term the correct word is the rectal rage bomber
-
Originally posted by Kazan
redmenace: it doesn't help that the sitting administration's tax policy that has been enacted into law gives tax cuts to firms that outsource
kerry's position was not discouraging it, but also not encouraging it
he was going to remove the tax incentive to outsource
Let be accurate, these "tax cuts" have existed for a long time.
Source: http://www.factcheck.org/article225.html
There is indeed a tax break for US-based multinational corporations to locate operations overseas. Bush isn't to blame for it -- it's been there for decades. It's also true that Bush doesn't support Kerry's proposed remedy, which is controversial.
Let cut the rhetoric please. Here is an semi-biased source. It explains the issue pretty well.
Source: http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/25/technology/techinvestor/hellweg/
Currently, companies that engage in offshore outsourcing pay taxes in the countries in which they outsource, and then pay the United States the difference between those countries' tax rates and the 35 percent U.S. corporate tax. The companies receive U.S. tax credits for the taxes paid in foreign countries, so they're not taxed twice on the same income.
Eliminating the foreign tax credit would "make it impossible for U.S. companies to do business abroad," says professor James Hines, research director for the office of tax policy research at the University of Michigan. "If he's talking about eliminating the foreign tax credit, it's ill-advised policy."
I don't want this thread to be about outsourcing. Especially when I just finished an entire semester of research into the issue.
-
i think that professor is full of ****
especially with the fact that i KNOW that is not the correct % for the corporate tax rate
-
Just for reference
Source: http://www.pgaol.msu.edu/html/2004_federal_income_tax_rates.html
(http://mason.gmu.edu/~jwillshe/ctax.JPG)
-
that's odd, because s-corp taxes are only about 8% for one of my friends
-
S-Corps are taxed differently. Like a Limited Liability Companies, they have many tax advantages as well as many advantages of limited liability. One major difference is that there is ALOT of paper work involved. There are also several requirements that a s-corp has to follow. I can dig them out if people want me to, but just take my word for it.
-
Strange, in the UK you get raped (in comparison to partnerships or sole traders) as a limited liability venture when it comes to taxes.
-
I should double check that but the intention of LLCs is to combine the tax advantages of partnerships and the advantages of Limited Liability.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
We don't roll over onto Canada cause it would cause such an upcry in not only the world, but in our own country, that there would be open revolt in the streets.
EDIT: And Canada would provide a hell of a resistance, too. Their military may be pathetically small compared to ours, but they would be fighting on their own turf, and fighting hard. Not only that, but our troops would have to deal with the Canadian winter.
We're not easily intimidated as a nation, nor are we afrad to tell people to **** off when they deserve it (War in Iraq, switching from the Loonie to the USD for example).
-
....The Muslim nations are lucky Israel allows them to exist on the same planet as us... :nervous:
-
:lol:
-
If I had an infinite amount of guns with an infinite amount of bullets and an infinite amount of time in which to enact my plans, I could reduce the human population to an amount that was comprised purely of rational thinking people. Some of you wouldn't make it but most of you would. Celebrate that fact.
-
Which reminds me, I've been meaning to post this:
-
*dieing of laughter*
-
Umm why is that funny? Its like something a Bosnian serb would cook up, end the unjust muslim occupation of christian lands.
Here Sandy go post it over here:
http://www.gopusa.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.pl?act=ST;f=18;t=16905
Conversation seems more at your level.
-
Sandy: hey, the Zionist leaders picked Palestine out of several possibilities, and of their own free will. the Holy Land and so forth, remember that stuff? Its not like anyone forced Israel to be created right smack dab in the middle of the Muslim world.
Would you rather it was somewhere else?
-
Heh, I like that GOP website, made me grin ;)
Anne Coulters newest book - How to talk to a liberal.
Next month :- How to talk to a Black
Spring 2005 :- How to talk to a European
etc...etc
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Sandy: hey, the Zionist leaders picked Palestine out of several possibilities, and of their own free will. the Holy Land and so forth, remember that stuff? Its not like anyone forced Israel to be created right smack dab in the middle of the Muslim world.
Would you rather it was somewhere else?
i'm actualy fairly sure britan decided the loaction.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Umm why is that funny? Its like something a Bosnian serb would cook up, end the unjust muslim occupation of christian lands.
Here Sandy go post it over here:
http://www.gopusa.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.pl?act=ST;f=18;t=16905
Conversation seems more at your level.
It was just the way the shirt struck me.
Just very sarcastic.
-
Originally posted by FireCrack
i'm actualy fairly sure britan decided the loaction.
And the league of nations. I forget the reasoning exactly but it was under the British empires control and so they put it where they put it.
-
Originally posted by FireCrack
i'm actualy fairly sure britan decided the loaction.
Well, in a sense, yes. But as far as I know, and I'm sure Sandwich or Gank will correct me if I'm wrong, the leading Zionists had several possible locations up for debate, and in the end Palestine was the one that was chosen due to its historical significance.
I believe Argentina was also a strong possibility, since early Zionism called simply for establishing a Jewish state, and was not explicit (until later) that this should be in Palestine.,
-
Argentina? I never knew that. Think of all the trouble that would have saved....
-
Originally posted by Clave
Argentina? I never knew that. Think of all the trouble that would have saved....
Probably wasn't any colonially occupied land they could use. I think...was part of what became the Soviet Union not also suggested.
On a personal note, I hate this use of 'Muslim land', 'Christian land', etc; it really shows how backward human society is, that we still hold land areas as having to be synonymous with religion.
-
Turn 1. US aerial assault results in one Canadian Leopard C2 destroyed, one damaged, and one TOW jeep is also now a burning wreck. Gowddamn. Canadian tactics rely on small elite units defending chokepoints and focusing fire on enemy's flanks and rear. AA is completely useless.
At the next 3 rounds the US make probing attacks along the main roads at the south, but they are so far easily repelled. A whopping 6 (!) M2A3 Bradleys are destroyed, some by Canadian Leos, some by SF troops with LAWs. Eryxes are also pretty good. Infantry units are also spotted here and there, as is first bigger problem, an Abrams tank. Leo's 107mm guns are no use against the frontal armour of the Yankee beast, so they quickly retreat to woods. Infantry must deal with it while mobile AT vehicles try to outflank it. The Roayl Beaver Defenders must now hope that there are no more than a company or two of M1A2s.
But oh ****. Six more Abramses make an appearance in what is a weaker point in Canadian outskirts! Even though one is immobilised, the future seems grim. AT forces in the rear echelons are already taking positions. Six Abramses vs. 4 SF troops and an Eryx team. omg so unfair. Defences overrun.
At turn 5, the US forces are starting to make their main push. The Abrams onslaught crushes the Canadian outskirt defences in the north, while in the south the SF troops are simply delaying and skirmishing with Yankee aggressors. One M113 is destroyed.
But then the Abramses in the north make a mistake! They decide to use the open ground, possibly in fear of more SF ambushers, and get pinned down on lethal TOW-2/107mm gun fire. Two Abramses are destroyed immediately, one by a lucky 107mm hit into the side skirts, another by a TOW missile piercing the turret side armour. Most shots by Canadian defenders are, however, ricocheting from the unpenetratable frontal armour of M1s. One Abrams is also damaged, but not seriously.
Canadian defenders decide to pull back a little, abadoning their exposed positions and taking up new ones. One of the three Abramses in the north is immobilized by several 107mm hits. It was their choice to take the worst route! After that it's a piece of cake for Leo's to pick on it, and minutes later the M1 is a burning wreck. 4 out 6 enemy tanks in the north are now out of the game - one immobilized, three destroyed. An Eryx team in the north is sent to assault the immobilized Abrams in the woodland, but is forced to retreat due to new tanks arriving. **** you!
At the next turn, US retaliates by bringin down heavy artillery fire in the southern more urban sector, and sending their fighter/bombers against the dug-in Canadian tanks. One Leo is destroyed, and an A-10 attack just demolishes one defence stronghold in the south. Two SF teams and an Eryx team are lost in an eyeblink. However, it does not matter, since US losses are completely devastating; the idiotic Abramses decide to continue their ill-fated attack on the north, losing 4[/b] tanks in rapid succession. Victory, it seems, is now purely a matter of time. A sole surviving Eryx team attack the retreating US tank crews, while US infantry is trying to push through the Wall of Lead in the south. At least one Bradley is destroyed.
Turn 7
Attackers try to take the southern section in what is degenerating into fierce urban battle. Losses are great, at least in modern standards, but US slowly and surely gain foothold along the main highway. Canadian troops further west down the road dig in and wait. A Leo, trying to counterattack and give the troops more time, is destroyed by an Abrams, as is a TOW jeep trying to regroup in the North.
Some stupid elkriders try to show their courage. "Hey guyz get in there ok?" "YESSAH", they shout and gloriously JUMP RIGHT INTO THE OPEN ROAD, getting immediately gunned down by an Abrams standing on guard just 100 meters east of them. Glorious Special Forces my ass.
Turn 8. More aerial assaults. My only AA forces, some Inf-SAMs, are already dead and achieved nothing during the combat. So the US air forces can ravage around freely. One Leo is damaged, but nothing really serious happens. It seems that the USAF forces patrolling the area have already depleted their heavy-duty munitions, so now I only have to fear the Warthogs' 30mm Avengers.
Do not miss the exciting ending! How will the battle end? Can the Canadians stand proud or will Anne Coulter and her Shocktroopers pee on the burnt remnants of Saswahaqhats?
-
Part II: Endgames
Turn 8 ends with normal stuff; US troops hit their head on the wall as they try to annihilate the small Canadian patrols in the southern section. Nothing interestin happens.
Next turn the last US Abramses make their assault, getting destroyed. The immobilized PoS in the north gets overwhelmed by two Canadian Eryx teams assaulting from opposite directions; it's crew abandons the tank and promptly gets shot. I infiltrate a sniper team through in the South, where the single M1A2 is still causing ruckus among the few SF troopers left there.
Next turns are practically nothing of interest. The SF forces outflank and destroy two Mech Infantry squads in the south and begin a shootout contest with the Abrams. Meanwhile in the North an US rifle company has managed to sneak past the guards and is now trying to grab a hold of small village/rural area, but Special Forces are far too stubborn to give them any room. Actually, 3 men outflank the two squads now preparing a new assault and manage to pin the aggressors down in a lonely house. Sniper fire, concentrated C8 punishment and finally a Leopard gun force the enemy to give up and die.
At turn 12 the war is in a gridlock. Neither sides have enough power to make a decisive movement, but I try and move some TOW jeeps closer to the goddamn M1 in the south. It just sits there, with practically no infantry support, but I cannot just assault it right away; I have no manpower to do so. I decide to take a risk and brin two men with one LAW shot closer to the rhino and surprise! The Yanks have abandoned the tank. WTF. Well, ok. I dig in and wait.
US then continues to punish me with artillery fire, but mostly it misses or hits areas of no importance. Some Javelin troopers (!) try to attack my SF in urban areas (!!), and the remnants of abovesaid rifle company still stubbornly attack me, with no results. However, US has a really, really weird trump card left.
A huge Blackhawk swarm just suddenly appears above my skies. What in the hell****? Plus, they're only armed with ordinary machine guns. No miniguns, Hydra rockets, Hellfires, anything. They make pinpoint attacks against my useless TOW positions, but always end up getting shot at and then retreat. I am intrigued. Such a tactic is so unforeseemable that my defeat must be assured! Or maybe not. It seems that the Blackhawks just run here and there, doing nothing.
OH **** THEY AREN'T. They are making goddamn airdrops all over the place, though some of the choppers are empty and only act as decoys. And to add to pandemonium, US somehow manages to summon yet another RifleCo to attack me in the north. Are they trying to deplete me of my ammo? My 10 ordinary troopers and 1 sniper there have already caused a ****load of casualties, but it seems they want more. Ok, you'll get what you ask! I let the Leopards on the loose. Crush everything!
One platoon has landed far too near of my Command Post. Two Leos are unleashed on them, and the US troopers' fate seems rather ill.
Next turn the ****fest continues. The battle has now degraded into "shoot everything at sight" type of slaughter, with immense casualties everywhere. One of my tanks moves in to support the remaining troops in the Southern Village and solidifies the defence line there. I hope for US's sake that they won't try another Russian-style assault there. A-10 manages to destroy one of my Leopards.
The battle is over. Even though US gained ground here and there, they weren't able to exploit their gains and minor breakthrough and Canadians were always able to regroup. Focused firepower by Leopards thwarted the most significant threat, the armoured company, and stubborn resistance led by SF troops demolished many US assault.
Canadian losses: US losses:
Men 70 189
APCs 0 14
AFVs 7 10
Score: Canada 12352
USA 2356
The Beavers are safe, for now.
My tactics relied on infantry ambushes. Relying on SF might have been a bad and tad unrealistic choice, as they lacked machine guns. AA was inadequate, as was nonexistant fire support in form of mortars. Minefields could've been used also.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well, in a sense, yes. But as far as I know, and I'm sure Sandwich or Gank will correct me if I'm wrong, the leading Zionists had several possible locations up for debate, and in the end Palestine was the one that was chosen due to its historical significance.
No, there was only one choice of a homeland for the zionists, Palestine. Several other countries like Uganda and Madagascar were proposed but none were really considered seriously by the zionist leaders. As for the British choosing where it was, they didnt, mass immigration to palestine started late 19th century when the place was ruled by the ottomans. You're probably thinking of the Balfour doucument, which was signed before the brits captured the place off the turks and was never fully honoured anyways.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Next month :- How to talk to a Black
Spring 2005 :- How to talk to a European
I hope this last part is a joke, because if you're serious... *shudders*
Of course, I'm not going to the GOP website to check. You know voting with your feet and all that... :p
-
Since the americans were the first to recognise Israel they should have just given them Alabama or something. I'd like to see how long they'd have supported them if the jews had started this kind of **** on their own land.
-
LOL Yes, don't worry it was a joke Ace, but I wouldn't put it past her, it requires precisely the same mentality as writing a book called 'How to talk to a Liberal'. ;)
-
Did the first page say in words of one syllable because anyone buying this book probably doesn't understand longer ones? :D
-
Well, I did actually wonder whether it was an opinion or an easy-to-read instruction manual.... ;)
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Since the americans were the first to recognise Israel they should have just given them Alabama or something. I'd like to see how long they'd have supported them if the jews had started this kind of **** on their own land.
Exactly what type of excrement are you referring to, kara?
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/ap/20041211/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
American soldier admits to 'Mercy Killing' wounded Iraqi fighter...
"It doesn't help you win the hearts and minds of the public if you put a bullet in their hearts and another in the minds," said Mark Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch.
Once again, saving a merge ;)
Why don't they use the word 'execute?' they wouldn't have any worries about it if were happening the other way round?
-
This sort one presumes.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=591997
-
Gank has pretty much hit the nail on the head.
If the jewish people had settled in America and had done any of the things they did in palestine how many Americans do you think would support them now?
Hell your average american hates the French for their crime of not being stupid enough to get dragged into a war that was nothing to do with them and which was based on a pack of lies. How much support do you think their would be if that 7 year old had been american?
-
I'd criticize your use of the stereotype if the people at my high school didn't give me cause to say you're right for the most part...
-
If I remember correctly, the british turned jews away also. No one wanted them. As for France, many americans don't like them not because of the war, but because of its connection with Saddam Hussein. Most recent example would be the oil for food. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52682-2004Oct21.html
Or the weapons systems French companies sold Iraq without regaurd for UN Sanctions. Or even more recently their dealings with Iran and IEAE such as pushing to give Iran veto power of inspections of the IEAE upon Iran.
-
Oil for Food. When significant American, German, French, Russian and British firms, not the governments, use an UN program which is controlled by SC, not Kofi Annan, to make extra money.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
If I remember correctly, the british turned jews away also. No one wanted them. As for France, many americans don't like them not because of the war, but because of its connection with Saddam Hussein. Most recent example would be the oil for food. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52682-2004Oct21.html
Or the weapons systems French companies sold Iraq without regaurd for UN Sanctions. Or even more recently their dealings with Iran and IEAE such as pushing to give Iran veto power of inspections of the IEAE upon Iran.
You mean like when the US sold Suharto weapons, despite the sanctions, so he could go on with his genocide in East Timor? Or how the US sold Saddam weapons well after he had commited his worst crimes and it was evident that he was a tyrant? Don't even try to take the moral high ground here.
As for the inspections, the Big 3 (Britain, France and Germany) are trying to actually work out a solution, not trying to start a war like some people I could mention. Its called diplomacy and its really a wonderful thing. No bombs, no dead, but then again, no military bases and puppet government. However, I don't know you're interpreting that as giving Iran veto over inspections, since nothing of the sort is happening.
Before you criticize others for not allowing nuclear inspections, you might want to look at your own country, which is doing the exact thing, only they're being much more non-compliant than Iran/.
-
Never said the US was perfect and has never made horrible mistakes, did I? Secondly I was only trying to give a perspective about Americans' view of the French.
However,...
The French Gov't strictly controls french defense companies. They cannot even pick their collective noses without asking the french gov't for permission.
What is the purpose of having a lame duck agreement? The French pushed for a provision which basically would allow the Iranians to continue progress toward nuclear weapons un abaded. If that is "democracy" then :wtf: Those that won't heed history are doomed to repeat it. ie apeasment.
Explain you last point.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Never said the US was perfect and has never made horrible mistakes, did I? Secondly I was only trying to give a perspective about Americans' view of the French.
However,...
The French Gov't strictly controls french defense companies. They cannot even pick their collective noses without asking the french gov't for permission.
Umm, the french didnt sell any weapons to Iraq under sanctions. Poles alleged the found 4 missiles which were made in 2003 which they promptly blew up before anyone else could see them. France stopped making the same missiles in 1993 and poland later retracted the claim and apoligised.
Originally posted by redmenace
What is the purpose of having a lame duck agreement? The French pushed for a provision which basically would allow the Iranians to continue progress toward nuclear weapons un abaded. If that is "democracy" then :wtf: Those that won't heed history are doomed to repeat it. ie apeasment.
What business is it of the US whether or not Iran has nukes, you're developing them yourselves. As for appeasement, blow it out your other hole, the only country looking to be appeased is the US.
-
You demand that Iran not have nukes, and yet the US has the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.
You also demand that Iran (and North Korea and others) submit to intrusive inspections, and yet George the Lesser has not allowed international inspectors into US facilities. My guess is that it has something to do with the "mini-nukes" being developed, in breach of treaties signed by the US.
Do I smell just a tiny bit of hypocricy? If others can't tell you what to do, you sure as hell can't tell other how to run their own countries. The US has no right to demand anything of anyone, considering they themselves are not living up to the demands imposed on others.
Once the US disarms, and allows IAEA inspectors in to verify that fact, then you can start making demands.
-
Oh ****, politics.........
-
"A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq... The two-page e-mail that references an Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and 'sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.' The ACLU is urging the White House to confirm or deny the existence of such an order and immediately to release the order if it exists."
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=17216&c=206
-
The ACLU? Does anyone actually listen to them anymore? These guys are reknown for their ass-holery.
-
(bbc articles as well)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4113679.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4114455.stm
-
Good job aldo. :):yes:
-
Remember how Bush won the election cause of "morals"?
...
yeah, that was sweet.
-
It described strangulation, beatings and the placing of lit cigarettes into detainees' ears.
:ick:
-
tin can: you do realize that if the ACLU hadn't taken up the case, none of this would have become known about, right? They're the ones who obtained the documents which show that torture is systematic and a matter of policy.
-
This seems like a nice politcal dogfight to watch......
-
They don't get truth about something when using torture, only forced truth (wich is bull**** usually ) and real criminal gets away and innocence ends in prison
Really nicely done bush, you showed your stupidity once agan.:rolleyes:
-
freeeeeeeeedoooooooooooom
oh shi
-
[color=66ff00]Even if they are found guilty they'll find some way out of doing time or paying any serious compensation.
They raped a country and got away with it.
[/color]
-
Of course, the military takes care of its own. And all US soldiers have immunity from prosection by Iraqi law enforcement, so....
-
...and also have immunity from prosecution by any court other then a US one.
I smell hypocrititical assholes here. And it doesn't smell like roses.
-
Why doesn't this suprise me? :sigh:
-
I'd say I'm not so alarmed at this as I am that it was kept a secret.
Yeah, you could say it was national security - because then the 'terrorists' might fight harder - but doesn't that sort of say something? And don't people have something of a right to know what their government's doing in a war, especially when they're the ones fighting it?
That's all assuming this isn't just a ploy to discredit Bush. I won't be too surprised eitehr way.
-
The government is as secretive as it possibly can be, and this comes as a surprise?
Secrecy is its own end. They don't want to be one bit more accountable than they have to be, so they try to hide stuff like this.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
That's all assuming this isn't just a ploy to discredit Bush. I won't be too surprised eitehr way.
Especially since the ACLU's credibility is about on par with that of Pravda.
-
Well, I'd give it a lot less weight if the FBI, when asked, had said 'Don't be silly' or some kind of emphatic denial, but instead they chose not to comment, which is rather wierd...
-
Originally posted by TopAce
:ick:
Didn't the US invade Iraq to stop that kind of thing?
That's all assuming this isn't just a ploy to discredit Bush. I won't be too surprised eitehr way.
We have at least one credible source posting this, which backs up the ACLU.
-
Just think, if it is true, what happens when he really gets his teeth into the American public with his anti-terror laws?
-
More crap like Guantonomo Bay and the end to the Bill of Rights......
-
Blah. I don't even care anymore.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
More crap like Guantonomo Bay and the end to the Bill of Rights......
Except the 2nd Amendment. Which would in the end solve the problems, but hey, let's pretend you're making sense. That's the problem with every "Republican=Fascist" theory. They support the right to bear arms, which is ultimately a very bad idea if you intend to be a totalitarian government.
I want to know where and how BBC obtained these reports before I judge their accuracy. If they came through the ACLU, they're tainted.
-
An unnamed agent describes seeing a detainee at Guantanamo Bay wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music and strobe lights, adding the supposition that such practices were employed by military personnel. No physical abuse was witnessed.
Don't know about the flag, but the rest sounds like a typical concert minus the mosh pits.
And I wouldn't be surprised if that bastard signed the order himself, autographed a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card for every soldier caught abusing prisoners, and then pissed on a budget reform bill.
-
You're taking the best (well, least bad in any case) of it. Yeah, yeah, loud music, big deal.
But what about when they, deprive them of sleep, lock them up in little room with no light for days on end, force them to maintain "stress positions" (I definitely get the feeling someone from a PR agency had a hand in this) for long periods of time, let the dogs loose and stuff like that.
Its torture dude, use you imagination. People seem to have no trouble imagining what horrors Saddam perpetrated in his prisons, why should it be any different here?
-
Personally, I'll wait to see the evidence before I judge the source, after all, America could have been accused of being a 'biased accuser' in the Cuba Crisis, but being brave enough to do so saved the world a lot of problems.
-
Not to derail the topic, but they stationed missles in Turkey, the Soviet equivalent of Cuba, more than a year before the Russians put their missles in Cuba.
-
Of course you won't hear THAT in a history class in this country.
-
Actually, you will. I certainly did. It was even in the movie on the subject, if you were paying attention.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Of course you won't hear THAT in a history class in this country.
I love my History teacher, an ex-marine patriot. He doesn't leave out the parts about America's emperialistic arrogance and dirty history.
-
You realize that most Americans feel about the ACLU the same way that most foreigners look at Fox News? :p I like how the BBC is your "credible source;" all that story does is describe the ACLU's case. All of you are so quick to jump on the "Damn Bush!" bandwagon without knowing any real facts. But, then again, why would I expect anything better from this forum?
-
hold on a ****ing second.
Someone want to give me one good reason why the ACLU is not to be trsuted, or in fact why they're not a positive force in US politics? I've seen nothing but good coming from them, so what's the deal? Does someone object to civil liberties?
-
All of you are so quick to jump on the "Damn Bush!" bandwagon without knowing any real facts.
I've seen you jump on "Yeah Bush" bandwagons with even less real facts than we have. Hyppocrite. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Rictor
hold on a ****ing second.
Someone want to give me one good reason why the ACLU is not to be trsuted, or in fact why they're not a positive force in US politics? I've seen nothing but good coming from them, so what's the deal? Does someone object to civil liberties?
Because, let's face a big fact now: the ACLU was created to get certain liberties granted.
They succeeded.
Now their original reason to exist is gone. And they must create a new one or the people who are running it have their paychecks stop coming. So they look for another possible threat. Or they just pull one out of their ***, which is unfortunately more common since it takes less effort.
This same phenomenon can be observed in other advocacy groups. The NAACP, for example. Or any of the big unions. They have achieved the goals they set out for. The NAACP sought equality under the law, and they got it. Yet they're still here. This is beaurcracy in action, becoming self-sustaining. The unions sought better conditions for workers. They got them. Now they must keep getting them, or else they cannot justify their own existance and the union dues will stop coming in, and the people who run the unions and make hundreds of thousands a year doing so will be out of work.
The reason people don't trust the ACLU is because of this very phenomenon.
-
The ACLU is still around mostly to make sure people's liberties don't get taken away. That is a far more realistic prospect than I think most people realize.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Because, let's face a big fact now: the ACLU was created to get certain liberties granted.
They succeeded.
Now their original reason to exist is gone. And they must create a new one or the people who are running it have their paychecks stop coming. So they look for another possible threat. Or they just pull one out of their ***, which is unfortunately more common since it takes less effort.
This same phenomenon can be observed in other advocacy groups. The NAACP, for example. Or any of the big unions. They have achieved the goals they set out for. The NAACP sought equality under the law, and they got it. Yet they're still here. This is beaurcracy in action, becoming self-sustaining. The unions sought better conditions for workers. They got them. Now they must keep getting them, or else they cannot justify their own existance and the union dues will stop coming in, and the people who run the unions and make hundreds of thousands a year doing so will be out of work.
The reason people don't trust the ACLU is because of this very phenomenon.
uhm, they exist cause civil liberties are continually under attack, and will continue to be. Should I start listing the ways, or are you just going to take a quick look around?
They're basically people who know the legal system, and use that knowledge the prevent the government from getting away with ****. And don't tell me that the government is a benign and caring entity, the only thing that is preventing it from turning tyranical is people who take a stand aganist it. Left to its own devices, the government will naturally increase it power over the population. As long as there is a government, it will be power-hungry, and there will need to be people or groups of people who hold that power in check, since obviously John.Q.Citizen has no problems with handing over his liberties to gov't under threat that the boogeyman will him.
Now I don't know about the NAACP, which BTW I think is a pretty stupid idea, but I don't think you should just lump all these groups together who are so very different in their goals. Labour unions exist in theory to give workers a united front against corporate exploitation, but how many unions are in bed with the corporations or with the government? They're still needed, they just need to do a better job of it.
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
I love my History teacher, an ex-marine patriot. He doesn't leave out the parts about America's emperialistic arrogance and dirty history.
:):yes:
That's the kind of teachers that need to get some more respect instead of being attacked for 'making America look bad' (and believe me, there are more then enough people who don't want their children to know the truth about this subject in the US :ick: ).
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Except the 2nd Amendment. Which would in the end solve the problems, but hey, let's pretend you're making sense. That's the problem with every "Republican=Fascist" theory. They support the right to bear arms, which is ultimately a very bad idea if you intend to be a totalitarian government.
I want to know where and how BBC obtained these reports before I judge their accuracy. If they came through the ACLU, they're tainted.
It's only a problem if the gun-owners are against you.
NB: bbc source is stated in the first link.
-
the ACLU is a political organisation (as are most things you hear from today), therefore you can't trust them on there word.
-
They're not political, or at least nor fundamentally political.
That's like saying that firefighters are political. The ACLU protects everyone's civil liberties, regardless of political affiliation. Government repression runs across the board, its only that Republicans (and I say this only because a Republican is currently in power, it was the same with the Democrats back in Clinton's day) freely give up their rights because they believe that partiotism is blindly following the government and being obedient.
Now, its not exactly like this in reality, but I think that the majority of what they fight for is not specific to one party or idealogy. Sure, they may do some things which could be considerd liberal, but the bulk of their work goes to protect all citizens.
-
what would you say the makeup of the ACLU is, poliiticly?
I mean they probly arn't exactly overbriming with conservitives, and as we've seen a few times, american democrats have a tendency to refuse the posability that there party could do anything even remotely unsavory.
one could conclude that this might have a signifigant effect on there pollicies. and given the nature of the organiseation, advicacy, this would basicly make them a democratic atack dog, much like the NRA is a republican atack dog regardless of what the organisation's purpose is.
if they actualy have proof this is all irrelevent, but untill it has been proven it's still suspect. wouldn't be the first time something that's suposed to be nutral provided forged documents in an atempt to discredit Bush (like you'd even ****ing need them)
-
Validate the evidence, not the people who present it, I say.
-
like I said, if what they have is legitimate and they can prove it then there motives are irrelivant.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
what would you say the makeup of the ACLU is, poliiticly?
I mean they probly arn't exactly overbriming with conservitives, and as we've seen a few times, american democrats have a tendency to refuse the posability that there party could do anything even remotely unsavory.
You going to complain that the Equal Opportunities Commisssion doesn't have enough members from the BNP next?
Conservatives are welcome to join the ACLU. They don't because preventing the infringement of civil liberties isn't something that most conservatives care about.
-
so then there an organisation that is devoted to opposeing conservitive agendas...
how does this differ from my statement that they are a political organisation?
-
Conservatism basically stands for preserving the existing order, so there wouldn't be much sense in joining something like the ACLU for them. However, that doesn't invalidate the purpose of the organisation; it's hard to find a cause or area which can't be classed as political in some manner.
-
so it's an organiseation tha, er, why am I argueing this, you are basicly admiting the ACLU is a political group, it's just they are for 'good' politics so you don't want to admit that they have a vested intrest in evicting Bush, even though it's plain to see as the inside of your eyelids from any perspective that they do.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
so it's an organiseation tha, er, why am I argueing this, you are basicly admiting the ACLU is a political group, it's just they are for 'good' politics so you don't want to admit that they have a vested intrest in evicting Bush, even though it's plain to see as the inside of your eyelids from any perspective that they do.
If Bush and his government are violating civil liberties then of course they have a vested interest in removing them (personally, I see that as 'good' politics, but everyone know my opinions on this); Aids charities probably also have a vested interest in removing Bush, too (because of restrictions on funding which favour faith based abstinance initiatives). The Red Cross probably does too (illegal holding and treatment of captives at Guantanamo). You can easily apply vested interests to a massive amount of altruistic groups if you want.
Being a political group does not make the ACLU (or any group) wrong or invalid, so long as their politics are dictated by their social aims, not vice versa. And, anyway, the political slant of the the ACLU is completely irrelevant when it comes to the raw evidence; that is what has to be evaluated.
-
Nope. I'm saying that they are a group mostly comprised of democrats. That doesn't mean that they are anti-republican. As Rictor pointed out earlier when the democrats were in power they turned on them too.
Anyone who wants to protect civil rights has a vested interest in kicking out bush. That's nothing to do with politics.
Would you say that Medicen Sans Frontiers was a religous organisation because most of it's members are christians? The majority of people on HLP would support the democrats over the republicans. Is HLP a political group?
EDIT : Okay it's spooky how close Aldo's response was to mine :D
-
:rolleyes:
Copycat!
*runs*
-
ok, for the third or fourth time, there motivations are irrelevent if they have good evedence.
-
While the listed ideals of the ACLU are indeed noble, have any of you actually taken a look at some of the absolutely wacky lawsuits they've been involved in over the past few years? Look particularly at some of the "separation of church and state" cases. I'm sure that even the most atheistic members of this forum would think that the ACLU overstepped all limits of common sense in some of those cases. For me, at least, that organization has lost all credibility and respect.
-
Considering what you'd turn America into if you had your way I'm not particularly worried about your respect for it.
-
As much as I hate to say it, Mongoose has a point. Seperation of church and state cases are the wrong example because they are important things to bring up, but the ACLU has certainly participated in some of the most deranged and silly lawsuits I've heard of (they're only a couple of steps behind PETA). They are also a huge, highly politicized lobby, so defending them on their merits isn't necessarily useful. However, Bob's right. We shouldn't be concerned with the ACLU's reputation unless the accusations that they have put forward are proven false.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Conservatism basically stands for preserving the existing order, so there wouldn't be much sense in joining something like the ACLU for them. However, that doesn't invalidate the purpose of the organisation; it's hard to find a cause or area which can't be classed as political in some manner.
But therein lies the problem.
If, as you say, conservatism is devoted to preserving the existing order, then why is the ACLU disregarded by consertives when it claims it is attempting to preserve, preserve, the rights of Americans.
Because it's not.
It's trying to expand them. It is not trying to uphold the law, it is trying to create new law.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
If, as you say, conservatism is devoted to preserving the existing order, then why is the ACLU disregarded by consertives when it claims it is attempting to preserve, preserve, the rights of Americans.
Because it's not.
It's trying to expand them. It is not trying to uphold the law, it is trying to create new law.
Nope. It's cause conservatives (with a small c) no longer exist. Certainly in the UK but also in America. Does Bush really look like someone who is trying to make the least possible changes to the country to you?
The days of a government who tried to make few changes as possible are gone in the US.
-
like Kara said, conservativism no longer exists in America.
those who call themselves conservative are actually a mix of jingoist imperialists, religious fundamentalists and shotgun capitalists. The libertarians are as close to conservativism as you get in States.
-
Not to mention that conservatism - preservation of the existing order - inherently involves suppressing change, and specifically change to the ruling hierarchy.
In the case of neo-conservatism, aspects such as human rights do appear to become of minimal consequence compared to exerting control; and specifically increasing power and control to react to pressures trying to force change.