Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sandwich on July 24, 2002, 10:44:15 am
-
You all heard about Israel's assasination of the top Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, right? If not, uh... read the news somewhere.
Anyways, due to bad intel, etc etc, the attack also killed 9 Palestinian children. :(
Israel has, of course, apologized... which is where the "not quite sure..." part comes in. Read the following quote and you'll see what I mean:
In response to American and international criticism of the Israeli assassination of arch-terrorist Salah Shehada that led to the deaths of nine Arab children, analyst Yoram Ettinger, Israel's former liaison to the U.S. Congress, has prepared a list of United States attacks in which civilian lives were not taken into consideration.
"The list actually goes beyond Afghanistan," Ettinger told Arutz-7 today. "For instance, in 1989, the US invaded Panama City in order to free [the ruling strongman] Noriega, using jets and helicopters. Six hundred civilians were killed in that raid, according to American estimates, and thousands were wounded. Then U.S-Chief of Staff, whose name was Colin Powell, said at the time that the appropriate amount of force was used 'and we have no need to apologize.' The Attorney General at the time, Dick Thornburg, said that the U.S. was operating according to the UN's clause 51 allowing self-defense…
"In 1993, in response to the killing and mutilation of 15 US soldiers, the USAF bombed Somalia, turning an entire area basically into a parking lot, killing over 1,000 citizens. Again the U.S. said that it was self-defense.
"In this current war against Al-Qaeda [in which sources say 400-800 civilians have been killed - ed. note], when Rumsfeld was asked about the American attack on Red Cross offices and on other civilian areas in Afghanistan, he said, and I agree with him, 'This is a war that has been forced upon us by terrorists… We are making great efforts not to hurt civilians, but if civilians are hurt, the entire responsibility for such is upon the terrorists who use them as cover…'"
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that the Israeli raid against Shehada was "heavy-handed" and "not consistent with dedication to peace." Ettinger was not upset, however, saying that the U.S. response was only a "weak condemnation." He noted that Congress yesterday approved an extra $200 million in aid to Israel, and "Bush has not threatened to withhold it."
Also, I don't recall ever hearing the Palestinian terorists issue apologies for killing Israeli civillians...
Thoughts?
-
Third option definitely; civilian casualties are unavoidable in any conflict, and what these terrorist gangs do is to run for cover in densely-populated areas so that they will take down some civilians with them if they die, but that of course should not get in the way of any dedicated military operation. No apology should be given.
-
What I bet the guy did was take those kids into there, as sort of a fail-safe device. If he was bombed, the bomber would be extremeley discredited. Why else would he have all of those kids in there?!
-
Problem is, what with the draft laws in Israel, the line between civilian and army is kinda blurry...
And the Palestinians make no pretence that their tactics are anything but unpleasant. From where I see it, countries like the US and Israel keep claiming that they have these benevolent military codes that demonize civilian casualties and enable said countries to justify pretty much any assault, so they should be upheld to their own codes. The Palestinian militants ask no quarter and give none. The Israelis act like it is a horrible crime for civilians to get involved in this fight- which it may well be, I refuse to form an opinion on whether they're necessary or not. Anyway- I wouldn't criticize Israel for going in there and bombing all the refugee camps to bits. It's when countries pretend they're any better than that sort of thing and continue doing it that it's revolting. I mean, the US's insistence that our war criminals get immunity? How does that work with our outrage at other nations' war criminals, and insistence on wiping them out even at the cost of killing a bunch of innocent people in the process? Same thing.
-
Good propaganda technique, though. :D
What I bet the guy did was take those kids into there, as sort of a fail-safe device. If he was bombed, the bomber would be extremeley discredited. Why else would he have all of those kids in there?!
Yes, that is a common terrorist tactic.
-
IIRC they used a much larger bomb than was necessary. They should have used a smaller weapon, like a rocket, not a big bomb.
This from me, the patron saint of bombs. I know. But there it is.
-
I'm behind Israel on this one. Anyone that uses terrorism as means to advance a cause, no matter what the cause is, deserves to die. If some civilian casualties are unavoidable, so be it - if I was one of the civilians, I'd be doing my damned best to stay very far away from any such individuals.
And as it was said, he was probably using the children as shield - if Israel backed down this time because of that, they'd open a precedent that would only cause even more deaths of civilians on their side.
-
Define "terrorism", then.
Have you noticed the recent ads on TV? The ones that say that drug users are all terrorists? Or the misuse of the term in describing Iraq? Exactly. It's a buzzword. Used to have meaning, now it doesn't (at least here). Anyone we don't like is a "terrorist" or "supports terrorists". Lucky George W. McCarthy, it obviously works so well...
-
Anyone we don't like is a "terrorist" or "supports terrorists
Yeah, but that's all that matters. To them, we are the terrorists, but that makes no difference since they cannot do much about it. As I have said before, it is not a conflict of "good" and "bad," but of opposing interests.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Define "terrorism", then.
Have you noticed the recent ads on TV? The ones that say that drug users are all terrorists? Or the misuse of the term in describing Iraq? Exactly. It's a buzzword. Used to have meaning, now it doesn't (at least here). Anyone we don't like is a "terrorist" or "supports terrorists". Lucky George W. McCarthy, it obviously works so well...
My definition of terrorist is "anyone who deliberately attacks civilians".
And I don't know of any of the other stuff you mentioned, since I live on Brazil and don't watch any american (or any purely international, for that matter) channel. If you have another definition of terrorism, then that's not my problem - I still see the Palestinians as terrorists and the Israeli as not, despite anmy motive they might have.
-
So the police forces are all terrorist. Can't argue with that.
-
I think once you commit a crime, you forfeit all privelages given to you by the state.
I don't think the war on terrorism will ever end, because the entire world is too plush. For some bizzarre reason, they forgot everything about previous generations (a testament to this is that most of my classmates don't know what Pearl Harbor was). So they forgot the lessons in previous wars that civilian casualties are, unfortunately, unavoidable. So a single "inoccent" casualty can put an entire military campaign in the moral eye of the rest of the world. Imagine WWII, or even Iraq. Cities were decimated, oil pipelines were burst (albeit by the "bad guys" not us), but they kept on going. Now most of the world (and, in my opinion, especially the US) have been sissified.
-
Once again, just plain silly, and unpracticeable. If you're caught speeding, you should forfeit the right to a jury or ability to use public roads? Nobody would get anything. Remember: the government is there to serve the people, not the other way around. If we were all expected simply to be slaves of the government, you'd better believe there'd be a popular uprising and that not a SINGLE government worker would be left alive within a week. People only take so much out-and-out crap from the System.
And yes, it is a little absurd. But not necessarily that bad, and only because killing is killing, and whenever we get involved in something like that, we're just killing more people
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
So the police forces are all terrorist. Can't argue with that.
Talk about twisted logic...
-
Originally posted by Styxx
My definition of terrorist is "anyone who deliberately attacks civilians".
Police forces deliberately attack civilians- that's their job, whether they are civilians committing crimes or not (they often aren't, and when they are, they're still civilians). Thus, they are terrorist. Moreover, the government who allows police to operate is "aiding and abetting". Your definition, not mine. Perhaps you wish to be more clear, or think it over more?
-
[Edit: No fair! How come moderators can delete their mistakes, and I can't delete my responses?]
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Police forces deliberately attack civilians- that's their job, whether they are civilians committing crimes or not (they often aren't, and when they are, they're still civilians). Thus, they are terrorist. Moreover, the government who allows police to operate is "aiding and abetting". Your definition, not mine. Perhaps you wish to be more clear, or think it over more?
You have to check your definition of "civilian". Those you mentioned are not civilians, they are criminals. There's a huge difference there. ;)
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Police forces deliberately attack civilians- that's their job, whether they are civilians committing crimes or not (they often aren't, and when they are, they're still civilians). Thus, they are terrorist. Moreover, the government who allows police to operate is "aiding and abetting". Your definition, not mine. Perhaps you wish to be more clear, or think it over more?
Police forces have a job of protecting civillians from each other.
According to your logic, terrorists - since they are civillians, after all - are simply commiting crimes against others. Therefore, by definition, anyone warring against those terrorist/civillains is a police force?
Ugh, now I'm confused. :p
-
So... what is a criminal? Does he carry a badge or a special ID? Are you exempt from the human race for shoplifting? When it comes to lawbreaking, I'm a criminal, you're a criminal, everyone we know is a criminal. It's simply impossible to stay fully within the law all your life. We're also civilians. Or is the Civilian a mythical beast, the theoretical innocent, one who only exists after he has been consumed by the dynamite explosion, like a saint?
-
See the danger of over-broad definitions? Lots of people attack civilians. I didn't mention wife-beaters, parents who spank their kids, or myself, none of whom are terrorists.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
So... what is a criminal? Does he carry a badge or a special ID? Are you exempt from the human race for shoplifting? When it comes to lawbreaking, I'm a criminal, you're a criminal, everyone we know is a criminal. It's simply impossible to stay fully within the law all your life. We're also civilians. Or is the Civilian a mythical beast, the theoretical innocent, one who only exists after he has been consumed by the dynamite explosion, like a saint?
A criminal is anyone that has commited a crime. Simple. You're not expelled from the human race or anything, you just become subject to being attacked by the police. My definition of terrorist still stands. Now, what is your definition of terrorist? Do you approve the actions of the Palestinians?
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
See the danger of over-broad definitions? Lots of people attack civilians. I didn't mention wife-beaters, parents who spank their kids, or myself, none of whom are terrorists.
Someone who beats his wife is a terrorist.
A parent spanking (lightly) his child is not attacking, he's educating.
A parent that attacks his child (causing actual damage) is a terrorist.
What do you do do consider yourself a terrorist? Maybe you are.
-
But a criminal is no longer a civilian? Considering the number of car accidents I've been at fault in, I'm certainly a criminal, and I'm positive that you've committed at least one crime, however unconsciously, yourself. As has nearly everyone. There are no civilians, by your definition.
To me, "terrorist" is a term devoid of moral implications. Long before all this Afghan crap started, I was idolizing Che Guevara, the Cuban Revolutionary war hero who, incidentially, engaged in terrorist activities. If you read Bayo's manual on guerilla tactics, it's full of postassium-cholride time bombs, arson tricks, and sabotage. A terrorist is simply one who engages in attacks in order to demoralize the enemy populace or cow them into submission. It's the defining tactic of total war, a term for what every nation in the world now engages in, and the US pioneered in the 1700s.
And yes, I fully approve of... most of the Palestinian's actions. I find bus-bombing, etc. more than a bit distasteful, but recognize the futility of actively engaging the military. However, the Palestinians are the modern day's American Indians- a people being unjustly driven off their land and systematically exterminated, only they are fighting back more strongly this time. I can dig that, and were I Palestinian, I'd be the one on the rooftops fighting back as the Opressor bulldozed my home and all that I know. I still can understand the Israeli perspective and take it when I wish, but my true sympathies lie strongly in the other camp.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Someone who beats his wife is a terrorist.
I no wanna talk you no more. You scawwy. Dubya. :nervous:
A parent spanking (lightly) his child is not attacking, he's educating.
Educating? He's hitting the kid. That's not teaching ****. That's punishing. You seriously need a dictionary.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
A parent spanking (lightly) his child is not attacking, he's educating.
A parent that attacks his child (causing actual damage) is a terrorist.
:jaw: Wow, I'm impressed, Sticks - didn't think anyone else thought that nowadays - thanks! :yes: :)
-
Originally posted by sandwich
:jaw: Wow, I'm impressed, Sticks - didn't think anyone else thought that nowadays - thanks! :yes: :)
People tend to get strange views of the matter on most of the "western" world. They either see that a terrorist is anyone that wears a turbant (sp?), or think that noone is a terrorist at all, and any way to fight for a cause is justified.
I live on a country that has many, many problems - more than most countries out there - but we don't have any problems with war or terrorism, which allows me a clearer view of the matter, I think. In my book, anyone that deliberately assaults another person solely to cause him harm is a terrorist, and deserves to be dealed with as such.
Don't ask about the methods I'd use to deal with them though. ;)
And no, I never broke any criminal laws. I broke traffic laws, though - which are completely unrelated.
-
Clearer? You even confused yourself with you bizarre, abstruse definition.
And now traffic laws are separate from all other laws? You really are grasping, eh?
At any rate, assuming traffic codes are somehow not laws, at this moment I am revoking my civilianhood by having my stereo cranked up to a volume that certainly comes out to at least a "disturbing the peace". So I'm in some gray area between civilian and armed soldier, I s'pose, the moral equal of Bruno the Cat Rapist and that guy with the machete. Ah well, at least it's a good song.
Wierdo.
-
so he's dead? good.
To0 bad about the kids, but they're at a better place now. The same place wehre all those israeli kids go when they're killed by palestinian suicide bombers that don't apologise for killing innocents, but target them intentionally.
-
Yeah! Let's kill 'em all! Let God sort 'em out! They're just foreigners, anyway!
-
A more objective definition is the one I gave: everyone in the world is a terrorist, and when two groups' interests come into conflict with each other, they fight it out. As for criminals, anyone who violates a law in their nation is a criminal.
-
[rant]
What I don't get is why I'm the only one here so far who has thought of the option of having the Israelis use smaller munitions. It would have still done the job (the guy led suicide bombers, so he deserved it) but a smaller munition would have avoided at least some of the civilian deaths.
I see Stryke's point and all. I've heard a lot of things about how Israel wants to "preserve its Jewishness"... if I were a Palestinian I'd be offended by that.
Besides, what's wrong with sharing the bloody land!?!? People are supposed to learn how to share in kindergarten, at age 5!! What gives one group any more rights than the other to have the land?
Ah, how far we've come... from swords to plowshares, and now back again...
[/rant]
-
They've stopped teaching "sharing" in Kindergarten, 'cos it's Communism.;)
-
Well, it isn't always that easy, since these terrorists usually go and hide inside some densely populated building; it is hard to find a single man out of that who could be hiding anywhere, so the simple solution is to just take down the whole building.
Who would really want to share, though? :D I always tried to avoid sharing in kindergarten when possible. :D Although I do agree with you that a combined multi-religious nation would be much better than two seperate nations, not to mention the current situation.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Clearer? You even confused yourself with you bizarre, abstruse definition.
And now traffic laws are separate from all other laws? You really are grasping, eh?
I don't know which country you come from, but here we have very separate law sets for criminal law, traffic law, civil law and electoral (sp?) law. A criminal is someone who breaks a criminal law - unless you think that getting divorced is a crime. :rolleyes:
-
That's courts. Civil court for non-criminal affairs (lawsuits, etc.), criminal for things that are considered crimes. Just because it has an involvement with court doesn't make it a crime- if you honestly can't distinguish what is and isn't there and can't tell the difference between someone who blows up the White House and someone who hits his wife, you really shouldn't take an interest in politics.
-
Originally posted by Mad Bomber
[rant]I've heard a lot of things about how Israel wants to "preserve its Jewishness"... if I were a Palestinian I'd be offended by that.[/rant]
Considering that the State of Israel was founded as a home for the Jews, I'd respond: "Too bad for you."
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
That's courts. Civil court for non-criminal affairs (lawsuits, etc.), criminal for things that are considered crimes. Just because it has an involvement with court doesn't make it a crime- if you honestly can't distinguish what is and isn't there and can't tell the difference between someone who blows up the White House and someone who hits his wife, you really shouldn't take an interest in politics.
Nope, different laws. If your system has everything inside a big book that says "what makes people criminals" written on the cover, it's indeed screwed up. We have different law codes for each, and consequently different courts. You're not a criminal for breaking traffic laws, as you're not a criminal for breaking electoral laws. You're a criminal if you break criminal laws, though. Simple as that.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Yeah! Let's kill 'em all! Let God sort 'em out! They're just foreigners, anyway!
I did not say that, you did.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Yeah! Let's kill 'em all! Let God sort 'em out! They're just foreigners, anyway!
I truely hope you didn't mean that...
-
i just wanted to say that If the US "defends" itself from attackers by attacking them. Then they kill civilians. Its unavoidable.
Yet when another "Evildoer" kills a few citizens in his war its deemed "an act of war without regard for human safety". These monsters must be stopped at all costs. Yet those costs equal civilian lives, the very reason why they attacked in the first place.
If you are upholding something, like not killing civilians, then dont go out and kill civilians. Killing civilians shows the enemy you are no better, you just have more firepower and more men to dispose it.
Obviously innocent people die in wars, Palestine attacks Isreal, kills civilians. THEY MUST DIE!
Isreal attacks Palestine, kills civilians. Our "INTEL" must of been wrong, we never meant it.
Basically what it boils down to, is was it a deliberate attack on civilians, or an attempt to weaken a military or government?
Im sure palestine will say there attacks are to weaken a military or government, and im sure Isreal will say the same thing.
Fact of the matter is, they are both wrong in what they do. None deserver more then another IMO. Isreal has done just as much damage to the peace process as has Palestine. They both cant agree on things, but because Isreal has US backing they are the "Good Guys" while Palestine is the "Bad Guys". The good guys are winning simply because they got more money, and a nice big fat rich country with the most feared military providing it. While Palestine is still using 50 year old war toys, and re-inventing their war strategies with what they have the means for.
Both sides are killing each other, their people are dying, not ours. Yet the West is getting involved, while our blood isnt spilling and theirs is. We have our comfortable offices and houses, while they go to coffee shops and die from a bomb blast, or get run over by tanks. yet its so important for us to get involved. Maybe its time for us to spill some blood and prove we are going to end this conflict.
-
*applause*
-
Well said.
-
Israel screwed up big time, IMO....when you (effectively) start regarding civillian casualties as unimportant , you move a step closer to becoming terrorists yourself.
If you can accept killing 15 (which i think the total is now) civillians - most of whom - if not all - are noncombatants as ok, then why not drop a few nukes? After all, they're only Palestinians.......
Point is, this makes it easy for the Palestinians to hate Israel... it gives them easy justification for further attacks.
Granted, it's a big kill - the Hamas leader - and he deserved to die for what he's done, or ordered to be done. But this only makes him further a martyr. Even using a helicopter with lower yield rockets (as previously) would have been better.
-
Something else.
Assassination is bad, just like terrorism is bad.
Civilian casualties are always bad. Pointing at someone else's civilian casualties to say 'well you do it too!' is bad.
Of course, then there's the whole damn situation over there: its just plain bad.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Even using a helicopter with lower yield rockets (as previously) would have been better.
Thank you.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
So... what is a criminal? Does he carry a badge or a special ID? Are you exempt from the human race for shoplifting? When it comes to lawbreaking, I'm a criminal, you're a criminal, everyone we know is a criminal. It's simply impossible to stay fully within the law all your life. We're also civilians. Or is the Civilian a mythical beast, the theoretical innocent, one who only exists after he has been consumed by the dynamite explosion, like a saint?
Use YOUR Common Sense, stop being so technical.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
But a criminal is no longer a civilian? Considering the number of car accidents I've been at fault in, I'm certainly a criminal, and I'm positive that you've committed at least one crime, however unconsciously, yourself. As has nearly everyone. There are no civilians, by your definition.
To me, "terrorist" is a term devoid of moral implications. Long before all this Afghan crap started, I was idolizing Che Guevara, the Cuban Revolutionary war hero who, incidentially, engaged in terrorist activities. If you read Bayo's manual on guerilla tactics, it's full of postassium-cholride time bombs, arson tricks, and sabotage. A terrorist is simply one who engages in attacks in order to demoralize the enemy populace or cow them into submission. It's the defining tactic of total war, a term for what every nation in the world now engages in, and the US pioneered in the 1700s.
And yes, I fully approve of... most of the Palestinian's actions. I find bus-bombing, etc. more than a bit distasteful, but recognize the futility of actively engaging the military. However, the Palestinians are the modern day's American Indians- a people being unjustly driven off their land and systematically exterminated, only they are fighting back more strongly this time. I can dig that, and were I Palestinian, I'd be the one on the rooftops fighting back as the Opressor bulldozed my home and all that I know. I still can understand the Israeli perspective and take it when I wish, but my true sympathies lie strongly in the other camp.
It was British land, which we gave to the Jews because a lot of the other countries were trying to kill them(like Germany). Also the PA recoqnises the state of Israel so they cant be fighting due to that, they were offered nearly all the land back Israel captured during the 6 day war...
-
A British colony. The Palestinian's land. Go tell an Indian that the British had rights to the land they'd wrested from the natives globally. He'll punch you in the face, or, at the least, laugh. Don't be obscene- the colony's interests are not those of the other country. It doesn't matter who it's occupied by, the Palestinians were wrongfully driven from it.
And "almost" all the land. So the masked burglar who busted into your house with a shotgun gives you back every part of your house but the living room and kitchen.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
Im sure palestine will say there attacks are to weaken a military or government, and im sure Isreal will say the same thing.
Well then, you sure are wrong. Our attacks are to wipe out terrorisim, plain and simple. The "complicated" part is when a governing body harbors, supports, and encourages terrorism and terrorists, like the PA does. :doubt:
Originally posted by aldo_14
Israel screwed up big time, IMO....when you (effectively) start regarding civillian casualties as unimportant , you move a step closer to becoming terrorists yourself.
If you can accept killing 15 (which i think the total is now) civillians - most of whom - if not all - are noncombatants as ok, then why not drop a few nukes? After all, they're only Palestinians.......
No offense Aldo, but that's a bunch of BS, and you should know better. Israel has never regarded civillian casualties as unimportant - I risked my life for that moral standard! Had we not cared, had we been of the mindset of "They're just Palestinians...", we would have done what the US did and carpet bombed Jenin. You think we liked being in there, getting shot at, having fathers and sons (they were reservists) blown to bits?! Of course not!
Originally posted by mikhael
Assassination is bad, just like terrorism is bad.
Civilian casualties are always bad. Pointing at someone else's civilian casualties to say 'well you do it too!' is bad.
Of course, then there's the whole damn situation over there: its just plain bad.
Only point I have a disagreement on is the first one, and only because of its mis-labeling. Assasination is purposefully murdering a governmental head (or government-like organization, etc etc). Killing the head of a terrorist organization isn't true assasination by any means - more like an act of mercy, if you ask me. :rolleyes:
-
Actually the said owner of the house attempted to invade and destroy the "Burglars" country, after being pushed back the "Burglar" decided to keep the land they won in a defencive war, then offered most of it back.
:rolleyes: This aint about israel, its about the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Most Arabs accept Israels presense now From what i gather.
-
Mercy for the terrorist? Assassination is assassination. They weren't afraid to use that term when trying to kill Hitler, why now? Is modern politics really that bull****-oriented? Use the words as they're meant to be used, and stop attaching all these damn imaginary moral connotations to things, all of you!
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Actually the said owner of the house attempted to invade and destroy the "Burglars" country, after being pushed back the "Burglar" decided to keep the land they won in a defencive war, then offered most of it back.
:rolleyes: This aint about israel, its about the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Most Arabs accept Israels presense now From what i gather.
:wtf: How's that? Did the Palestinians immigrate and boot the Israelis off their land on the basis that it had supposedly been theirs 2000 years ago? Get yer history straight. "British colony" does not mean "Palestinians didn't live there".
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
kill 'em all! Let God sort 'em out!
[smartass]I'd let god sort them out, but somebody told me he was dead[/smartass]
-
Originally posted by sandwich
Well then, you sure are wrong. Our attacks are to wipe out terrorisim, plain and simple. The "complicated" part is when a governing body harbors, supports, and encourages terrorism and terrorists, like the PA does. :doubt:
Ok and terrorism has no governing body or military? The US attacked against the Taliban to weaken its leadership structure in order to stop terrorism. Isreal attacks a Hamas Leader to stop a military structure to end terrorism.
Look, Terrorism is just a word. A dirty one. Just like we used for German soldiers. We called them Nazi's, not just them but anyone an Axis was a Nazi.
They are still people, only they dont heed the laws of the country they attack. Their war, and attacks are new world stuff. When you fight a war, its who wins that writes history and it doesnt matter how you win. Winning a war is done at any cost, for the moral it must be done right, for the immoral it must be done at any cost. Whoever is left is right.
So yes your attacks are to wipeout Terrorism, ran by many military and government bodies. This you cannot deny, else Hamas leaders and the Taliban as well as Osama Bin Laden would not be targets. They are the leaders, the government the military heads.
Like i said, if you want something done right, do it yourself, lets get our guys in there and fix the problem ourselves or get the hell out of their and not give a damn already. The politics and talk of this gets nowhere. Action must be taken before it gets to the point where the Terrorist have many Allies and start a War or get their hands on a Nuke and send it over here as a present, or worse in the middle east somewhere. It has to end, it will only get worse as time lets on.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Define "terrorism", then.
Have you noticed the recent ads on TV? The ones that say that drug users are all terrorists? Or the misuse of the term in describing Iraq? Exactly. It's a buzzword. Used to have meaning, now it doesn't (at least here). Anyone we don't like is a "terrorist" or "supports terrorists". Lucky George W. McCarthy, it obviously works so well...
I thought McCarthy would call them Communists or Supporters of Communists?
-
I was using the name to suggest that it's essentially the same thing, hmm?
And when did you assign yourself official forum misser of points?
-
right now. :D
I realized your point, just there are better examples that McCarthy.
-
Less famous, tho. And he's good enough.
-
bleh communism, terrorism, its all in the same ball park. :)
-
You know what the real problem is?
FOREIGNISM!
If there weren't any foreigners, then not one of these things would exist!
(Note: I actually wrote a whole paper on this once, and read it in front of my entire school. It was a huge hit, which just goes to show that mockery is lost on the South)
-
FOREIGNISM LMAO!
Anyways, killing the head hauncho worked, you had some collateral damage, and that is that. I might think different if I was one of the people that lost somebody due to the attack, but I'm not. The whole, "whos a civilian and whose a terrorist or military personel" is a very difficult answer. Or it maybe the fact there is really no answer to the question at all. And then you have to define innocent as well. Who is really the innocent? Am I or you really innocent? The entire thing is based on national or personal opinion. What about Hitler? Yes, he was a mass murder, but what was Stalin? A saint? I think not. I mean you kill a couple of children that when they grow up would probably hate Israel as well and try to blow themselves up to kill Israelis as well, so I think they probably just got rid of them in advanced before they could cause any damage. Therefore I say no apology for collateral damage, same as when the US killed all those Somolies and people in Panama. They got in the way and got shot or bombed. Is it there fault? No, not really, is it the country's that launched the attacks fault? No. Intentional killing of civilians in my personal opinion I think is cowardly, but collateral damage is just collateral damage. How many civilians do you think U.S. B-17's in WW2 killed when they launched day time raids over Berlin?
-
Boy if they thought that way during WW2, all Germans would be dead, just to make sure no more Nazis existed. Heck lets just round up everyone Non-North-American and kill them all to make sure terrorism is solved. While were at it, lets take all criminals and kill them all too, God knows stealing leads to murder sometimes. Best to weed out all the possibilities to ensure our safety.
Look at it this way, people who died in the WTC tragedy were collateral damage. Since they were civilians in a war brought on by terrorism and Osama being the said leader with the Taliban as his government. He was only trying to cripple American economy which is a legit military target. Collateral damage. Explain that to the victims families.
Im being sarcastic in some parts here, also i would like to note the tragedy at WTC is that, a tragedy. no one feels worse about that ordeal then I do but when we start thinking like we should not consider civilian deaths as important we become like our enemies. Our enemies (terrorists) kill civilians without remorse. They dont call it collateral damage, they say God meant it this way. They are ignorant and deserve to be punished for that crime. When a "civilized" country calls it collateral damage its just as cold and demeaning. If my mother died by an American jet plane in a war, and they called it collateral damage I would still find no satisfaction in that explanation, they would have killed an innocent women whos only goal in life was to be a civilized woman who spreads joy to whomever she touches. Just because she lives next door to a madman doesnt mean she should go down with him. An evil man dies, yes, but a wonderful person is gone as well.
Should the innocent die to kill a madman? Should the innocent be punished because they are of the same race as those who did harm to others? No. If you answer yes please see a psychiatrist.
-
For the third time, everyone is a terrorist; it just depends on the particular perspective that is used. No real difference exists between civilian and military targets in today's world and in a full-scale war, all targets are regarded alike. (after all, the "civilians" are indirectly helping the militia by keeping the nation running)
Look at it this way, people who died in the WTC tragedy were collateral damage. Since they were civilians in a war brought on by terrorism and Osama being the said leader with the Taliban as his government. He was only trying to cripple American economy which is a legit military target. Collateral damage. Explain that to the victims families.
This actually makes a lot of sense to me, but these families are probably blinded by emotion and will not take anything as an answer anyway.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
They've stopped teaching "sharing" in Kindergarten, 'cos it's Communism.;)
Kinder Garten (and mass schooling for that matter) was invented by eugenicists and corporateists, trying to preserve social order (imported from colonial india where it was used by hindus to preserve their caste system). What the hell makes you think they actually give a damm about those they teach? They don't educate people they "educate" them. (look at sig) www.johntaylorgatto.com
As for Israel, How come Ariel Sharon hailed the strike a triumph when it was first reported but only apologised after the president (who is very right wing himself) condemed the killing of so many civilians? The guy is nothing more than a war monger. It was him that sparked off rioting while Barrak was in power.
-
My God...this has sprung up. I have a number of points to make on this one, so I'm going to go through the quotes I feel like responding to first. :)
Orignally posted by sandwich
Considering that the State of Israel was founded as a home for the Jews, I'd respond: "Too bad for you."
Is that blowing a raspberry in everyone's face I detect, sandwich? A "we have a Jewish homeland, yah boo sucks"? And suppose that Germany were to say that the country was to become a home only for those who were racially Aryan, and eject all others, that would be okay too?
Orignally posted by CODEDOG ND
Anyways, killing the head hauncho worked, you had some collateral damage, and that is that.
Here it is again: the old "bull**** euphemisms". "Collateral damage" is one of my favourites, I must say. After all, it simply wouldn't do for the President to have to stand up on a podium and say "yeah, we got our target, but we had to tear 100 civilians limb from limb and inflict horiffic wounds with shrapnel to 400 more. I'm quite happy with the result."
Needlessly graphic, perhaps. However, the phrase "collateral damage" not only protects the sensibilities of the utterly insensible (the kind of people who pretend that sex or death or drug abuse doesn't happen, so don't want to hear them in such bald terms) - it masks the nature of events.
Orignally posted by Stryke 9
Is modern politics really that bull****-oriented? Use the words as they're meant to be used, and stop attaching all these damn imaginary moral connotations to things, all of you!
...Which leads into the quote above. Bravo, Stryke. I think the most noticeable instance of this was sandwich's quite obvious distiction between shooting a terrorist and shooting a housewife. Unfortunately, this seems to be the world we live in - if the mainstream have adopted it, what hope have we for the public in general?
Actually, I'm not sure I care.
Orignally posted by Stryke 9
You know what the real problem is?
FOREIGNISM!
If there weren't any foreigners, then not one of these things would exist!
That is depressingly true. It's always foreign governments trying to screw ours over, or foreign leaders plotting to attack us - or here, foreign asylum seekers destroying the fabric of our society. Oh, the humanity.
Of course the depressing logical extension of this is that the nation with the biggest stick (the U.S.) must someday come to the conclusion that the eradication of the plagueof foreignism would be most conducive to future peace and prosperity. I'm sure CP would agree; and I'm also sure that he'd posit some mathematical theory to prove that the psychology of mass groups shows this will happen as and end result - A final solution, if you will.
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
Ok and terrorism has no governing body or military? The US attacked against the Taliban to weaken its leadership structure in order to stop terrorism. Isreal attacks a Hamas Leader to stop a military structure to end terrorism.
.
..
So yes your attacks are to wipeout Terrorism, ran by many military and government bodies. This you cannot deny, else Hamas leaders and the Taliban as well as Osama Bin Laden would not be targets. They are the leaders, the government the military heads.
Like i said, if you want something done right, do it yourself, lets get our guys in there and fix the problem ourselves or get the hell out of their and not give a damn already. The politics and talk of this gets nowhere. Action must be taken before it gets to the point where the Terrorist have many Allies and start a War or get their hands on a Nuke and send it over here as a present, or worse in the middle east somewhere. It has to end, it will only get worse as time lets on.
Ok, try to get it straight: Governments and governing bodies (for example the Taliban and the PA, respectively), whatever they may support on the sides, are legitimate bodies. Killing members of those bodies is called "assasination". Ok so far?
The Hamas, Hezbullah, Islamic Jihad, and the al-Qaida (sp?) are terrorist organizations. Note the word "organization" - it means that they are, to some extent, organized. Which means that, since humans are incapable of hive-mind behavior, they have leadership. Not government, but leadership. Killing one of those terrorist leaders is not true assasination, although it has beeen called that at times.
Tell me, did the US assasinate Timothy McVeigh? Didn't think so. Neither did Israel assasinate that Hamas leader.
Now, about your last paragraph... it's almost funny, in a sad sort of way. I agree with you 101% about getting it done already, but the thing is, our hands are tied by the ropes of EU/UN sanctions and threats of sanctions, as well as by this newfound "god" we tend to worship called "World Opinion"... :rolleyes:
If it was up to me, we'd do what we did in Jenin all over again, wherever was needed to wipe out current actiive terrorists. I'm talking about the gunship missile barrages, not the going in on foot part, by the way. But noooo.... we do that and the world, including the US, jumps on our heads for using overwhelming force! What, are we supposed to combat terrorisim with underwhelming force?!?
On the other hand, I've often wondered what would happen if the US or UN sent in a "peacekeeping" force as a barrier between Israel and the Palestinians. They would eventually come under attack by the terrorists - what then? Chant the new mantra of the Middle East, "Restraint, restraint!", and negotiate with the terrorists?? No, of course not! They would react like the rest of the world reacts to terrorisim - like the rest of the world is allowed to react to terrorisim - by bombing the heck out of the terrorists, collateral damage be damned! What, you don't believe me? Read the first post in the thread, and tell me that Israel is not being held to different standards than the rest of the world! :mad:
Originally posted by Lonestar
Look at it this way, people who died in the WTC tragedy were collateral damage. Since they were civilians in a war brought on by terrorism and Osama being the said leader with the Taliban as his government. He was only trying to cripple American economy which is a legit military target. Collateral damage. Explain that to the victims families.
The American economy is a legitamate military target??!?!? Do I really need to point out how ridiculous this is?
The ~3,000 civilians who died on September 11th were in no manner "collateral damage". One of the defining things about terrorisim and terrorists is that they deliberately target civillians with intent to frighten, injure and kill. That is what happened on September 11th, with the added "bonus" of a deathly blow to the symbol of America's economic power, as well as a blow to America's military might (the Pentagon).
Originally posted by Top Gun
As for Israel, How come Ariel Sharon hailed the strike a triumph when it was first reported but only apologised after the president (who is very right wing himself) condemed the killing of so many civilians? The guy is nothing more than a war monger. It was him that sparked off rioting while Barrak was in power.
I'll deal with this one in reverse: Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount, a site holy to both Jews and Muslims. He didn't gaiv any provocative speeches, neither did he desecrate Muslim holy ground.
If Sharon was a war monger, we would have been at war with Syria, Lebanon/Hezbullah and the Palestinians a long time ago, and you know it. Stop spouting crap.
Now, about the priase/condemnation of the strike - personally I think they could have used a smaller bomb - I only recently read that it was a 1 ton bomb. :doubt: Anyways, let me (again_ quote Golda Meir - or try to, at least; it may be a bit paraphrased:
"We can forgive you for killing our sons, but we cannot forgive you for forcing our sons to kill your sons."
I truly am sorry that the strike resulted in those other 14-15 deaths, but I do not issue anything like a formal apology - not until the terrorists start apologizing for those they blow up intentionally.
Originally posted by Kellan
Is that blowing a raspberry in everyone's face I detect, sandwich? A "we have a Jewish homeland, yah boo sucks"? And suppose that Germany were to say that the country was to become a home only for those who were racially Aryan, and eject all others, that would be okay too?
Read Israel's Declaration of Independance (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00hb0); here's a quote (bold mine):
On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel; the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable.
-
But sandwich, understand what I'm asking here. What gives the Jews the right to have Israel as a state with sufficient "Jewishness"? To be sure, California can't prevent whites becoming a minority in purely statistical terms and if they did so, the authorities would be accused of racism on a grand scale. The same applies to virtually every other Western country.
So again I ask - in what way does Israel have this right?
-
On the subject of the whether the missile attack was terrorism or not, allow me to quote the Hartford Courant:
Hartford Courant
"When Israeli civilians are killed in suicide bombings or other kinds of attacks by Palestinians, Israelis call it terrorism, and it is. But the killing of civilians and the assassination of Palestinian leaders are no less acts of terrorism. There is no way that an Israeli jet fighter can fire a missile at residences and not risk killing noncombatants.... The cycle of violence in the region - attack and counterattack - brings ruin to both sides."
In addition, what about the possibility of a ceasefire before the attack? And what about what B'Tselem are saying?
-
Here it is again: the old "bull**** euphemisms". "Collateral damage" is one of my favourites, I must say. After all, it simply wouldn't do for the President to have to stand up on a podium and say "yeah, we got our target, but we had to tear 100 civilians limb from limb and inflict horiffic wounds with shrapnel to 400 more. I'm quite happy with the result."
Needlessly graphic, perhaps. However, the phrase "collateral damage" not only protects the sensibilities of the utterly insensible (the kind of people who pretend that sex or death or drug abuse doesn't happen, so don't want to hear them in such bald terms) - it masks the nature of events.[/size]
Well, since using the military as the mean green policing machine that is what it is and should be called. All militaries are broad swords and they are trying to do surgery. Killing civilians is expected when you bomb or rocket something, and what are you going to do about it? Now, on the other hand you do have teams like SWAT that would be much more effective, and I wouldn't expect them to kill civilians.
[Secret Plot]Quite frankly I will end all this when I come to power with my mind controlling jelly donuts I have been secretly producing in Canada. When all the leaders of the world elect me as head of the UN I will re-write the UN to where all the countries will merge together as one country and I will establish a neo-facisist government and if you even look at me the wrong way I will have you sent to "Gay Island" where you will be eaten alive my genetic mutations of my personal creation. And those that stand against me will be force fed the donuts. You will all be mine! Damn the forgieners! They will die too![/Secret Plot]
Now that you have read this, I am going to have to kill you.
-
Here it is again: the old "bull**** euphemisms". "Collateral damage" is one of my favourites, I must say. After all, it simply wouldn't do for the President to have to stand up on a podium and say "yeah, we got our target, but we had to tear 100 civilians limb from limb and inflict horiffic wounds with shrapnel to 400 more. I'm quite happy with the result."
Like I said, this is indeed a bunch of nonsense but it makes for quite an effective propaganda technique. Anyone with half a brain will be able to see through it anyway. :D
Of course the depressing logical extension of this is that the nation with the biggest stick (the U.S.) must someday come to the conclusion that the eradication of the plagueof foreignism would be most conducive to future peace and prosperity. I'm sure CP would agree; and I'm also sure that he'd posit some mathematical theory to prove that the psychology of mass groups shows this will happen as and end result - A final solution, if you will.
Do you mean the elimination of the idea of foreignism from the minds of the people or the elimination of all foreigners? Both alternatives are pretty much equally probable in my opinion, but the final result will be similar either way, so it doesn't really matter. :D
But sandwich, understand what I'm asking here. What gives the Jews the right to have Israel as a state with sufficient "Jewishness"? To be sure, California can't prevent vwhites becoming a minority in purely statistical terms and if they did so, the authorities would be accused of racism on a grand scale. The same applies to virtually every other Western country.
So again I ask - in what way does Israel have this right?
That makes some sense, but anyone has any "right" to do anything they please if they have the ability; the Jews had the appropriate international influence at the time Israel was formed and a favorably perilous history for their cause, so they went ahead and formed the nation.
If Sharon was a war monger, we would have been at war with Syria, Lebanon/Hezbullah and the Palestinians a long time ago, and you know it. Stop spouting crap.
I do think Sharon is a "war monger," but that makes him all the more capable in a time of war. Like I said before, the best guy in this sort of situation would be someone like Stalin. :D
-
too much to read, so sorry if this as been asked before, but why a bombing? why not a sniper? Would have been cleaner I guess.
-
Churchill, not Stalin.
nah, Stalin was a more tough fellow. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
nah, Stalin was a more tough fellow. :D
I hope you're not proud of this statement. Staline killed more civilians than Hitler ( regardless of their country, most were russians).
-
Exactly; that is what makes him a good leader for wartime; he does not back down easily.
-
I prefer Patton myself. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Exactly; that is what makes him a good leader for wartime; he does not back down easily.
excepted he did most of this after WW2, when there was no war :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by venom2506
I hope you're not proud of this statement. Staline killed more civilians than Hitler ( regardless of their country, most were russians).
And Himmler was worse than the both of them put together. Hitler just chased the Jews and killed them as he encountered them (and he let a few of his Jewish friends live). Himmler wanted to systematically round them up and execute them en masse. Hitler was a passive genocidal maniac but Himmler was about as actively genocidal as you could get.
-
excepted he did most of this after WW2, when there was no war :rolleyes:
I agree that he was a pretty incapable peacetime leader, but as a war leader he excelled.
-
Originally posted by sandwich
Didn't think so. Neither did Israel assasinate that Hamas leader.
Mc Veigh was tried and found guilty. Even though the evidence is overwhealming evidence for his guilt.
Originally posted by sandwich If Sharon was a war monger, we would have been at war with Syria, Lebanon/Hezbullah and the Palestinians a long time ago, and you know it. Stop spouting crap.
Maybe not but every time there is an attack on Israel, the army goes into Palestinian occupied territory, imposing curfews on the entire population, shooting at anyone who doesn't comply with the martial law and causing damage. The Palestinian authority is now powerless to do anything about terrorism because its efficiency has been eroded. Yet Sharon still blames them every time there is an attack which is used as a justification for further incursions. Not to mention his antics in Beirut, where he was found responsible for thousands of innocent people being killed by Christian Militia. Israel consistently isists that Arafat sould back down because of his record (which may be true) but for things to truely advance Sharon should definately accomany him.
-
*Realizes how lucky is to live in the UK and bursts in patriotic fervour*
#God save our gracious Queen, Long live our noble Queen, God save the Queen!
*goes back to normal*
Sorry, did I miss something?
-
I agree with Top Gun there. Sharon wrecks the Palestinian Authority's forces completely, leaves, and then blames them for not stopping yet another act of terrorism (and the cycle begins anew).
Sandwich, you're asking why should Israel be held to stricter standards than the rest of the world. It shouldn't. I just don't think such heavy-handed actions are going to get things anywhere. (Like Venom said, why not a sniper or SWAT team? Or perhaps, as I suggested, a lighter ordnance, that wouldn't have blown up all the nearby houses?)
In the end, civilian casualties are inevitable. I'd just prefer to see as few as possible.
-
The American economy is a legitamate military target??!?!? Do I really need to point out how ridiculous this is?
Ok so your saying that attacking a Economic target is a stupid military move? I hope that if i run a whole battalion of troops and your the enemy leader, you attack me first. no doubt you will go after my military before my economy.
Why do you think the US bombs before sending ground troops? To destroy the command centers and ensure they are unable to rebuild. Therefore, if they can attack a target that provides them with money to buy the tanks, the US will bomb this economical target.
You always go for the throat in war, hitting the cash cow is the virtual throat. you can destroy tanks and jets, but what good is that if they can buy more or buy the parts to build more. money is the center of power. You my friend are ridiculous to think economy has nothing to do with war, and to think it is not a viable wartime target. Why do you think they divided Germany's resources after the war? So they cant become a threat due to their economical power.
The ~3,000 civilians who died on September 11th were in no manner "collateral damage". One of the defining things about terrorisim and terrorists is that they deliberately target civillians with intent to frighten, injure and kill. That is what happened on September 11th, with the added "bonus" of a deathly blow to the symbol of America's economic power, as well as a blow to America's military might (the Pentagon).
Osama's attack on WTC was not only to firghten and Kill, it was to "cripple the american economy" in order to stop the US from stepping in on Middle eastern conflicts and back isreal in their "injustice" on the palestinian people. He did it for military reasons, since he declared war on the US before, maybe the US should have taken his words more seriously. His attack on this target was military reasoning, to believe he did it to just kill innocents is ignorant. The man may be insane, but he is not stupid. Im sure his next attack will be the pentagon, whitehouse or possibly a Nuclear power plant, but since that is expected maybe he will go after someone else who aids the US. We will see, he will return. If not him his followers. Its far from over, and its my opinion we do something to stop it now before another WTC MIlitary tragedy happens again.
Dont forget, the politicians feed your brain to support their cause, they will use as many slanderous words as possible and paint the enemy as red as they can to garner support. DOnt believe everything you read see and hear. Try to look at things from a logical perspective, and an open mind.
-
Originally posted by an0n
And Himmler was worse than the both of them put together. Hitler just chased the Jews and killed them as he encountered them (and he let a few of his Jewish friends live). Himmler wanted to systematically round them up and execute them en masse. Hitler was a passive genocidal maniac but Himmler was about as actively genocidal as you could get.
Interesting side note - Himmler's eugenicism and belief in the superiority of the Aryan race did not erode his respect for certain groups of untermeschen - notably the Gypsies. He respected their racial purity and marriage within ranks. Thus, he wanted them preserved in a kind of reservation. Weird. :nod:
I also agree with Lonestar on the economics issue. Put it into Command & Conquer terms: do you attack people's Ore Refineries first, so they can't build more tanks - or their war factory, which can be replaced at a cost?
-
Ok, so what Israel is saying, is basically: "Everyone else has killed civilians, why shouldn't we?". That logic is simply amazing.
I've never really liked taking sides in debates like this, but sometimes it can be really hard. What I really would like to know, is that how exactly do you think killing terrorist leaders affects terrorism? You have to understand, that in this case, the reason for terrorism is Israels oppression on palestinians, and I simply can't see how would killing more of them help the matter? In a situation like this, new leaders will rise, always.
The only ones who can stop this crisis, are the Israeli, no doubt about that.
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
Mc Veigh was tried and found guilty. Even though the evidence is overwhealming evidence for his guilt.
Maybe not but every time there is an attack on Israel, the army goes into Palestinian occupied territory, imposing curfews on the entire population, shooting at anyone who doesn't comply with the martial law and causing damage. The Palestinian authority is now powerless to do anything about terrorism because its efficiency has been eroded. Yet Sharon still blames them every time there is an attack which is used as a justification for further incursions. Not to mention his antics in Beirut, where he was found responsible for thousands of innocent people being killed by Christian Militia. Israel consistently isists that Arafat sould back down because of his record (which may be true) but for things to truely advance Sharon should definately accomany him.
Guess what? Mister Shehadeh was supposed to have been in jail, but Arafat had had him freed. Somehow I doubt he would have been targeted had he still been in jail! :rolleyes:
And the PA, do something about terrorisim?? Besides support and encourage, you mean? :ha:
Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Sandwich, you're asking why should Israel be held to stricter standards than the rest of the world. It shouldn't. I just don't think such heavy-handed actions are going to get things anywhere. (Like Venom said, why not a sniper or SWAT team? Or perhaps, as I suggested, a lighter ordnance, that wouldn't have blown up all the nearby houses?)
In the end, civilian casualties are inevitable. I'd just prefer to see as few as possible.
I agree - the one-ton bomb was way out of proportion. That's not the gripe that I have with this situation. My gripe is that when we accidentally - through bad intel or sheer stupidity, I don't know - kill 17 (I think that's what the death toll is up to... :( ) civillians, we get jumped on. But there wasn't much jumping-on occurring during the American operation in Afghanistan or any of those other places where hundreds of civillians were killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
To put it simply: Civillian casualties, no matter on whose side, are bad. But so is having double standards.
Originally posted by Lonestar
Ok so your saying that attacking a Economic target is a stupid military move? I hope that if i run a whole battalion of troops and your the enemy leader, you attack me first. no doubt you will go after my military before my economy.
Why do you think the US bombs before sending ground troops? To destroy the command centers and ensure they are unable to rebuild. Therefore, if they can attack a target that provides them with money to buy the tanks, the US will bomb this economical target.
You always go for the throat in war, hitting the cash cow is the virtual throat. you can destroy tanks and jets, but what good is that if they can buy more or buy the parts to build more. money is the center of power. You my friend are ridiculous to think economy has nothing to do with war, and to think it is not a viable wartime target. Why do you think they divided Germany's resources after the war? So they cant become a threat due to their economical power.
Osama's attack on WTC was not only to firghten and Kill, it was to "cripple the american economy" in order to stop the US from stepping in on Middle eastern conflicts and back isreal in their "injustice" on the palestinian people. He did it for military reasons, since he declared war on the US before, maybe the US should have taken his words more seriously. His attack on this target was military reasoning, to believe he did it to just kill innocents is ignorant. The man may be insane, but he is not stupid. Im sure his next attack will be the pentagon, whitehouse or possibly a Nuclear power plant, but since that is expected maybe he will go after someone else who aids the US. We will see, he will return. If not him his followers. Its far from over, and its my opinion we do something to stop it now before another WTC MIlitary tragedy happens again.
Dude, the WTC towers were never the backbone of the American economy - most economies have no one specific backbone that can be pointed at with a finger. What they were was a tall-standing symbol of the American economic might, and that's what Bin-Laden was striking against - the symbol. You said it yourself: he "...may be insane, but he's not stupid..." Now tell me that Bin-Laden could have honestly thought that striking the WTC towers would cause the American economy to collapse. :rolleyes:
And my reference was not about whether hitting an economic symbol or center was wise strategy in a war. It was that the target was a civillian target, plain and simple. And that my friend, is the definition of terrorisim.
Originally posted by Pera
Ok, so what Israel is saying, is basically: "Everyone else has killed civilians, why shouldn't we?". That logic is simply amazing.
I've never really liked taking sides in debates like this, but sometimes it can be really hard. What I really would like to know, is that how exactly do you think killing terrorist leaders affects terrorism? You have to understand, that in this case, the reason for terrorism is Israels oppression on palestinians, and I simply can't see how would killing more of them help the matter? In a situation like this, new leaders will rise, always.
The only ones who can stop this crisis, are the Israeli, no doubt about that.
No, that's not what we're saying. We are saying "We apologize for the innocent blood shed there, but why was there not an equal uproar about innocent blood shed in Croatia, Afghanistan, etc etc?"
And killing terrorist leaders is sort of like chopping off the head of a snake - y'know? Without a head, the rest usually tends to die.
-
Dude, the WTC towers were never the backbone of the American economy - most economies have no one specific backbone that can be pointed at with a finger. What they were was a tall-standing symbol of the American economic might, and that's what Bin-Laden was striking against - the symbol. You said it yourself: he "...may be insane, but he's not stupid..." Now tell me that Bin-Laden could have honestly thought that striking the WTC towers would cause the American economy to collapse.
Yeah, I think that going after the WTC was a somewhat poor decision on their part, since they had the means to actually do some damage by going after more important targets (capitol, pentagon, white house, etc.) and they didn't take full advantage of the opportunity.
In a situation like this, new leaders will rise, always.
Then you kill those as well, and keep doing that until they are all dead. :D :D
-
I never said WTC was the only Economic Backbone of the USA. It has many obviously. He did however strike the most important in people minds. He has written a page in history.
Lets not forget he wanted to prove the west isnt invincible. He achieved that as well.
Oh, and he did go after the pentagon too, just the timing was wrong and the brave people aboard that Jet stopped it before it could get there.
it was a military attack in a new age of war. Yes he killed civilians, yes it is bad. It isnt any worse then hiroshima though now is it? Im sure Americans will say it is worse since it their people involved, but ask the japanese if hiroshima was worse then WTC, bet they would say yes.
All governments make mistakes, only thing is, is whos propaganda are you eharing mostly? Which country do you live in?
Im sure if you all lived in the middle east this strike on WTC would have been a proud one for you.
-
hiroshima was the final bloody battle in a long bloody war, it was done to win the war as quickly and with the fewest deaths on our side as posable, that is how you win a war with someone who is nearly or more powerful as you are.
the 9-11 atack was a first strike (well the first one we realy payed atention to) we did nothing to prevoke it, other than wafelling in our foren policy at the request of the europeans and hippy peace freaks,
these are blood thursty ****ing insane killers, they derive there lifes greatest pleasure by killing as many people who are not part of there perfict order as they posably can, they know we hate killing inocent people so they wrap themselves in there own peoples inocence and lash out at us for beeing better than them despite not following there god, then they cry when there childeren get killed when we retaliate.
this is a war with a determined, dedicated, driven, and above all else insane grupe of very very angery people, if you just want to role over and let them kill you then fine but don't expect us to do the same
-
CP: The point was symbolic more than anything else. For whatever reason, they decided to go after targets that were (before the post-911 propoganda machine) unequivocally evil in the eyes of nearly everyone not a uber-right-wing-nut. I've met Christian rightist families, the sort that swarm abortion clinics, who recognized the WTC and Pentagon as symbols of Amerikan imperialism. What they didn't count on was the tractability of the populace and the sway the national propaganda machine holds.
Bobbau: Insane? I think not. They hate us utterly and unquestioningly, and that will not change in their lifetimes. Their viewpoint is utterly, almost incomprehensibly different from our own, but not entirely- I can see how and why they'd go at us like that. As Eldridge Cleaver said: "What may seem irrational from the viewpoint of the Mother Country may seem rational from the viewpoint of the colony."More fitting words for the current scenario have rarely been said.
American lives are of little consequence to them- by participating in and abetting the government that they blame all their woes on (to a large degree justly), we're almost as bad as the very people who helped to bring about their state themselves. They certainly would think little of wiping the whole lot of us out- much as you seem to feel about them. In fact, the attitudes you display, and particularly those in the military, probably precisely reflect the attitudes some of the Middle Eastern populace- and the militants- have. I only hope there are some who try to see both sides over there, as well.
-
anyone who considers any other life as of little consiquence and
has dedicated there life and death to killing me and\or my people
is insane
in my humble opinion
-
So... you want to preserve the lives of the terrorists, because they have more value than killing them would? Quick- don't bluster or you lose 20 points.
-
CP: The point was symbolic more than anything else. For whatever reason, they decided to go after targets that were (before the post-911 propoganda machine) unequivocally evil in the eyes of nearly everyone not a uber-right-wing-nut. I've met Christian rightist families, the sort that swarm abortion clinics, who recognized the WTC and Pentagon as symbols of Amerikan imperialism. What they didn't count on was the tractability of the populace and the sway the national propaganda machine holds.
That is what I am saying; they had the opportunity to do some actual material damage to the system (which would also do psychological damage as a side effect) by sending all of the planes after stuff in Washington, but they did not capitalize on the chance. And I'm not sure how the targets were "unequivocally evil." :p
-
And killing terrorist leaders is sort of like chopping off the head of a snake - y'know? Without a head, the rest usually tends to die. [/B]
You didn't really get it, did you?
I'll quote CP5670:
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a situation like this, new leaders will rise, always.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then you kill those as well, and keep doing that until they are all dead"
Is that what you really want? To kill every single palestinian? I don't think there is a single palestinian who _doesn't_ hate Israel at the moment, killing a leader won't affect anything. So your changes are basically to kill all of them, or think of something else. Right now, Mr. Sauron seems to be using the first alternative.
-
Actually I was just making a joke there, but really, even if it did come to that, things would work out quite well in the end.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Actually I was just making a joke there, but really, even if it did come to that, things would work out quite well in the end.
Yes, I noticed that :) . Only it appears that the Israeli(their leaders at least) really think that way.
That's an interesting thought, if we would kill all the foreigners, and then inhabit the entire world with only finnish people, things would definitely work out quite well.
Hey, that gives me an idea... :devilidea
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
I never said WTC was the only Economic Backbone of the USA. It has many obviously. He did however strike the most important in people minds. He has written a page in history.
it was a military attack in a new age of war. Yes he killed civilians, yes it is bad. It isnt any worse then hiroshima though now is it? Im sure Americans will say it is worse since it their people involved, but ask the japanese if hiroshima was worse then WTC, bet they would say yes.
A. You said it yourself: He struck the most important in people's minds. That, my good sir, is what's known as a "symbol".
B. How can you compare the two?? Bobboau already pointed out the differences, so I'll just add one thing. If you compare it to anything, I'd say that the attack on Pearl Harbor would be the closest analogy, and even then, it was a strike against the military and the military ships moored there.
Originally posted by Pera
Is that what you really want? To kill every single palestinian? I don't think there is a single palestinian who _doesn't_ hate Israel at the moment, killing a leader won't affect anything.
Sad that it's gotten to the point at which even you are equating the Palestinian population in general with terrorists, eh? Look at yourself. You should be ashamed. Personally, I try (I may not always succeed, but I do make the effort) to differentiate between the Palestinians and the terrorists. Why don't you?
Anyways, to get to your question, and with the above point in mind, I say that we should kill every terrorist leader that may arise - regardless of his/her nationality. If the Palestinian people realize at some point that terror is not the answer, I'll be among the first to shout "Halleluyah!"
-
People need to use a thing called common sense, instead of being technical, Hamas is obvivously a terrorist organization, suicide bombers, suicide pilots are tools of terrorists.
-
Terrorism is just one of many weopons. It's the last resort for theocratic nations without military technology and groups coinstantly under siege/operating underground; being prevented from having military technology. It's just chance that most people wielding this weopon at the minute are not fighting for a just (in our eyes) or attainable cause.
Propaganda wise, a terrorist is someone who holds a radically different opinion to Authority (File Sharers, Pot Smokers, Pro Life Campaigners, Pro choice Campaigners, the ACLU, PETA, Trade Unions etc.). It's a bit like the 2 + 2 = 5 thing in 1984. 2 + 2 = whatever gullible speep are told it is.
-
OK, if you insist on these legaleese definitions, let quote a dictionary:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Not the connection between the unlawful act and the intent, please. File sharing isn't terrorisim. Pro-Life campaigning isn't terrorisim, unless they bomb abortion clinics. Et cetera, et cetera... get the picture?
-
Sad that it's gotten to the point at which even you are equating the Palestinian population in general with terrorists, eh? Look at yourself. You should be ashamed. Personally, I try (I may not always succeed, but I do make the effort) to differentiate between the Palestinians and the terrorists. Why don't you?
Anyways, to get to your question, and with the above point in mind, I say that we should kill every terrorist leader that may arise - regardless of his/her nationality. If the Palestinian people realize at some point that terror is not the answer, I'll be among the first to shout "Halleluyah!" [/B]
You still didn't understand what I meant. It seems that you are all thinking these terrorist are attacking Israel simply because they are evil, like some movie bad guys. Have you ever even considered the possibility that the palestinians don't like the fact that you are basically keeping them in concent... ahem, camps, and they don't have almost any kind of citizen rights? People are not born as terrorists, they start blowing themselves up because they don't have any hope, and they believe that attacking Israel will help their people, which it of course doesn't. Just think of it, how desperate would you have to be to do something like that?
The point is, that as long as this "terrorist attack/retaliation"-circle goes on, there's no hope of the crisis ending, and when Israel is the only side with a working government that can control its people, it's quite apparent who has the means of stopping this.
Right now, you are treating the symptoms when you should attend to the disease, the reasons of terrorism.
-
Originally posted by Pera
Right now, you are treating the symptoms when you should attend to the disease, the reasons of terrorism.
Reason : both want land with religious attachments... Religion equals ignorance (Ofcourse not always but in this case it is). They won't share it. They won't devide it. Now you give me a cure for this "desease".
And for the ignorance part : All religions based on a GOD (a good one no devil, etc...) have 1 thing in common. Love everybody even though they are different. And they are ignorant because they say the fight for their beliefs but in reality they are just fighting because they want more power. That is what I call ignorance.
Ofcourse the actual terrorists haven't always religion attachments to it but only money... Give me a cure for these things and you'll be crowned ruler of this world.
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Give me a cure for these things and you'll be crowned ruler of this world.
Well, if even I could do this, the whole problem would have been solved even before it became one :)
But seriously, the area that was first given to Israel by UK, was tiny compared to current Israel. From what I've heard of the palestinian demands, they are relatively fair, and the biggest problem are the extremists on both sides(ie. the ones who want all of the "holy land"). But they could just start with something small, like "no more terrorism, and you get equal rights as an isreali, and no more jewish colonies on your territory".
Of course, I don't live there, so I simply don't understand why do people have to be nasty to each other all the time.
BTW, what you said about religion is true, only the dumb are really willing to die for their religion, and it's mostly used only as an excuse, the real reason is elsewhere.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Third option definitely; civilian casualties are unavoidable in any conflict, and what these terrorist gangs do is to run for cover in densely-populated areas so that they will take down some civilians with them if they die, but that of course should not get in the way of any dedicated military operation. No apology should be given.
Besides, isnt war about.......death?!
This is supposed to be a war right?
-
Besides, isnt war about.......death?!
exactly. :D
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
People need to use a thing called common sense, instead of being technical, Hamas is obvivously a terrorist organization, suicide bombers, suicide pilots are tools of terrorists.
By that logic i guess Japanese suicide bombers were terrorists too. Oh wait they had a "legal" country and "legal "military. Lets not forget, "civilized" countries decide what "legal"
Alls fair in love and war. The one who is right is who is left.
-
The Japanese kamikazes were not terrorists. If they were, anybody who ever used a gun in wartime or was involved with the conduction of war would be a terrorist, because one's own death is not what makes one a terrorist by any definition. The kamikazes attacked hostile military targets who were generally already actively firing upon them.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
The Japanese kamikazes were not terrorists. If they were, anybody who ever used a gun in wartime or was involved with the conduction of war would be a terrorist, because one's own death is not what makes one a terrorist by any definition. The kamikazes attacked hostile military targets who were generally already actively firing upon them.
I grudgingly agree with this assessment. The kamikazes weren't strictly speaking terrorists. My definition of a terrorist is someone who utilizes violence against non-combatants for political ends. The kamikazes were Japanese soldiers using suicide tactics on other soldiers with whom they were at war (and, thus, there was no political objective involved; it was a military tactic).
Still, there's no doubt that the kamikazes scared the **** out of the American sailors who were fighting in the Pacific...
The Japanese were wasteful in using the kamikazes. The japanese sacrificed countless pilots to suicide tactics and it didn't win the war for them.
Suicide for reasons of honor has only one result: fewer honorable people.
As for the 9/11 terrorists, yeah, they used planes in a suicide manuver, but they did it against non-combatant civilians in peacetime (even if the war started right after), and al Qaeda has proclaimed long and long that this was done for political purposes.
Thus, they're terrorists. Same for the Palestinian suicide bombers.
As for Israel assassinating that Shalam terrorist dude, I would have tried to assassinate him with a sniper or a covert team first. If that didn't work, then I would have sent the F-16.
Truth to tell, though, Israel did try to assassinate him through other means first, so Israel did this exactly as I would have done it.
The Palestinians are such hypocrites. They bomb Israeli civialians by the dozens (remember the Passover massacre?), then when israel justifiably retaliates in self-defense, taking extraordinary care to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties which minimizes civilian deaths to less than a dozen, the Palestinians complain of the Israeli government deliberately engineering a 'massacre' of Palestinians.
As long as there are Palestinian terrorists killing Israeli civilians, there won't be a Palestinian state. Pure and simple. :rolleyes:
-
Give the territory back to Britain and we'll sort it all out for you...
*calls on SAS* Right lads, that-a-way!
:nervous:
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
As for the 9/11 terrorists, yeah, they used planes in a suicide manuver, but they did it against non-combatant civilians in peacetime (even if the war started right after), and al Qaeda has proclaimed long and long that this was done for political purposes.
~-=™! WTF!?! Firstly: How many of those civillians do you think were reserves or had something to do with the army? Secondly: It's only peacetime till someone attacks. America has been fixing to annihilate the middle-east for years, thus it was a pre-emptive strike. Thirdly: Of course they did it for political reasons, thats why every organization throughout the world does whatever they do, for power, wealth, to make a point and/or recognition. !™=-~
As long as there are Palestinian terrorists killing Israeli civilians, there won't be a Palestinian state. Pure and simple. :rolleyes:
~-=™! You say that like you think there'll be one if they stop bombing Israel !™=-~
-
Hey an0n -
America has been fixing to annihilate the middle-east for years, thus it was a pre-emptive strike.
Dude, where are you from? I hear Shivore is quite nice this time of year!
If the Americans wanted the middle east gone it would be already. Frankly I believe the Americans had only been acting in thier nations interests by intervening when they did in the mid-east, just the same as we would in the UK.
This anti-american nonsense stems from the fact that the rest of the world is being conditioned by a increasingly power-hungry mainland-Europe.
-
That's just wrong in soooo many ways.
Dude, where are you from? I hear Shivore is quite nice this time of year!
~-=™! UK !™=-~
If the Americans wanted the middle east gone it would be already.
~-=™! Yeah, right: *point towards Afghanistan*. They sure are super-1337 fighters. Look how quick they killed Bin Laden and all his followers......Oh, wait, they ****ed it up and in the process used the fanaticism generated in the US to pass laws like the DMCA and TIPS to help fight the evil terrorists. And now they're turning the US into 1930's Germany. Great job. !™=-~
Frankly I believe the Americans had only been acting in thier nations interests by intervening when they did in the mid-east, just the same as we would in the UK.
~-=™! Evidently not. Unless you class the annihilation of two trade centers and the complete ****ing up of American freedom plusses. And sadly, they don't need to do anything to the UK, Blair is already quite whipped by Bush !™=-~
This anti-american nonsense stems from the fact that the rest of the world is being conditioned by a increasingly power-hungry mainland-Europe.
~-=™! Hahahahahahaha....*ten minutes later*....ahahahahahahahahaha. Yeah, coz Europe invaded Afghanistan to increase their powerbase. And Europe wants to restart old wars in the middle-east after ****ing them up the first time. (for the slower reader: I'm using Europe as a euphamism for America !™=-~
-
Originally posted by vyper
This anti-american nonsense stems from the fact that the rest of the world is being conditioned by a increasingly power-hungry mainland-Europe.
Anti-American is racism. I'm no racist but i'm also not Pro-America. And the "power-hungry mainland-Europe" is typical for a power to when the are threatend. AKA America. Europe is only doing this to maintain an equal balance with both Amerca and Japan and to not fall behind and become a unimportant continent.
And didn't America do the same when they were united? They did that to stand stronger against the Europeans so don't come complaining when you've done the same thing.
-
You go girl :D
-
Originally posted by elorran
You go girl :D
*snaps fingers in a very stereotypical, ethnic and sarcastic way*
-
Originally posted by an0n
*snaps fingers in a very stereotypical, ethnic and sarcastic way*
*snaps fingers*
*a big ass bodyguard appears*
*points towards an0n*
*##cencored##*
*bodyguard leaves*
Ok, now back on topic please...
-
*sobs*
He grabbed me.......everywhere.
*sobs*
-
Originally posted by Tiara
Anti-American is racism. I'm no racist but i'm also not Pro-America. And the "power-hungry mainland-Europe" is typical for a power to when the are threatend. AKA America. Europe is only doing this to maintain an equal balance with both Amerca and Japan and to not fall behind and become a unimportant continent.
And didn't America do the same when they were united? They did that to stand stronger against the Europeans so don't come complaining when you've done the same thing.
First, I resent the "you've" part. I ain't American and I ain't European, I'm British and damned proud of it.
Second, Europe isn't just trying to keep up its status, but is actively trying to become a rival *NATION* to the US. Almost every major has European politician has been announcing it from every rooftop. Except in Britain, because our politicians know we'd never stand for it (which is why they're trying to get it in through the back door).
I know the American's were a pretty big thorn in our side at one time, but then again, as a Brit I can say that about almost anyone in the world!
Like I said a while ago, Countries exist to protect thier people, the interests of the British people are best served by being allies with America in the face of the current world climate. As they would say: United we stand....
Don't misunderstand what I'm saying, I don't see America as a great saviour or anything. Hell, why should I? I already live in the best country in the world. I just believe they are valuable allies and should be given a fair chance.
Now, to an0ns other points:
And now they're turning the US into 1930's Germany
Yes I agree the Americans are suffering from grade 1 paranoia, especially with this whole civilian-spy thing.
~-=™! Evidently not. Unless you class the annihilation of two trade centers and the complete ****ing up of American freedom plusses. And sadly, they don't need to do anything to the UK, Blair is already quite whipped by Bush !™=-~
Now, just because someone might hit you (I refer to 9/11) does that mean you should just hide under the bed at home? Thats cowardice. I agree Blair should be a tad more forthright and stand up to Bush more, but then again its not like he does it with anyone else.
-
Originally posted by vyper
First, I resent the "you've" part. I ain't American and I ain't European, I'm British and damned proud of it.
I apologize...
Second, Europe isn't just trying to keep up its status, but is actively trying to become a rival *NATION* to the US. Almost every major has European politician has been announcing it from every rooftop. Except in Britain, because our politicians know we'd never stand for it (which is why they're trying to get it in through the back door).
To keep up its status is exactly what I mean. That is the same thing as becoming a rival nation.
I know the American's were a pretty big thorn in our side at one time, but then again, as a Brit I can say that about almost anyone in the world!
You make it sound as if Brittain is the #1 country in world (to me you do anyway).
Like I said a while ago, Countries exist to protect thier people, the interests of the British people are best served by being allies with America in the face of the current world climate. As they would say: United we stand....
United Europe : United we stand... Thus having the same ground rule as you.
Don't misunderstand what I'm saying, I don't see America as a great saviour or anything. Hell, why should I? I already live in the best country in the world. I just believe they are valuable allies and should be given a fair chance.
Again you make it sound as if Brittain is the #1 country in world (to me you do anyway). Allies are valuable. That is exactly why we strive to be one. To go walk hand in hand instead of argueing all the time on what to do.
-
Again you make it sound as if Brittain is the #1 country in world
It is. :D
#Land of Hope and Glory, mother of the free.....
*is in very patriotic mood for some reason*:nod:
edit: Anyway, how the hell did this thread get so OT? Probably my fault... but still...
-
Originally posted by vyper
This anti-american nonsense stems from the fact that the rest of the world is being conditioned by a increasingly power-hungry mainland-Europe.
Uh no, I think most of this "Anti American Nonsense" is a reaction to the imposition of American Culture upon the rest of the world through television, clothing, food etc.(noth that it's entirely their fault). Invasive big businesses like exxon Mobil, fast food, Media Conglomerates etc. Political blackmail through organizations like the WIPO and WTO that are seeking to "persuade" foregn contries to alter their laws so they're in America's (aka. American Big Business's) interests.
I am thouroughly repulsed the plutocratic and corrupt politics of America (which has nothing to do with American people, they're run to line the pockets of the rich), which we seem to be adopting more and more, virtually undoing all the positive changes 40 - 50 years of socialism gave us.
-
if you don't like our culture don't buy it and it will go away
-
yea, they're not forcing you to go to McDonalds, are they?
-
Patatzaak om de hoek rules!
(Dutch ppl will understand...)
-
Originally posted by Blue Lion
yea, they're not forcing you to go to McDonalds, are they?
I've already said this before: They deliberately target suceptable young children (and idiotic adults with the brains of childeren) with their advertizing (the revenue for which wasn't made in the target nation which gives them an unfair advantage) and create a climate of peer pressure and pester power where individuals feel compelled to line the pocket of J. Random Megacorp.
-
Sorry, but that is simply how capitalism works, and one of the reasons why I think it must collapse at some point in the future. That is one of the main criticisms of the whole system: it makes people think they need stuff that they otherwise would not. Whining about it from a moralistic point of view is just silly though.
It is. :D
But we have most of the good universities with the math (;7), and so we are better! :D
-
Originally posted by Top Gun
I've already said this before: They deliberately target suceptable young children (and idiotic adults with the brains of childeren) with their advertizing (the revenue for which wasn't made in the target nation which gives them an unfair advantage) and create a climate of peer pressure and pester power where individuals feel compelled to line the pocket of J. Random Megacorp.
So they're good at marketing, blame your stupid countrymen.
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Sorry, but that is simply how capitalism works, and one of the reasons why I think it must collapse at some point in the future. That is one of the main criticisms of the whole system: it makes people think they need stuff that they otherwise would not. Whining about it from a moralistic point of view is just silly though.
Which is all the more reason why the Government needs to take a tough line on it and severely limit the advertizing power of large companies (which they definitely won't do now). Some contries (mostly scandinavien (sp)) have banned all advertizing aimed at childeren, which I think would be a very good first step as well as regulating the money spent on advertizing that has not been made in the host nation.
I agree that whinging doesn't help, I've never knowingly whined about it. I'm just stating the fact that for many Europeans who, rightly, don't buy into consumerism, America is its source (and the reason for the downfall of reasonably hard line European Socialism) and thus the reason for a lot of Anti American Feeling around here.
-
Hey I am a pro-communism guy. :D But if the corporations cannot advertise, they will not make any money and will thus die out, and the entire capitalism economy of today is based on corporations, so everything will fall to pieces over time.
-
Allowing them to get so large that they dictate government policy isn't wise either. Think of it as forest management, felling the large trees to allow the smaller ones to develop.
The way we had things in Britain worked well, with nationalized public services, (post, rail, health and education) (although I didn't support the monopoly they had) and unions strong enough to keep their employers in cheque. It's very well focusing on economic growth as an argument against it but if it only benefits a wealthy few (like in the US now) then what's the point?
P.S. This thread has drifted way Off Topic.
-
Originally posted by Su-tehp
I grudgingly agree with this assessment. The kamikazes weren't strictly speaking terrorists. My definition of a terrorist is someone who utilizes violence against non-combatants for political ends. The kamikazes were Japanese soldiers using suicide tactics on other soldiers with whom they were at war (and, thus, there was no political objective involved; it was a military tactic).
Still, there's no doubt that the kamikazes scared the **** out of the American sailors who were fighting in the Pacific...
The Japanese were wasteful in using the kamikazes. The japanese sacrificed countless pilots to suicide tactics and it didn't win the war for them.
Suicide for reasons of honor has only one result: fewer honorable people.
As for the 9/11 terrorists, yeah, they used planes in a suicide manuver, but they did it against non-combatant civilians in peacetime (even if the war started right after), and al Qaeda has proclaimed long and long that this was done for political purposes.
Thus, they're terrorists. Same for the Palestinian suicide bombers.
As for Israel assassinating that Shalam terrorist dude, I would have tried to assassinate him with a sniper or a covert team first. If that didn't work, then I would have sent the F-16.
Truth to tell, though, Israel did try to assassinate him through other means first, so Israel did this exactly as I would have done it.
The Palestinians are such hypocrites. They bomb Israeli civialians by the dozens (remember the Passover massacre?), then when israel justifiably retaliates in self-defense, taking extraordinary care to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties which minimizes civilian deaths to less than a dozen, the Palestinians complain of the Israeli government deliberately engineering a 'massacre' of Palestinians.
As long as there are Palestinian terrorists killing Israeli civilians, there won't be a Palestinian state. Pure and simple. :rolleyes:
Su, it's always a pleasure to read your posts, especially when they are right on target, like this one. Thank you. :nod:
-
Allowing them to get so large that they dictate government policy isn't wise either. Think of it as forest management, felling the large trees to allow the smaller ones to develop.
Ah, if you are referring to government policy, that is an entirely different matter, and I wholeheartedly agree there. Just as the governments are supposed to be separate from all forms of religion, they should also be completely distinct from the corporate sector in my opinion. I think this can be stopped by the thing I have been saying for some time here: make lobbying illegal. The only reasons the corporations get anywhere is because of their money, and if they could not use that then it would severely limit their role in administrative affairs.
The way we had things in Britain worked well, with nationalized public services, (post, rail, health and education) (although I didn't support the monopoly they had) and unions strong enough to keep their employers in cheque. It's very well focusing on economic growth as an argument against it but if it only benefits a wealthy few (like in the US now) then what's the point?
Wait, I have heard that the unions are too powerful in most European nations today and things are bad in the opposite direction. with the unions calling the shots. (not sure about England specifically though) Just what I have heard, though. Although even if it benefits the wealthy it would be fine if their productive output was generally equal to that of the middle and lower classes; that is not the case right now, but technology is slowly changing it.
Su, it's always a pleasure to read your posts, especially when they are right on target, like this one. Thank you. :nod:
I fully agree. :yes: