[Lonestar]

Al-Qaeda kills soldiers, its Terrorism.

Isreal kills Spiritual Leader, its a good deed?

USA protects isreal from being condemned in attack that murdered many innocents and a few guilty, and its a step in the right direction?

Does anyone see that the US is the root of the problem, and if they minded their own goddamned business we wouldnt be listening to this middle eastern propaganda.

One thing the US shld do is shut the hell up and go the hell home. tired of them being the bullies on the block. Im sure everyone is.....

[Bobboau]

we armed a great number of fighters, not just usama, and we didn't install the talaban, we simply abandoned Afganastan after the soviets pulled out, so you see, we didn't start it the soviets did

"Al-Qaeda kills soldiers, its Terrorism."
that's war, when Al Qaeda kills people minding there own business completly uninvolved in any violence that is terrorism. but of corse they were valid military targets becase they paid taxes

"Isreal kills Spiritual Leader, its a good deed?"
no, but when they kill the leader of one of the biggest terrorist organisations in the world it is.

"USA protects isreal from being condemned in attack that murdered many innocents and a few guilty, and its a step in the right direction?"
it is when the condemnation was one sided and unfair, not that this act actualy did anything worth the flack were getting over it.

"One thing the US shld do is shut the hell up and go the hell home."
yay isolationism!

you know I'm tired of people useing retoric as a replacement for thinking, you lot with your 'America is evil in everything it does' anti-thiought are just as bad as Liberator and his ilk who use the Bible as a replacement for thinking. stop just useing the talking points of your favorite political movement, and start looking at the situation, stop assumeing that anyone who disagrees with you is a mindless emperialist whore brain washed by propaganda, becase you too may be influenced by propaganda.

for example, some people were recently complaining about how the EU was takeing over Europe and many people don't like it, the principal defence of the EU was that there needs to be a power to oppose the US. people liveing in Eupoe are being told not to complain about how they feel there rights or national soverenty are being tromped upon becase it'll weaken the US. sounds to me like propagandic bull****. personaly I like the idea of a united Europe, not becase of how it will impact the US's military, but becase currently many parts of Europe are a mess (balkans) and I think a united Eurpoe wuld help the situation, not to mention that a United Europe would be stronger, and a stronger Europe would be a stronger humanity, europe is mostly pro democracy and freedom, so if Europe gains power then so do these things.

[Ghostavo]

for example, some people were recently complaining about how the EU was takeing over Europe and many people don't like it, the principal defence of the EU was that there needs to be a power to oppose the US. people liveing in Eupoe are being told not to complain about how they feel there rights or national soverenty are being tromped upon becase it'll weaken the US. sounds to me like propagandic bull****. personaly I like the idea of a united Europe, not becase of how it will impact the US's military, but becase currently many parts of Europe are a mess (balkans) and I think a united Eurpoe wuld help the situation, not to mention that a United Europe would be stronger, and a stronger Europe would be a stronger humanity, europe is mostly pro democracy and freedom, so if Europe gains power then so do these things.

Where did you hear exactly all those things?

And about Achemed Yassin, why didn't they simply arrested him instead of killing him? Yeah sure...

we armed a great number of fighters, not just usama, and we didn't install the talaban, we simply abandoned Afganastan after the soviets pulled out, so you see, we didn't start it the soviets did

Sometimes I wonder if the world would be better if the soviets had "won"...

[Janos]

Originally posted by Ghostavo


Sometimes I wonder if the world would be better if the soviets had "won"...

If you think that way, THE TERRISTS HAVE WON[/i]!!!! omg

[Ghostavo]

the terrorists were against the soviets... go check your history books...

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Bobboau

"USA protects isreal from being condemned in attack that murdered many innocents and a few guilty, and its a step in the right direction?"
it is when the condemnation was one sided and unfair, not that this act actualy did anything worth the flack were getting over it.

The thing is, do the condemnations of Hamas, etc terrorist attacks mention their justification?

[Janos]

W-w-w-hat, arent these evil Saddamterrists communists at all!?!? I think I've been misguided! Goddamn liberal zealot media. They like homogays and jews and everything. USA USA

I was kidding, kinda.
However blaming USA [I'm European leftist, BTW] for the entire "omg terrism problem" is kinda blatant. Islamist terrorist groups did exist before Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but certainly USA backing up mujahideen (sp?), especially with Stinger SAMs, did enforce the Afghan resistance. Whether USA interference was a key factor for Afghan resistance's success, on the other hand, is under debate.
Afghan guerillas once said, that they're not afraid of the Russians, but they're afraid of their helicopters, which were and are an important part of Russian doctrine. Su-25s and Mi-24 Hinds were lost at staggering rate after the introduction of Stingers and Redeyes, but later factory improvements greatly decreased the losses caused by SAM. (They added additional armour to both Hinds and around Frogfoots' engine exhausts.)
Afghan ambushes were, however, quite effective until the end of the war, because T-XX tanks they used (T-64 and T-72 with some early T-80s) did not have enough elevation to suppress troops firing far uphills. Only weapons in Russian tanks and APCs capable of firing really up were 2A42 30mm cannon on BMP-2 and 12,7 DShK AAMG:s (these would, however, have to be fired externally).

Oh, I'm sliding into a siderail. Pacifying Afghanistan was a long a tough process (talking about pre-Sovjetski assault), and after the Soviets struck, the land quickly shattered into small regions. Note: this happened during the 1980s. After a long and tough war there was a power vaccuum, filled of course by those with most power - finally the Talibans. Since other groups no longer had any access to central governing and policies and the ruling group were age-old enemies, kept alive only because goverment police forces were not particulary keen of slaughters, the "Northern Alliance" decided to abandon their own contradictions for a while and hack and slash all the way to Kabul. Stuck on a long war, they only had their chances when the USA once again decided to interfere, maybe righteously, and bombed the **** out of the Talibans.


I have no idea what I was trying to say.

[Ghostavo]

I'm not blaming the USA, in my view this (the whole afganistan and iraq thing) was a result of the cold war mess left by the USA and the soviets. But still the USA keep doing the same things they did during the cold war so... It's not USA's fault... it is their administrations!!

[Grey Wolf]

And the fact that they can't get it through their heads that the Cold War ended over a decade ago.

[Bobboau]

that's just what they want you to think....

[Grey Wolf]

Of course. In reality, the Cold War was just an evil conspiracy by the Illuminati and the Knights Templar

[Liberator]

If you're gonna be that way,

You're all wrong, it's all Skull & Bones plan to subsume the world in their Death Cult.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Gank

Its irrelevant. 6 day war was an offensive war started by Israel, regardless of the reasons.

Do you know how lame and closed-minded that is?

It's not irrelevant - if Israel was a war-mongering nation, we would not wait until our targets had amassed their armies on our borders and brought themselves to a state of readiness for war they had not been at previously, would we? To attack then when you could have attacked before is folly if conquering is your only goal.

Try to be a little bit logical, okay? I'm not saying that Israel didn't start the 6-Day War. I'll even admit that I never knew that we started it. But along with that admission on my part, I would be quite justified in demanding that you recognize that Israel would not have initiated hostilities if the armies of her hostile neighbors had not been amassed on her borders.

Originally posted by Gank
Yes you sholud have been more specific, especially as it was the 6 day war we were discussing. The west bank was captured then.

Once again, my apologies. And by the way:

[q]In 1923 the British "chopped off" 75% of the proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian Nation of "Trans-Jordan," meaning "across the Jordan River." The Palestinian Arabs now had THEIR homeland... the remaining 25% of the original Palestinian territory (west of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland.

...

The U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan (1947) was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentration. The Jews accepted --- the Arabs rejected. They still wanted ALL. On May 14, 1948 the Palestinian Jews finally declared their own State of Israel. On the next day, Israel was at war with seven Arab armies... Egypt, Trans-Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of "Israel" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews. When the war ended, Israel survived even with a loss of 1% of it's entire population. Those Arabs who did not run away became today's Israeli Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the so-called "Palestinian Arab refugees."[/q]

Originally posted by Gank
Ethnic cleansing would be the removal of a specific ethnic group, not eradication. Hence the settlements and the wall. Did Benjamin Netanyaho (sp) not say the palestinian is a beast with two legs

In that case, I misunderstood what you meant by "ethnic cleansing". I don't see what the settlements or the wall have to do with it though.

And a reference for Bibi's quote would be nice.

Originally posted by Gank
And given that the bible is meaningless to me its pointless using it to back up your arguements, it lends as much weight to your words as the rig veda does to a hindus. Conversion to judaism might be quite valid religiously, but it does not make you descended from the middle east, it does not give you the right to a homeland there.

No, it doesn't make me a physical decendant of middle-eastern peoples. But it does make me a part of the house of Israel, to use a more archaic term.

And get used to people using the Bible as a source of argument in debates over Judaism - you can't seperate the two.

Originally posted by Rictor
You do, but your leaders do not. Several times in the past, when Hamas was either actively engaged in a ceasefire or on the verge of agreeing to a ceasefire, Sharon has order asassination of Palestinian leaders. Every time he has done this, there have been reprisals against Israelis, and the ceasefire goes down the drain.,

This has happened several times, and each time Sharon ordered the asassinations without any previous provocation. So, in my eyes, this is seen as Sharon intentionally breaking the peace and provoking the Palestinians. Let me say that again; whenever Israel and Hamas and/or other militants have called a trcue, Sharon has taken steps to break the peace.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Hudna_With_Hamas.asp

There's your "truce", your "cease-fire".

Originally posted by Rictor
Peace is rather simple to achieve.

1.Take any area where Palestinians form the clear majority and declare that to be the nation of Palestine
2. Station the Israeli army on the borders of Israel/Palestine and have them guard against intrusions.
3. Make sure that all Palestinians who want to go be in Palestine are accomodated. Also make sure that you have not annexed any private property, such as schools, farmlands etc.
4. For a period of several months, disallow any passage between Israel/Palestine. Anyone attempting this will be shot on sight.
5. After several months have passed, and tensions have cooled, allow travel back and forth, but with thorough inspection.
6. Henceforth, allow any Palestinian the ability to gain Israeli citizenship by normal means (with immigration standards of the same level as the international norm) so that any who wish to make Israel their home can do so.
7. For no reason whatsoever, short of a full scale invasion, should the IDF venture into Palestine. It is now a sovreign nation, and any activity will be considered an act of war.

Do this, and within maybe a year, suicide bombings will practically stop. If not totally, they will sharply decrease and popular support for them will fall to zero. Thats peace, but in order to achieve it, yu have to acknowledge that Palestinians must have their own homeland. They will never be happy living under Israeli occupation, and they will respond to the repression with attacks against Israeli targets,

Tell me, if, in the situation outlined above, the IDF ventures into Palestine, it is an act of war, what happens when an armed Palestinian ventures into Israel? Would that not also be an act of war?

And once and for all, Jordan (ex-Trans-Jordan, aka ex-Palestine) is the Palestinian state. Jeez.

Originally posted by aldo_14
How can you get a job if no-one will hire you?
How can you buy timber if you have no money, because you can't get a job?
How can you get educated and find a job if there is no financing for the schools?

FYI, and this probably isn't reported in any news sources, over 90% of the buildings here are constructed by Palestinians or Arab Israelis. There's no lack of Israeli building constructors who hire Palestinians. And that's just one section of the market, although the main one in which they work here.

Originally posted by aldo_14
EDIt:  anyway, I though you were Christian?  Whatever happened to the act of charity?  Y'know, the Good Samaritan and all that?  (or 'judge not, lest ye be judged'?

Don't even start pulling out Bible verses... the Bible's very specific about the physical land of Israel belonging to the decendants of Jacob forever. You wanna go there, I'll go there, but you won't like it.

Originally posted by TrashMan
2. Wait..there is...What Israel is doing. They are responding to terrorist attack with national terror...

...

I'm not even going to bother beyond reminding you of the documents seized from Arafat's offices in Ramallah that prove he signed off on terrorist acts and on the rewarding of money to the familes of suicide bombers.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Sandwich

FYI, and this probably isn't reported in any news sources, over 90% of the buildings here are constructed by Palestinians or Arab Israelis. There's no lack of Israeli building constructors who hire Palestinians. And that's just one section of the market, although the main one in which they work here.

Don't even start pulling out Bible verses... the Bible's very specific about the physical land of Israel belonging to the decendants of Jacob forever. You wanna go there, I'll go there, but you won't like it.

Actually, the former was a reference to the causes of all ghettos  / slums, and the latter a criticism of Liberators' (IIRC) pre-judging people based upon their living circumstances.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Sandwich
It's not irrelevant....

It is in the context of what we were talking about, whether or not the war was an offensive or defensive one.

Once again, my apologies. And by the way:

Bear in mind here you're talking to someone whos country was partitioned by the British just before Palestine was. At least here the people it was partitioned in favour of actually lived here for more than a few years.

In that case, I misunderstood what you meant by "ethnic cleansing". I don't see what the settlements or the wall have to do with it though.

Settlements, built on land taken from palestinians and populated solely by Israelis, wall constructed to keep them out. I cant see how you dont see what they have to do with it, they are it.

And a reference for Bibi's quote would be nice.

Spoken in a speech to the knesset 25 June 1982. And it was Begin, my apols.

No, it doesn't make me a physical decendant of middle-eastern peoples. But it does make me a part of the house of Israel, to use a more archaic term.

And get used to people using the Bible as a source of argument in debates over Judaism - you can't seperate the two.

Don't even start pulling out Bible verses... the Bible's very specific about the physical land of Israel belonging to the decendants of Jacob forever. You wanna go there, I'll go there, but you won't like it.

So basically you have a right to live there because the bible says so?

[Bobboau]

"It is in the context of what we were talking about, whether or not the war was an offensive or defensive one. "

had an Iraqi solder fired the first shot in the recent Iraqi war, would you have said they started it?

[Rictor]

By my definition, and I think its a reasonable one, whichever side ends up with excess land at the end was the agressor. This sounds odd, but during a war both sides can be the agressor at some point and the defender at some point.

Essentially, its not who fires the first shot, but rather who invades. IN Iraq's case, it was quite clear who was invading. At no point was there the possibility that Iraq would invade America. However, if you have countries like Pakistan and India, and they've both got their armies on the border, then you can have the battle sway back and forth across the border.

For my money, Israel was not the agressor in '67, however they did not have a right to keep the land, or atleast not to expel the people living there and try to force token amounts (and they are token) of settlers into the area.

[Bobboau]

I think the problem is the people wern't expelled
(that is meaning that they wern't expelled becase that's who Isael is bikering with today)

I don't see how the outcome of a war can realy tell you who was the one responsable for starting it, lets imagin for a moment, that the Iraqi people all realy realy loved Sadam, especaly the people in the military, and that virtualy all of them were willing to die for him, now if after we initaly invaded Iraq we were pushed out and back into Kuwait by this loyal and profesional army and Iraq kept some of the land after, would that have made them the agressors?
I don't think so. we ammassed on Iraqs borders, it was clear to everyone on the planet we were going in, so even if Iraq prempted our (premptive:)) invasion, and took land (Kuwait was part of our coalition, so they share in the agression, therefore they become a valid military target for Iraq, there also the only land Iraq could have concevably taken, so I sort of need this for my analagy to work:) ) I wouldn't say that they were the agressors.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Gank
It is in the context of what we were talking about, whether or not the war was an offensive or defensive one.

Dude, have you ever heard of a situation where a debate actually progresses beyond a certain point - especially when one of the debating parties agrees with the other? I agree with you - Israel struck the first blow in '67 (nevermind the fact that I've been told many a time by others arguing your side of the fence that to bicker about "he hit me first!" was childish and petty...).

So in moving the debate on, I'd like you to respond to a question of mine, which you have evaded for the past 2-3 rounds of posts and replies:

Do you agree with me that, all other things being equal, Israel would not have initiated (the '67) war without the provocation caused by the build-up of the military forces of the surrounding nations on her borders?

Oh, and by the way, I looked things up a bit further.... in 1967, Israel pre-empted the Arab armies' attack by wiping out Egypt's airforce situationed in the Sinai Peninsula while their planes were still on the ground. Meanwhile, unaware that the Egyptian air force had been wiped out, Jordan's King Hussein launched his attack from the West Bank (it is, after all, the western bank of the Jordan River) while the Syrian forces invaded Israel's northern part from the Golan Heights.

Originally posted by Gank
Bear in mind here you're talking to someone whos country was partitioned by the British just before Palestine was. At least here the people it was partitioned in favour of actually lived here for more than a few years.

I assume you're meaning that the land here was partitioned in favor of the Palestinian Arabs, since 75% of Palestine of the early 1900's went to the current-day HaShemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Originally posted by Gank
Settlements, built on land taken from palestinians and populated solely by Israelis, wall constructed to keep them out. I cant see how you dont see what they have to do with it, they are it.

Dude, I don't know what the media is reporting about the security fence, but you seem to have it wrong. It primarily follows the pre-67 borders, is an actual chain-link fence for most of its length, and has one purpose: to keep terrorists out of pre-67 Israel. If they still wanna blow themselves up, or shoot at passing vehicles, they can do so on armed IDF patrols and checkpoints, where at least they won't be accused of attacking defenseless women and children.

Originally posted by Gank
So basically you have a right to live there because the bible says so?

Yes.

I don't expect this to convince you or sway you for a microsecond, however - and you're not to be blamed for that, either. But that's the core of Judaism, and if you wanna start arguing Judaism, then you gotta take that core into account.

[Liberator]

Good going BTW, Sandy, you r0x0r!

I just want to interject, I sense a pattern emerging in the recent debates.  mikhael and a couple of others aside, what I see being used to debate fact-backed positions is mostly propaganda and, in some cases, out and out bilge.  

It's disturbing, given the enormous source of fact finding power available to everyone here, but not entirely unexpected.  

Both sides are replete with mind-numbed zombies, Lord knows I've been guilty a time or too myself, but try and use facts to argue, not second-hand "well so-and-so-told-me" or "I-heard-it-on-the-TV" information.