[CODEDOG ND]

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?

[Lonestar]

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.

[CP5670]

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.

[Top Gun]

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.

[Kellan]

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.

[Sandwich]

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"...

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!

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. 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; 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.

[Kellan]

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?

[Kellan]

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?

[CODEDOG ND]

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.

[CP5670]

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.

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.

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.

[Nico]

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.

[CP5670]

Churchill, not Stalin.

nah, Stalin was a more tough fellow.

[Nico]

Originally posted by CP5670


nah, Stalin was a more tough fellow.

I hope you're not proud of this statement. Staline killed more civilians than Hitler ( regardless of their country, most were russians).

[CP5670]

Exactly; that is what makes him a good leader for wartime; he does not back down easily.

[CODEDOG ND]

I prefer Patton myself.  

[Nico]

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

[an0n]

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.

[CP5670]

excepted he did most of this after WW2, when there was no war

I agree that he was a pretty incapable peacetime leader, but as a war leader he excelled.

[Top Gun]

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.

[vyper]

*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?