And the cycle of violence continues
Expect to see either a ton of dead israeli's tomorrow on TV or just a lot of pissed off palestinians
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...a_explosions_9
Printable View
And the cycle of violence continues
Expect to see either a ton of dead israeli's tomorrow on TV or just a lot of pissed off palestinians
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...a_explosions_9
Hmm. The man was a Hamas leader, in fact its founder, which puts the blood of plenty of innocents on his hands. However, the article says that four people died - Yassin, two of his bodyguards... and we're not told the identity of the fourth. Probably just some irrelevant child or worshipper, no-one whose death really matters of course:rolleyes2
An endless cycle, this just makes me sad. No one involved has clean hands anymore. Neither side is going to win, or defeat the other, so why can't we just finally have some common ground? We're all people, be it Israeli, Paliestinians, Hebrew, etc. Not everyone follows the same views on anything, be it culture, religion, what have you. Holding age old grudges is not going to bring about justice, only more death and destruction.
Take care all.
Hear! Hear!
i'd wish they'd blow up gerry adams
Yasin, was a sympol for Palstinian more or less, killing him will not solve any problem, despite the fact that it makes it more complicated as the Palstinan will search for revnage by kill whoever, and violance circle will continue.
Fun, just put more wood to the fire, when the house burns to ashes, wonder what went wrong.
Oh well, let's prepare for the worst nightmare.
Worst nightmare? This is no different than the last 30 years or so. It's hard to be suprised or sympathetic. I'm sure Palestine will blow up a bus or a nightclub in retaliation, and it'll make some news. Then Israel will send in the tanks and annhilate a refugee camp or two. It's what each side does best. It's no longer shocking. It's expected. Maybe Palestine will do something groundbreaking in terms of viciousness in their response, or maybe it'll be a run of the mill suicide bombing. It's tough to say. What will be suprising is that after decades of this highly repetitive conflict, the attack will still make headlines. I expect to be reading about Israeli-Palestine attacks and reprisals all the way to my deathbed, and I don't intend to be on my death bed for a very long time.
Maybe we shouldn't be calling things like this cases of Middle East violence. Instead, is it just an example of Middle East culture?
Good point Todie. Whoever lives in that region and is not an ignorant savage should flee ASAP and leave the trash there to kill itself out. Go somewhere else where the national sport isn't throwing rocks at tanks.
Sure, so in the case all the wars and coup d'etats USA has organized in the past 60 years happened in US soil...would you say wars and coup d'etats are an example of US culture? I don't think I would.Quote:
Maybe we shouldn't be calling things like this cases of Middle East violence. Instead, is it just an example of Middle East culture?
Yeah, I heard they give away free plane tickets, nationality papers and residences in Magical Candyland.Quote:
Originally posted by Grandmaster LH
Good point Todie. Whoever lives in that region and is not an ignorant savage should flee ASAP and leave the trash there to kill itself out. Go somewhere else where the national sport isn't throwing rocks at tanks.
First and last time I've been called out for being too idealistic.Quote:
Originally posted by Shadow Nexus
Yeah, I heard they give away free plane tickets, nationality papers and residences in Magical Candyland.
Nobody said it'll be easy but if you want out of something bad enough you can get out. And it seems like a good portion of the fighting comes from people trying to stay rather than leave.
This is no different than the last 30 years or so. --Garland
^3000
I don't understand at all what they're even fighting over in Israel. Terrible things happen when you mix ignorance, religion, government and guns.
Honestly I just can't conceive of living in a place like that. The closest I can imagine in the US is a stereotypical KKK member or something; ignorance + irrational hate + a willingness to do violence + a smattering of pseudo-morality and religion. Trying to imagine an entire country full of people like that fighting another entire country of people like that hurts my brain.
Yeah, I'm the idealistic one here, not optimist though: I think great things are possible if people try. I doubt they will try though.Quote:
Originally posted by Grandmaster LH
First and last time I've been called out for being too idealistic.
Nobody said it'll be easy but if you want out of something bad enough you can get out. And it seems like a good portion of the fighting comes from people trying to stay rather than leave.
About getting out, well, probably the Israel side is more rich, so people with a decent adquisitive level could try, but in the side of Palestine more people live under poverty, and they have enough trouble staying alive for considering the idea of moving.
Plus, take into account it's also the place they were born in, so getting exiled is not something many wish, even if things go wrong. Hell, if I lived there I'd leave, but well...it's not that easy, getting nationality papers is not something you can do from one day to another.
Q: How do you recognise a innocent bystander in the Israel-Palestine conflict?
A: She's on telly.
I'm sure that if you sat down and talked to these people you couldn't make a difference between them and the other side, twatwits the lot of em.
Surely Ian Paisley as well? :)Quote:
Originally posted by gokufusionss1
i'd wish they'd blow up gerry adams
no, i'm not going to bother expaining why.Quote:
Surely Ian Paisley as well?
Oh. Well, if you don't care enough to explain your point of view, I'll just assume you're a unionist. But hey, you've got "Goku" in your name, chances are most of what you say is well worth ignoring anyways. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by gokufusionss1
no, i'm not going to bother expaining why.
Moving on. Well, they more or less blew up the Palestian [major religious figure]. Like the Pope, or something. WHEN WILL EVERYONE STOP BULLING THE POOR ISRAELIS???? [ /sarcasm]
Oh, I have nothing more to add than what has already been said. ;)
This is it in a nutshell:Quote:
Originally posted by Dr Unne
This is no different than the last 30 years or so. --Garland
^3000
I don't understand at all what they're even fighting over in Israel. Terrible things happen when you mix ignorance, religion, government and guns.
Honestly I just can't conceive of living in a place like that. The closest I can imagine in the US is a stereotypical KKK member or something; ignorance + irrational hate + a willingness to do violence + a smattering of pseudo-morality and religion. Trying to imagine an entire country full of people like that fighting another entire country of people like that hurts my brain.
Arabs: Stop stealing our land or we will punch you
Jews: We're claiming your land because you're anti-semetic
The land, and whose right it is to live on it. Religion plays little role, and racism\ignorance\ have no role what-so-ever.Quote:
I don't understand at all what they're even fighting over in Israel.
Yassin was an arch-terrorist, a leader of the Hamas organization. He had it coming for a looong time now...
More like:Quote:
This is it in a nutshell:
Arabs: Stop stealing our land or we will punch you
Jews: We're claiming your land because you're anti-semetic
Jews : We want to live in Israel.
Arabs : We don't want you to live here.
Yes, sure, but you kind of...have to look at the consequences of your actions. Is revenge against this man worth the violence and opression that is bound to arise now? And now Sharon talks about Arafat...Quote:
Yassin was an arch-terrorist, a leader of the Hamas organization. He had it coming for a looong time now...
And then he says he wants peace, but he's just as bad as Yassin. Or maybe worse, at least Yassin didn't claim he wanted peace when he did all those attacks.
I am going to throw a party once Sharon gets blown up, he also deserves it since he's an arch-terrorist
( :eep: )
Prepare to defend that point of view.
This is a most touchy subject, especially to those directly involved or living in the area. I think sometimes it gets very hard to be objective about it. Americans suffer the same problem when looking back at 9/11. Sometimes, we're not always the good guys or the bad guys, but just people who quarrel and make stupid decisions. In the end, we will have to learn to live together, or else, we're all going to die together.
Take care all.
I'm pretty sure this violence was bound to happen, either way. It's like saying that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the sole cause of WWI.Quote:
Originally posted by Shadow Nexus
Yes, sure, but you kind of...have to look at the consequences of your actions. Is revenge against this man worth the violence and opression that is bound to arise now? And now Sharon talks about Arafat...
If you ask me, we oughta just sit back and watch these two countries that can't see past their own differences duke it out. Sure, we'll provide humanitarian aid when need be, and put the foot down when they step out of bounds. But for the most part it'll be like locking two violent, hyperactive children in the same room.
If we're going to act as the audience and pit them in a fair fight, we sort of owe the palestinians a couple of hundred billion dollarsQuote:
Originally posted by DocFrance
I'm pretty sure this violence was bound to happen, either way. It's like saying that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the sole cause of WWI.
If you ask me, we oughta just sit back and watch these two countries that can't see past their own differences duke it out. Sure, we'll provide humanitarian aid when need be, and put the foot down when they step out of bounds. But for the most part it'll be like locking two violent, hyperactive children in the same room.
Who said anything about a fair fight? I'm suggesting we just leave them as be. Let whatever deity they believe in sort them out.
Um...sometimes I wonder if the correct thing would be to just let them sort it out themselves, but it seems like none of the sides wants to end the bloodshed.
...
Hey!!! I HAVE AN IDEA!!! LET'S HAVE A SISSY GIRL SING A SONG AND EVERYONE WILL WANT PEACE!!!
What? It worked on Final Fantasy X-2, IT HAS TO WORK HERE!!!
Let's have a petition online to have Celine Dion sing a corny love song in Betlem.
That's a great idea, Celine Dione and the Peace in Middle-east with one strike! They'll never know what hit us.
That would probably only make things worse - they'd argue over who gets to capture her and execute her.Quote:
Originally posted by Shadow Nexus
Let's have a petition online to have Celine Dion sing a corny love song in Betlem.
I don't really get how people can compare between legitimate leaders, who chosen by the people through democratic means (Bush, Sharon...) to murderous terrorists.
The fact that you're a legitimate leader does not make your actions immune against criticism.
Your president is known as the "Bulldozer". Do you understand that less people are sympthathetic towards Israel and the United States than towards the Palestinians?Quote:
Originally posted by War Angel
I don't really get how people can compare between legitimate leaders, who chosen by the people through democratic means (Bush, Sharon...) to murderous terrorists.
If I had the choice, I'd remove all the civilians from the country and just nuke Israel to the ground and move all the Israeli's to New Zealand, but that's just my opinion. Not because I'm omg nazi anti-semetic, but because I disagree with practically everything the two countries do for each other.
If it's okay for Israel to assassinate wheelcheer people, then I throw my full support behind any person who wants to blow up your president
...and this is exactly why the cycle of violence will continue. Some people just can't get by without getting revenge. Israel rolls in with a few tanks... Palestinian terrorists blow up a few busses... Israel assassinates a terrorist leader... Palestinians swear to avenge him... lather, rinse, and repeat.Quote:
Originally posted by Moxie
If it's okay for Israel to assassinate wheelcheer people, then I throw my full support behind any person who wants to blow up your president
No one's hands are clean of this issue. Regardless of who started it, both sides kill now. Be it for defense or in retaliation, people stay die every day. Soon, they'll be no one left on either side because they'll all have killed each other and really, what would this have accomplished?
I'm not nitpicking one side or blaming one side for what's happened, but I truly think it's time for someone to be the bigger and stop the cycle. If you stop, but the other side continues, I believe other countries will finally get involved. However, until one side actually refrains from killing each other for longer than say a weekend, this will not end.
Take care all.
Israel's president is Moshe Katsav, a sweet man who has done nothing wrong to anyone (actually, he doesn't do much of anything). Please get your info right - Ariel Sharon is Israel's elected prime-minister (head of the goverment) since 2000. And, I suppose that by 'Bulldozer', you are reffering to Sharon's weight problem... well, whatever.Quote:
Your president is known as the "Bulldozer".
Of-course I do. Arabs still haven't done much to be worthy of Europe's hatred (and indeed, the rest of the world except the USA), while Jews have been a pain in Europe's ar$e for centuries now. 'Hey, the Holocaust didn't quite work out... and now they have a state. Whatever, let's see what we can do from here. 'Quote:
Do you understand that less people are sympthathetic towards Israel and the United States than towards the Palestinians?
I think that saying a mob of 4 million or so Arabs with no real leadership, goal or purpose could take on a nation that has existed for thousands of years, and now has one of the strongest and most trained armies in the world is a bit... un-realistic. If this struggle ever turns from a miniature armed struggle into a total war (and let's hope for the Palis it doesn't), I think it's pretty clear which side will have the upper hand. Indeed, the Palestinian Arabs draw all of their might, from the simple fact Israel does not wish to fight them, only hold them off.Quote:
Soon, they'll be no one left on either side because they'll all have killed each other and really, what would this have accomplished?
Yay, more countries in the mess. Like we don't have the whole friggin' world in here anyway... Look, no-one really gives a fook. No-one really likes Arabs, and we all know what the world did to the Jews... so, yay, now they are fighting each-other. Why stop 'em?Quote:
If you stop, but the other side continues, I believe other countries will finally get involved.
It's about time someone blew that murderous bastard's brains out. Sheik Yassin founded the Hamas and is responsible for more murders than anyone could count. I just hope they get his successor, as well.
As usual, the Hamas responded by paying a 12-year old handicapped child to blow himself up. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for the so-called "palestinian struggle' anymore. Germany also had to give up territory after having started and lost a war. Does that give us Germans the right to blow up Jewish schoolbuses? It's the same thing there. The palestinians were offered their own country, and refused it. The Hamas wants to kill all the Jews. How are the Jews supposed to negotiate with them?
Where does the Holocaust enter into it?
The Hamas has exactly the same goal as the Nazi party: kill all Jews. The Gaza-strip and the Westbank were occupied after a failed invasion of Israel by several Arabic countries at once. It's pretty much the same deal as with the territories Germany had to give to Poland, Russia and France after WWII.
No western country would negotiate with terrorists, but they are always outraged when Israel doesn't. Now the UN wants to condemn Israel for killing that monster. I think War Angel is right about Europe being all too prepared to forgive the Arabs anything, and to blame Israel for anything.
The general feeling I get in Europe is definitely not that people blame Israel for "anything". It's more of a feeling of 30% dejection (basically "what can we do, they're like children in a sandbox") due to the constant violence, and 70% of caring about the issue. (Many want the U.N. to go in but no-one thinks it's possible because of the U.S, for example.) Saying that europeans blame jews for everything and forgive arabs for anything is truly a very naïve and simplified way of seeing things. Of course the reactions will be much more complex than that when it comes to a conflict like this one. In every part of the world, there will be people who think that the palestinians are right and those who think that the jews living there are right.
All right, I meant mainly what the European media say. I can only judge what the actual people say here in Holland, where the majority seems to blame the Jews for the entire Middle East problem as well as for terrorism itself. It's like this: Palestinians blow up a bunch of children. Someone from Holland goes over and pats Arafat on the back, and explains how blowing up children is a logical consequence of the Israeli politics, and how it's ever so understandable that the Palestinians would take it out on children.
I LIKE THE WAY YOU TRY TO USE THE HOLOCAUST TO JUSTIFY SOMETHIEN TOTALLY UNREALTED LOLOLOLOQuote:
Originally posted by War Angel
'Hey, the Holocaust didn't quite work out... and now they have a state. Whatever, let's see what we can do from here. '
Okay, admittedly, the Jews have been pretty shabbily treated since forever, but that's still no justification for Israel's actions.
You don't need a justification for self defence. The Hamas wants to make the Jews extinct. How is that totally unrelated to Hitler wanting to make the Jews extinct?
If the US had assassinated Osama bin Laden after 9/11, would you complain?
No? They invaded Spain in 711 and build HORRIBLE buildings like Alhambra, Giralda or the mosquette of Cordoba, founding HORRIBLE cities like Sevilla...woah, they are undoubtely a bunch of barbarians without culture.Quote:
Of-course I do. Arabs still haven't done much to be worthy of Europe's hatred
Easy, you just need to grab the legitimate leaders chosen by the people and compare their murderous actions to those of murderous terrorists.Quote:
I don't really get how people can compare between legitimate leaders, who chosen by the people through democratic means (Bush, Sharon...) to murderous terrorists.
Oh, Hitler also won the elections. He can still be compared to terrorists. Or not, he was much worse.
So how do you compare Sharon's actions (killing murderers who threaten the existence of all the people who voted for him) to Yassin's action (killing women and children who never did squat to him)?
I hope you're not drawing comparisons between the relationship between the US and bin Laden and the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians. Just because Israel's terrorism is condoned by their government doesn't mean that it's okay and above retaliation. Picking favorites between two groups of terrorists doesn't make sense; both sides have hands bathed in blood.Quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis the Warlock
If the US had assassinated Osama bin Laden after 9/11, would you complain?
That is all very well, except the facts are different. I might be biased because I'm the only gentile participant of this thread who's been to Israel. But it's a difference whether you have the blood of murdering Fellaheen on your hands, or innocent civilians. In my experience, the Israelis target terrorists, the Arabs civilians. And the Israelis don't trick handicapped 12-year olds into fighting for them. How is the Hamas killing innocent Israelis different from Osama killing innocent Americans?
Oh, I think hatred towards Jews and Israel has a lot to do with the Holocaust. So, today, it's not very politically correct to slander Jews - so you take shots at their country, Israel, saying it's 'legitimate criticism'. This 'criticism' has grown into monstrous proportions, questioning the very right of Israel for existence. Needless to say, without the Jewish state, there is little hope for the survival of Jews anywhere on the globe.Quote:
I LIKE THE WAY YOU TRY TO USE THE HOLOCAUST TO JUSTIFY SOMETHIEN TOTALLY UNREALTED LOLOLOLO
Nemesis the Warlock - thanks for sticking up to me and Israel. I think that's a first here, and one of few anywhere on the web.
Looking at the practical side, ethics and morals aside, I don't understand what's so difficult about placing a sniper on a roof and take Yassin out. Instead, rockets were used, and of course other people were killed, and that's how it's been with many of these rocket attacks. I think that there would be less of an uproar if the israeli forces used less brute force and more precision. Just a theory.
(And War Angel, please don't be offended, but all criticism directed towards the state of Israel is not anti-semitism in disguise. Seriously, that's just being paranoid.)
Killing innocents is killing innocents, period. What I'm saying is that as a whole, Israel has done worse to Palestinians than the US has to bin Laden.Quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis the Warlock
How is the Hamas killing innocent Israelis different from Osama killing innocent Americans?
That kind of comparison reminds me of the Saddam = Hitler argument, which is also bogus. It's not black and white. Saying that one totally different group of people/individual is exactly like another is a total over-simplification. There are 40,000 shades of grey in between the two extremes.
We're all far too close to our emotions to give a real justified opinion.
Neither side can claim to be more honorable than the other if the killing doesn't stop, plain and simple. I'm not defending either side anymore. This whole issue is getting just plain out of hand and needs to be stopped.
Take care all.
Why should Israel risk the life of that sniper?Quote:
Looking at the practical side, ethics and morals aside, I don't understand what's so difficult about placing a sniper on a roof and take Yassin out.
The sources are. I don't here much of the same criticism against Palestinians by anyone other than Jews and Israelis.Quote:
And War Angel, please don't be offended, but all criticism directed towards the state of Israel is not anti-semitism in disguise. Seriously, that's just being paranoid.)
Yes, mainly because along with those murderers, he kills innocents. Because you know, most murderers don't need to be killed, since they already are dead after the murder, because they are kamikazes. But then Sharon comes and bombs the house of the family. Or the "colateral damage" with each attack. Sorry, but that is murder.Quote:
So how do you compare Sharon's actions (killing murderers who threaten the existence of all the people who voted for him) to Yassin's action (killing women and children who never did squat to him)?
Or are you denying that innocents die in Palestine?
They both suck. Happy with that? Because yes, I think Yassin was an asshole, but you know...I don't think that killing is going to bring peace, and I guess everyone agrees with me in that...Quote:
The sources are. I don't here much of the same criticism against Palestinians by anyone other than Jews and Israelis.
That's the problem with "political correctness" these days. If you have a different opinion to someone from Israel, then that's irrefutable proof that you're a raving anti-Semite:rolleyes2
There's no justification for the despicalbe terrorist acts committed against the Israeli citizenry, and there never will be either. However, the Palestinian people do have legitimate grievances. Since the late '40s, they've been forced out of their lands progressively, losing homes and liberties to a nation that still hasn't defined its own borders. When terrorists attack Israel, everyone suffers - the innocent population of Israel, and the Palestinians killed or displaced by Israel's retaliatory onslaught.
However, some people simply can't see that terrorist groups like Hamas are not the entirety of the Palesinian people. "Hey, they're terrorists, let's annex and occupy their territories because they're evil". It doesn't work that way. Hamas' desire to annihilate Israel doesn't infect the entire Palestinian people; likewise, you can't blame every Israeli because of the few who said (for instance) that Israel is the rightful owner of all lands up to and beyond Damascus, or that there is no Palestinian people and therefore it's not genocide if they all die or get displaced.
I recall that, not long after the re-founding of Israel in the '40s, British soldiers in Palestine had quite a bit of trouble from Israeli "terrorists". They ultimately withdrew to leave the region to its own devices, but what would've happened if they'd responded in Israel's current manner?[q=War Angel]Jews have been a pain in Europe's ar$e for centuries now. 'Hey, the Holocaust didn't quite work out... and now they have a state. Whatever, let's see what we can do from here. '[/q]Uh, actually the world went out of its way to help out the Jewish people following the second world war. Hundreds of thousands of refugees were taken in all around the world; the international community banded together and gave the survivors their very own nation. It seems a little bit short-sighted to accuse the world of apathy. Israel has been using the Holocaust to justify its own terrible treatment of its neighbours at times - "we're the real victimes here".
A journalist asked a very interesting question recently... supppose that the international community had decided to put the new Israel inside Britian of the USA. I don't think either of those countries would've tolerated being forced to give up land and make way for a new country within their borders...
You recall correctly, I've read several articles refering to that, all from actual nespapers of the time (I love old newspapers).Quote:
I recall that, not long after the re-founding of Israel in the '40s, British soldiers in Palestine had quite a bit of trouble from Israeli "terrorists".
It was really long ago, but it's kind of ironic they were the terrorists at first. I should take a look at those articles again sometime...
"That's the problem with "political correctness" these days. If you have a different opinion to someone from Israel, then that's irrefutable proof that you're a raving anti-Semite "
Sadly, the same seems to be holding true if you are against American politics, you're suddenly anti-democracy, or worse if you actually live here: you're a traitor. I love it when utter lunacy replaces rational thought..
Death only leads to death, regardless of justification. One can claim it is only to perserve their own race, but at the expense of another?
I hope for a time when we can all live in peace, and learn from one another, not attempt to blow each other apart.
Take care all.
From my experience, people who think others are calling them "traitors" are just overreacting in the face of criticism. After all, it is easier for someone to whine that he's being oppressed by a fascist society than to back up his argument.Quote:
Originally posted by The Captain
Sadly, the same seems to be holding true if you are against American politics, you're suddenly anti-democracy, or worse if you actually live here: you're a traitor. I love it when utter lunacy replaces rational thought..
It's actually happened to me on more than one occation however, which can make the blood boil. I attended an anti-Iraq war rally and had stones and all sorts of insults thrown at me, which isn't always that pleasant.
It works both ways, people who throw out the word "Traitor" use it too flippantly as well in this day and age. We're not Benedict Arnolds here, we're just people who don't share a common point of view.
Take care all.
It makes my blood boil too. I gave up most of my personal freedom to protect the freedom of others, and I'll probably end up putting my life on the line for that very reason some time in the future. I don't like to see other people being called 'traitors' just for voicing their opinions.
The people throwing stones at you and such were probably just extremist right-wing loonies. Everyone has the right to free speech. Of course, I also think that the anti-war lot are a bunch of extremist left-wing loonies, so there you have it.
Just remember that freedom of speech doesn't make you immune to criticism. They have every right in the world to call you a traitor. Throwing rocks... is a different matter.
Only against British military targets, which makes them guerilla combatants, not terrorists. There were obscure organizations which also held attacks on Arab population, but they were outcast lunatics, and their name rings dread now-a-days. They were never celebrated as heroes like the Palestinians do to their 'martyrs'.Quote:
It was really long ago, but it's kind of ironic they were the terrorists at first.
Such is the duty of a soldier in a democratic nation. You fight, so that others won't even know what fighting is. You protect them, their blissful ignorance, and you should treat every insult hurled at you, and every anti-war rally as your ultimate success as a military man.Quote:
I gave up most of my personal freedom to protect the freedom of others, and I'll probably end up putting my life on the line for that very reason some time in the future.
There are extremists on all sides, as the Israel-Palestine situation clearly shows.
[q=War Angel]Only against British military targets, which makes them guerilla combatants, not terrorists.[/q] A terrorist is a terrorist, I thought there was no middle-ground. "Freedom fighter", "guerilla", "terrorist"... it all depends on one's opinion. Most of the Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan were detained as terrorists, even though they were captured while fighting against the soliders of the US and others.
Since when did military lives matter less than anyone else's? Those British soliders were there to protect peace, but terrorists attempted to murder them for that very reason. Saying that they were "only" military is like saying that Al Qaeda's attack on the Pentagon was less serious because it's "only" a military target.
Israeli terrorism is by no means a relic of the past, either. Yitsak Rabin was murdered by one of his countrymen when peace started looming too close, running the risk of ending several generations of hatred and bloodshed.
oh i didn't realise the king david hotel was a military base and it's 76 guests were all soldiers, my mistakeQuote:
Only against British military targets, which makes them guerilla combatants, not terrorists
Sharon takes bribes, Yassin is a spirital leader, thus his title "Sheik"Quote:
Originally posted by Nemesis the Warlock
So how do you compare Sharon's actions (killing murderers who threaten the existence of all the people who voted for him) to Yassin's action (killing women and children who never did squat to him)?
Guerilla warfare is a legitimate act of war against an occupying foreign\domestic military force, where the ones opposing the military force are not soldiers themselves. It is not terrorism. Terrorism is the attack on civilians, for the purpose of achieving political, personal or whatever ends.Quote:
A terrorist is a terrorist, I thought there was no middle-ground. "Freedom fighter", "guerilla", "terrorist"... it all depends on one's opinion.
A soldier is armed, trained, and is ready to kill or be killed. That's the difference between him and a 9 year-old kid, for example.Quote:
Since when did military lives matter less than anyone else's?
Like I said, there were terrorist organizations amidst the Jewish society prior to the Jewish state in 1948. Also, this attack on King David hotel (where a lot of Jews died too, mind you) brought an end to the organization which commited it (Etsel, if I am not mistaken), and anyone who had any part in this was not seen again. If this had happened today with the Arabs, they'd probably be celebrating the event, instead of casting out those who did it.Quote:
oh i didn't realise the king david hotel was a military base and it's 76 guests were all soldiers, my mistake
Yassin had no official religious authority. And 'spiritual leader' my shoe - the man was behind many, many actions. He was a cunning man, as Israel tried to finish him off a few times before, but failed.Quote:
Sharon takes bribes, Yassin is a spirital leader, thus his title "Sheik"
There's a huge difference between a terrorist and a guerilla. A guerilla only target military assets and personnel. This isn't terrorism, because the military is used to attack and defend. A terrorist *specifically* targets the civillian population, who are not meant to defend themselves against a foreign or domestic threat, in hopes of inspiring panic and unrest. If on 9/11, Al Qaeda had only attacked the Pentagon, and not used a plane full of civillians, they would not be deemed terrorists, because they would have only attacked military targets.
Well, in fairness, everyone would have probably called them terrorists anyways. :)
There are many civilians working in the Pentagon.Quote:
If on 9/11, Al Qaeda had only attacked the Pentagon, and not used a plane full of civillians, they would not be deemed terrorists, because they would have only attacked military targets.
True, but their target would have been a military one. Civillian casualties would have been collateral damage, as long as those civillians weren't their primary target.Quote:
Originally posted by War Angel
There are many civilians working in the Pentagon.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to get across is that a terrorist is someone who's primary target is the civillian population.
Agreed... but sometimes it's hard to argue what the target was.Quote:
True, but their target would have been a military one. Civillian casualties would have been collateral damage, as long as those civillians weren't their primary target.
Very true. Although, in cases such as the Oklahoma City Federal building, the WTC, or buses in Israel, it's pretty clear that they're attacking civillians.
*snip* No need to be rude. ~ LeezaQuote:
Of course, I also think that the anti-war lot are a bunch of extremist left-wing loonies, so there you have it.
I know many right winged people against war, does that make them extremist left-wing lunatics? I feel really great being a extremist left wing loonie, it's like...vomiting over anyone who dosen't agree with Marxist dogmas, stabbing the eyes of anyone who votes a conservative party, threatening ot death CEOs of companies...blame Bush, had he not started the war and I'd be...dunno....a pedantic philosophy student.
*points at title*
I feel alive again.
I think it's safe to say that the whole world is full of extremists. Either right or left, we're all a little loony, but isn't it great we can discuss our differences?
In this day and age, nearly every opinion, unless it's bland and completely devoid of any personal bias, is extreme.
Take care all.
What do you understand by "extreme"?
The left thinks everything must be horribly Politically correct, while the right thinks that anyone against them is wrong, thus we all seem to have extreme opinions in the eyes of others.
Take care all.
Nobody sees themselves as an extremist - they see everyone else. In other words, your right hand is pretty far away from your left hand.
Pretty much. There's really too much partisan bickering in America and abroad for that matter too. Neither side is "evil", they just have different views. So, the right brands the left "extreme" and vice versa, while neither can claim that they really know any better.
Take care all.
Define "extreme". Seriously. Something is saying "extreme left" as in meaning "anarchist or communist, not social-democrat", and something else is saying extreme as in "dogmatic and violent".Quote:
Originally posted by DocFrance
Nobody sees themselves as an extremist - they see everyone else. In other words, your right hand is pretty far away from your left hand.
I wasn't being rude, I was being scatologic. I hope that word exists in English.Quote:
*snip* No need to be rude. ~ Leeza
Scatology is usually considered 'rude' in English:p ~ Big D
In this day and age, extreme can mean anything to anyone. If you have a slightly different opinion that another, you could declare they are extreme. The word has really been overused and lost all its meaning to me.
Take care all.
O_oQuote:
Scatology is usually considered 'rude' in English ~ Big D
In Spanish it is considered the polite word for "something gross involving excrements".
OOC: Yes, that's exactly what it means in English, too... but it's awfully rude to be scatological, especially about someone else.
Oh, I thought you refer the word "scatology" was rude. Yeah, well, it's rude to be scatological here too, but hey...at least I wasn't refering to someone else >_>
Great. Now this thread has EVOLVED into a discussion about... well, $hit. :P
Sort of to make a point, in a recent book released by Sean Hannity, the subtitle said, and I quote: "Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and liberalism". Seems an extreme opinion eh? It exists everywhere, because the two sides, at least in America, have become so far apart, that they seem to be viewing the other as terrible war criminals who should all be exiled or worse.
Take care all.
What a strange book, you can use it as toi....
*gets a brick thrown at his head*
OK, OK, I'll quit flooding.
I do believe, that if you changed "liberalism" to "conservatism" in that title, you'd be branded in league with terrorists.
Take care all.
Why do you keep saying things like that? Are you just mocking, or do you honestly think that you'll be branded as a terrorist for expressing "different" ideas? It makes me sad that someone in my country would even think that for a second.Quote:
Originally posted by The Captain
I do believe, that if you changed "liberalism" to "conservatism" in that title, you'd be branded in league with terrorists.
It's perhaps an exaggeration (however I don't live in the US so I'm not fit to judge accurately), but not too much of one. It's consistent with the idea that "if you're not with us you're with the terrorists", and it's reminiscent of the communist witch-hunts of the '50s.
I say it because it's true, sadly. I've sat in on New York State Senate meetings, and it's very gritty. Democrats and Republicans not even talking about issues, just yelling and name calling. Plus, just look at the title of that book: "Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism". It's not exaggeration, sadly, tis fact. Is it just lumped there for no reason? That's a REAL belief. That book is a best seller too, so unless people are buying it to burn it, they must have some sort of agreement with what the book represents.
Take care all.
I see... so liberals are considered to be a similar class of enemy as terrorists and despots by that book? That's horrific, really. Still, who or what is Sam Hannity? I'm hoping he's an ultra-conservative or 'extremist' rather than a mainstream politician or commentator.
That's not necessarily true. I'm an atheist, yet I've read the Bible. "Know thy enemy."Quote:
Originally posted by The Captain
I say it because it's true, sadly. I've sat in on New York State Senate meetings, and it's very gritty. Democrats and Republicans not even talking about issues, just yelling and name calling. Plus, just look at the title of that book: "Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism". It's not exaggeration, sadly, tis fact. Is it just lumped there for no reason? That's a REAL belief. That book is a best seller too, so unless people are buying it to burn it, they must have some sort of agreement with what the book represents.
Also, people like to read controversial things.
It's one thing if some people accuses you of being a terrorist. Those people are extremists, and are misinformed in their opinions. However, I can guarantee that you would never be branded as a terrorist by the US government just for expressing liberal views. We learned a lot from the McCarthy era.
I hope you're right DocFrance. I Love America as much as the next, and I feel I have a right to my opinion, as does everyone else. Freedom of speech shouldn't be muzzled based upon a political affiliation.
"I see... so liberals are considered to be a similar class of enemy as terrorists and despots by that book? That's horrific, really. Still, who or what is Sam Hannity? I'm hoping he's an ultra-conservative or 'extremist' rather than a mainstream politician or commentator."
Sadly, Sean Hannity is an extreme Republican, who IS mainstream. He has a weekly TV spot on Foxnews, and has been writing books that seem to say that Liberals are funding terrorist groups to bring down America..
I suppose some people share that opinion, or as Doc said, enjoy controversial. Frankly, that opinion scares me.
Take care all.
Oh, we have "people" like that in Spain too. Every morining I enjoy the episcopal radio, with that poor little soul, Federico Jiménez Losantos, speaking. It's actually scary many people agree with him, because he exposes the most fascist opinions ever, talks about illegalziing parties. Yesterday he nearly recived a letter with a bomb in it (I was intercepted). Of course, I'd never aproove such an action, not even against that poor excuse for a human being, that hate demiurge, that fundamentalist neo-fascist, that combative and manipulative ultra neoliberalist, that...well, Losantos, but truth is that when I listened to him in the radio I found he is even worse than what I thought. The first thing he did was to blame the anti-war protesters because "they were the ones who had taken the terrorist to send the letter". Argh! And in his web site he left this long contradictory and victimist article, blaming- of course- all the people who radically oposed the party that governed before the elections last month. Thats it, just keep demonizing!
Of course, I can't aproove such an attack, I find it horrible....
...but I wouldn't mind a cow falling from a skycraper on top of him. I'd feel sorry for the cow, cause it would have to touch him. Ergh.
:rolleyes2
Best typo ever?Quote:
Yesterday he nearly recived a letter with a bomb in it (I was intercepted).
Fundamentalism, or extremism, of any kind can potentially be dangerous. Ultra-conservatism, ultra-liberalism, radical Christianity, radical Islam... any time a belief gets taken to a extreme, people become prepared to die - or kill - to uphold that extreme view.
Of course, simply having an extreme view isn't inerently harmful; but if that view gains a lot of support, and those supporters are prepared to back words with actions, then the rest of the population are in trouble.
Yeah, I haven't sent him a bomb...Quote:
Originally posted by Big D Best typo ever?
...yet.
(Sarcasm, obviously!)
Well, if one does get through, we'll be able to round up the usual suspects...
I always believed the best road in politics was fair and balanced, until I realized that's nearly impossible to achieve.
Take care all.
Don't think so. Here in this country we have balance. For example:Quote:
Originally posted by The Captain I always believed the best road in politics was fair and balanced, until I realized that's nearly impossible to achieve.
Apartment prices in Spain have nearly doubled in the last 4 years, due to inmobiliary speculation.
Solution? Buy a house, get ripped, buy another one, speculate, sell it, rip the other person, the other person does the same, repeat again. Everyone stals from everyone, so we are all happy. :D
That until a poor miserable like me wants to leave his mother's house. I'll probably build a hut in Samoa, or something, at least I bet there they don't have imbecile presitents dragging the people to illegal wars.
Quote:
Originally posted by Big D
[...] ultra-liberalism, [...
On a side-note, anyone, anything about extreme liberalism leading to manslaughter and burning stuff, like people?
I don't know. Economical liberalism? It leads to children to work in 14 hour long days, making Nike shoes for us to buy at excessive prices. Why?Quote:
On a side-note, anyone, anything about extreme liberalism leading to manslaughter and burning stuff, like people?
Political liberalism? I don't know, has someone really tried? For me, ultra political liberalism would mean no political goverment. You know I'm all for it, but I wonder if it would actually work.
Communist Russia. Stalin killed millions of his own people in the 1930's.Quote:
Originally posted by Nait
On a side-note, anyone, anything about extreme liberalism leading to manslaughter and burning stuff, like people?
Err... Stalinism is like, the opposite of liberlism. So is Communism.Quote:
Communist Russia. Stalin killed millions of his own people in the 1930's.
Uh....War Angel...Marx wrote his theory trying to make social liberalism theorized. Communism is liberalist. However, not how it has been done so far. Read the Communist Manifesto and The Capital (Or a part of it, it's very long) before critizizing.Quote:
So is Communism
PS: I'm not a communist. Not 100%.
Although Stalinism was the polar opposite of communism, it was the direct result of communism in Russia.
Communism in Russia?
I recommend you to read "Socialism or barbarism?" by Cornelius Castoriadis, where he analyzes how much Lenin screwed up in the installation of communism, allowing some things to continue in the fear to loose power.
I think the closest we have gotten to real communism is with Fidel Castro, someone I consider rather intelligent and very good at administration, yet on the other hand you've got the repression of freedom of expression and such. Of course, I'm not sure to say he is a good leader, and he has done many good things, but he also screwed up many times too. For example, those executions last year, the repression previously mentioned, or the tortures and violation of human rights he is suspected to have commited. And I say suspected, because he denies it, yet some NGOs- curiosuly directed from Miami by people who exiled Cuba, supported with economical support from the US goverment- say he has. Which should I believe? Both have the same credibility, really, and thats....very little. Also, why does he stay for so long in power? I believe he just likes power, but maybe a little change would help Cuba, I believe, since for me a lot of power tends to lead to corruption (Tends to dosen't mean it always does, but don't make me think of a case where it hasn't...). Also, hoe can he waste money in those two private jets he just bought? Kind of annoying, I believe, yet I admit that in matters of education and sanitation he has achieved some great advances, something loable from any perspective. I also admire his electoral system, theorically much more close to democracy than ours, and yet I actually wonder if he actually takes in mind the decisions of the parliment or how much does manipulation move into those votes (Manipulation occurs in democratic goverments, wouldn't surprised me it happened in Cuba too, specially taking in account the press repression I have heard happens there, yet without any evidence, but preety believable).
In the end I cannot say I like him much, but I do prefer him over some others, and well, he is certainly better than Batista, that no one can deny. But well, as far as I know, it's the closest thing to the dictatorship of the proletariat. He's an example to follow in terms of some reforms he has done, but certainly he's very far away from the ideal leader I believe in, that if there was a need for any leader at all, but thats a whole other topic.
Communism is the farthest thing from liberalism, short of Nazism and Facism maybe. Liberalism is about the freedom of a person to do all he wants (almost anarchy) and pursue his dreams, while Communis limits the indvidual incredibly, and doesn't lethim do... well, nothing basically. Since money is the key to most things, a person cannot hope to become greater, wealthier, healthier, etc. He will remain as he is, where the goverment makes all the decisions for him. That's the anti-thesis for Liberalism.
Stalin as a liberal? Eh... I think I'll just... Pass on this one.
EDIT:
Ah, now I get it, it's the American terminology where libruls = leftists.
If we're talking liberalism in 2004 in America, the two are comparable at a very basic level. One of the main functions of communism was to regulate wealth and distrtibute it as seen fit. Liberalism, if taken to an absolute extreme, follows that path because concepts of wealth redistribution are some main points of liberalism. Aside from that, they're polar opposites, but it's a common thing for high school dropouts turned pseudo-intellectual like Sean Hannity to cash in on such a tiny similarity and use tremendous amounts of sensationalism to make the two seem equal. Name-calling, demonization, sensationalism all of these are weapons of Hannity, Limbaugh, or any other Neanderthal Republican political commentator to make liberalism resemble communism. But still, taken to a very far extreme, liberalism shares economic standards with communism.Quote:
Originally posted by War Angel
Communism is the farthest thing from liberalism, short of Nazism and Facism maybe. Liberalism is about the freedom of a person to do all he wants (almost anarchy) and pursue his dreams...
And all the other focal points of communism - political oppression, one party leadership, silence of the oppostion, political imprisonment - these are all conservatism at its worst. John Ashcroft, anyone?
You have not read Marx, have you?Quote:
Originally posted by War Angel
Communism is the farthest thing from liberalism, short of Nazism and Facism maybe. Liberalism is about the freedom of a person to do all he wants (almost anarchy) and pursue his dreams, while Communis limits the indvidual incredibly, and doesn't lethim do... well, nothing basically. Since money is the key to most things, a person cannot hope to become greater, wealthier, healthier, etc. He will remain as he is, where the goverment makes all the decisions for him. That's the anti-thesis for Liberalism.
Actually, economically speaking... liberals are right, communists are left.Quote:
Ah, now I get it, it's the American terminology where libruls = leftists.
I don't need to read Marx's teachings to know the differences between Communism and Liberalism. I have stated those differences - in Communism, the country has control over all of the resources, and destributes them equally between everyone. In Liberalism, no-one is equal, and the country doesn't involve itself in anything. Everyone is free to do what they want, follow their dreams, etc. There is NO regulation. And to know that, I don't need to read Marx.Quote:
You have not read Marx, have you?
Yes, you do need to read Marx.
There, three errors. It's not the country, it's the people, thats why it's called dictatorship of the proletariat (Wether such idea is taken into practice by the so called socialist leaders is another thing). It's not equally, it's "to give every person in function of his/her necessities", and people have different necesities.Quote:
in Communism, the country has control over all of the resources, and destributes them equally between everyone
And third, the two points stated above are not for communism, but for socialism ^_^
Communism is the supression of the state as we know it, closer to anarchism. Look at the names of the "communist" countries, you'll see none actually calls itself officially communist, but "socialist".
So yes, you do need to read Marx to know the differences between communism, socialism and liberalism.
So just go to a library and buy the Communist Manifesto so you can know what Marxism is before critizizing. I believe such book is preety short (My edition is 127 pages, and it has a large font) and can give you more or less a simple and brief idea of what communism is. Of course, the true thing is The Capital, but thats like twenty million pages, I have it at home, but I haven't read it completly. And well, not agreening with Marx is not a reason not to read him, I have in my house Hobbe's "Leviathan" and Machiavelli's "The Prince", among many others (I cannot agree with Descartes, Aristotle, Marsilio Ficino or Petrarca, but it's not about politics this time).
Oh, and as I said before, I am not a marixst. My ideas lean very far to the left, but I am very critical on every idea in the left. And Marx did commit a few errors.
Marx's biggest error was that communism just isn't compatible with human nature. Humans are inherently greedy, and communism requires a society that is free of greed. And that was exactly how Stalin came to power - by exploiting the weaknesses in the system in the USSR.
Marx starts to sound more and more like Jesus, every day.
I don't agree with greed being in human nature. I think Marx first error was to make a constructivist theory. From there, the rest of the critique can easily be done, since from that starting point you can determine the rest of the errors.Quote:
Originally posted by DocFrance
Marx's biggest error was that communism just isn't compatible with human nature. Humans are inherently greedy, and communism requires a society that is free of greed. And that was exactly how Stalin came to power - by exploiting the weaknesses in the system in the USSR.
Greed isn't natural for every human, but it's a small step up from 'self interest', a very human quality. If everyone was fair and reasonable, both Communism and Anarchy would work fine. However, the moment one greedy person gains power and ambition, the systems start to unravel.
On another matter... Ariel Sharon has just announced more withdrawls of Israeli military and civilians from disputed regions - the entire Gaza Strip, and four settlements on the West Bank are to be evacuated. A good step forward, I think. He's going to seek US support for the proposal in Washington this week. It'd be good if this helps to get the peace process moving again, but Palestinian leaders say that nothing short of a complete withdrawl from the West Bank will be good enough... hopefully there'll be room for negotiation and compromise, on both sides.
Hopefully, but not likely. I seem to recall hearing almost the exact same thing a year ago, when there was a supposed "peace" that lasted a few days before it fell back into the chaos that is going on as we speak. Still, I'll hold out hope.
Take care all.
Side note, how do I get rid of this "registered user"?
EDIT: Much obliged.
Though some of you are shocked by War Angel saying that criticism of Israel is alot of the time hidden antisemitism, some of you seem to hold Israeli life very cheap, as opposed to palestinian lives. Why shouldnt Israel take out terrorists with a rocket rather than a sniper if it saves a soldier's life. Also why should the fact that we have to kill innocents to get a terrorist, mean that we dont kill him before he gets our innocents.
shadow nexus: actually targeted killing does help because even though the terrorist is killed , the people who planned it live on to plan more. Also communal punishment is a useful deterent and isn't only out of spite.
Please don't revive year-old threads.