Because the UN Security Council is, by and large, a cluster****. A necessary evil.
Why no SC action against Israel's illegal settlements? US veto threat. Why no SC action against Milosevic? Russian veto threat. Why only 3 SC-sponsored wars out of 26 since '48? 15 different nations trying to agree on one real course of action is like herding cats.
Well, you're right trumptman. I mean why even have a multinational organization at all anymore? The US should just force its weight around, enforcing whatever it wants, whenever it wants. All in the name of democracy. *sigh*
Indeed, why have the UN when some people make up their minds before the others even start talking...ahem...vetoes...
Terrorist attacks are going to happen from time to time.
This is an interesting argument, and not without merit. It goes something like this: "9/11 was just part of the cost of living in the modern world. It's a bearable cost, and we're better off absorbing it than trying to prevent it."
I think another way to put it is "If we just ignore them, they'll get bored with killing us. They can't kill us that fast, anyway."
I think the history of al-Qaeda suggests that both are false. They don't get bored, and they get better and better at it. Our options are to withdraw into a shell, afraid to piss anyone off, ever, and the world can go to sod; or to proactively prevent them from hurting us while we remain engaged in the world.
Quote:
Look to Israel for proof!
A great idea. You seem to forget, though, that the intifada started before Sharon took office. Sharon was created by the intifada. He is the evil baby of the intifada. He'd just be another right-wing crank if not for the intifada. Keep that causality in mind. And, keep in mind that Sharon appears to be "winning" the intifada - attacks on Israelis have plummetted in recent months. As a reward, Israel re-relected him with a rock-solid parliamentary majority. Israelis are surely better off now than in the early days of the intifada, and they know it.
Wow. I didn't say they should make it look like we're planting evidence. I said they should try to catch us doing it, because in all likelihoodwe're going to do it.
I don't believe Iraq has WOMD. If they don't, Bush is f%cked. He would never let that happen. I actually wish, with all of my heart, that if evidence is manufactured, I hope we are caught.
Again, whose side are you on? You have no basis for your statement about planting evidence. It is outrageous. And...you don't believe Iraq has any WOMD? WTF? He is already arming his troops with them in th South. I have not even heard the most ardent anti-war protestor say he does not have any WOMD. That's just an unbelievable statement. We know he used to have them because he has admitted it himself. We know he had them in 1998. Are you even serious?
Quote:
They are there? Says who? Colin Powell? OF COURSE FOX NEWS AND BUSH AND POWELL AND "INTELLIGENCE" WILL REPORT WOMD. Idiot.
So now ALL of our leaders are lying? Really? Tony blair is lying? It isn't just one TV netowrk and the President here, tonton. Wow, it is going to be almost sad in a few days when we find what we find.
Quote:
Terrorist attacks are going to happen from time to time. Countries may invade other countries. That's when we react. Not before. We punish AFTER an act is committed. Read Philip K. Dick. He proves why we cannot punish before acts are committed, even when we can predict them reliably.
So we should just accept that they happen? We should only play defense? We should respond after thousands more die? That's unacceptable.It will do a hell of a lot of good when we get nuked...I'm sure sending in a few crusie missles after New York is gone is going to make the relatives of 2,000,000 dead Americans feel better. I refuse to accept that terrorism is forgone conlcusion. I cannot believe you are actually saying that there is a rational for *not* punsihing the future perpertrator of a terroristic act...even when we KNOW it will happen.
Quote:
That is exactly what pisses me off. I live with people's hatred of Americans every day, even in a peaceful place like Hong Kong. The fact that you're all cozy in your little American city, separated from the rest of the world gives you the false belief that diplomacy doesn't matter it does. And lack of diplomacy is going to cast far more American lives and far more innocent lives...
LACK OF DIPLOMACY? My God. WE HAVE HAD DIPLOMACY FOR TWELVE YEARS!!! We passed 17 resolutions. We tried sanctions. Even diplomacy must end. Diplomacy doesn't work with irrational madmen, tonton.
As for your Israel comments, I'm no fan of Sharon. That being said, they really have an impossible situation on their hands. I don't think for a second that it is all Israel's fault.
Quote:
Who are we afraid of? The terrorists. But people are ignorant to the idea of who created those terrorists in the first place.
That's just dumb.
Quote:
f you slap your kid around for being bad he may fight back one day. If you give him patience and understanding, no matter how bad a kid he is, he will be far less likely to murder you in your sleep, and some day, he may realize the example you've shown of the difference between right and wrong.
Slapping a kid around? Well, that's obviously not good. But a good spanking when he deserves it? That's different. As for terrorists, "patience and understanding" will NOT work. They must be hunted and killed. Period.
Quote:
Saddam is a threat. But we are under much greater threat after this action. Can you deny that? Even with Saddam out of the picture, can we ever feel safe again? You might say we never felt safe, but can we claim to feel safer with him gone after we have waged an internationally condemned war without provocation? No we do not feel safer. We will never feel safer again.
I can and DO deny that the threat is greater. I absolutely deny it. The rest of your comment is just utter bullshit. The war has not been "internationally condemned", "unilateral", "unprovoked" or any other favorite Leftisim of yours. We have some 40-60 nations supporting us. We have about 11 sending troops. You obviously have no idea why some nations say what they do. France and Russia have major, major business dealings with Iraq. They also don't want to see us open up the oil taps in Iraq. Russia wishes to become a major player in the international oil market. China resents any US exapansion of power because it is ITSELF eager to gain world influence. And provovation you say? How about firing on our aircraft? How about defying 17 resolutions? How about openly praising 9/11 when almost every other nation on this earth, including Libya, Cuba and Syria expressed sympathy? How about mudering his own people? Should we, as the world's power (and that's a fact whether we or anyone else likes it) just sit back and watch him slaughter people? Should we allow him to violate the cease fire of the original Gulf War.....a war in which he undeniably started? I can't accept that.
And finally, you mention nations that are prosperous yet aren't the target of terror. Well, that's nice for the Swiss! Who do you think provides the Swiss's security militarily? Who do you think would stand up to North Korea if they invaded the South? Who stopped Iraq the first time? Who punshed Libya for bombing a discotech? Answer: The United States of America. We have too. We are the only nation with the resources to do it.
Wrong again. Al Qaeda has had a motive. The US policy toward Israel is unacceptable.
Not true...al-Quaeda was disinterested in the Palestinians prior to 9/11, and they're major attacks in the 90s all occured during a period of relative Israeli-Palestinian peace. And the pro-Palestinian terrorists have occasionally targeted Americans, but have never tried striking in the US - just like the IRA, they knew it would backfire against their cause.
Quote:
I disagree that they are better off. They are scared.
They are scared. But less so than they were a year or 18 months ago, when things really sucked. They have Sharon to thank for that, and they know it. I don't think Israelis are dumb. If they really thought they'd be better off without Sharon, they'd have ditched him.
Quote:
He visited the Temple Mount to provoke an intifada
A major terrorist campaign featuring suicide bombers targeting schoolchildren and shoppers that has killed thousands of people begun purposefully because a man who's not even in any government visits a site holy to his religion. [shakes head sadly]
(Insert Muslim country here) is in a (!unique) position, struggling for the life of every Muslim in (that country) against many nations that hate it.
Um....so, go ahead and insert an actual name of a country here....please find a muslim country that is surrounded by nations that wish to eliminate every single person in said country. You statement above is meaningless. If you can't see the uniqueness of the Israeli situation, you are ignorant beyond belief.
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Muslims hate Israel because they take land, bulldoze houses in peaceful areas with people inside, kill children (more last week) and wage a war that kills civilians. I hate Israel too.
Really? Thanks for the insider tip. I always thought it had to do with all those dirty jews that live there. Isn't that why you hate them too? I mean muslim were slaughtering jews long before there was a modern state of Israel. Again, you statement shows your incredible ignorance. You seem very full of hatred. You really do make the world a better place. nazi
The popular idea is that the war will increase terrorism. To me that is a tenuous idea based on largely irrational fears. ^THEY^ are waiting to get us, all they are waiting for is a trigger! Or even better, ^THEY^ will create more terrorists!
I would answer with 1: THEY don't need a trigger and 2: THEY aren't waiting to erupt into WWIII. Fear-mongers try to make you believe that, but the brown masses aren't animals. They are smart, they know the score.
To me if the war on Iraq brings something onto the US terrorism-wise then that means that someone who was planning on acting against us was just made to act quicker before a more full plan caused more casualties.
It's not like we're going to piss off a few poor guys from Yemen with AKs and that will have any real effect on us. To make a big impact on the US as a terrorist you have to have some kind of funding. Lest we forget that OsamaBinPoophead was/is a richboy who used his personal wealth to attack us. Hussein ElCamel from 347th West Kabul St. in Afghanistan can hate us all he wants but without a big organization there's very little he can do to hurt the US.
I guess if I believed every fear-mongering message out there I'd live in my closet with a tin-foil hat on, sucking my thumb and voting for every klaxon politician trying to tell me I'm going to die very soon.
You can't hide from terrorists. Not everything is the US's fault.
This is an interesting argument, and not without merit. It goes something like this: "9/11 was just part of the cost of living in the modern world. It's a bearable cost, and we're better off absorbing it than trying to prevent it."
Very well put, and EXACTLY what I believe. Did you write that?
So, absorbing attacks is better than preventing attacks? Wow.
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Wrong. That doesn't say the same thing. They won't get bored. They'll keep killing as long as they have a motive.
Well, since Osama stated motives include anyone who is not a believer, I guess you had better get busy converting the rest of the US to radical Islam.
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Wrong again. Al Qaeda has had a motive. The US policy toward Israel is unacceptable. "So they have gotten better at it". Our only option is to set a moral standard that is consistently fair, wise, and not at all based on trade or religious issues. We need to gain compliance through respect, not by invoking fear.
They will attack so longs as there are non-muslims. The US policy towards Israel prevents the complete destruction of Israel. But that would be ok with you, right? The world might be better without all the filthy Jews around, right? You want to gain compliance through respect? All you advocate is appeasement. A weak nation has no respect.
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
I disagree that they are better off. They are scared. And FYI the intifada was started as a result of Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, and it was exactly what he wanted. He visited the Temple Mount to provoke an intifada so he could take the hard line and take power. Everything went as planned. A very smart, but very evil man.
The Temple Mount visit was meant to embarrass Barak over the govenments seeming lack of concern with the destruction of historical and religious artifacts at Temple Mount. It was authorised by the Palestinian Waqf, the authority for the Temple Mount. Arafat used this visit to spark the uprising. But, alway blame the Dirty Jew, right T?
We should attack the British. It is all their fault anyway. Isreal-Palestine. Northern Ireland. India-Pakistan. Iraq. Is there any place in the world that they didn't **** up?
We should attack the British. It is all their fault anyway. Isreal-Palestine. Northern Ireland. India-Pakistan. Iraq. Is there any place in the world that they didn't **** up?
Oh... I see. You mean geographical position. In that case, I would argue that geography has little to do with F-16s firing missiles at houses with families and children inside. And where do you get off claiming that anyone wants every person in Israel dead, much less entire countries. All the Palestinians want is the occupied lands back and a cease to further settlement.
Well, geography is one factor. A PRETTY ****ING IMPORTANT ONE! So, you have never heard the Arab threats to push Israel into the sea? How about the ones to kill every jew in Palestine? Missed that too? What exactly do you think the wars against Israel were for? If you honestly believe they were simply trying to establish a Palestinian state, you are blind. Selective is putting it mildly.
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
You are really crossing the line. I do not hate Jews. I don't even dislike them. I actually think that in general they're nice people.
......Muslims hate Israel because they take land, bulldoze houses in peaceful areas with people inside, kill children (more last week) and wage a war that kills civilians. I hate Israel too.
Well, hate Jews, hate Israel...splitting hairs.
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
I am full of hate. I hate Ariel Sharon. I hate armed conflict in the Middle East. I guess that makes me a Nazi, right?
That you hate Israel and would sacrifice them to countries that hate them to be massacred...yes.
This is not at all what I think. The "they" that I'm scared of are not waiting, or intending to get anyone. The "they" that are waiting will attack, war or not.
If they aren't trying to get anyone why are you scared of them?
Can't you see that by threatening them you're treating them like animals? "They know the score"? That sounds like the exact kind of arrogance that causes terrorism. Are you saying that we should try harder to intimidate them into submission? While this is a valid route, the advantages of such a strategy are far outweighed by the consequences.
We are not threatening everyone in the Middle East. We are threatening Saddam Hussein. And we should absolutely try to intimidate Hussein.
I think you're misrepresenting the policy.
When I say "they know the score" I mean that those in power of the middle eastern nations understand what we're doing, by and large. Of course the populations don't necessarily see what's going on, even a large part of our population doesn't even know.
There's a delicate balance between doing what you feel is right and making sure you please others.
There are countless hateful people that without provocation would die a natural, peaceful death.
Saddam Hussein isn't one of them. That's why we're going after him.
You do? Tell that to Tim McVeigh.
And the poor guys from Yemen that we piss off? They're the ones who will give their $100 life savings to the next Bin Laden and volunteer for the suicide missions.
Tim McVeigh was home-grown, that's not the same type of thing.
They can go blow themselves up on Israeli busses sure but how do they hurt us in the US? The 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. There has been no shortage of anti-US indoctrination there for the last 20 years. I'm talking about terrorists that can hurt the US.
Bin Laden used hatred to attack the US. He didn't need his own money to do it. With enough hatred will come the means.
He absoultely needed money to do everything he has done. How can you say he didn't need money? That's ludicrous!
The US is certainly not making friends here.
Not right now, no. But world opinion is turning in the US's favor from the anti-war fever-pitch of a week ago. 30 nations are openly supporting, 15 more don't want to be named but are supportive.
Absorbing attacks: Worst case scenario- thousands dead.
Preventing attacks: Impossible. Tens of thousands dead.
Absorbing attacks: possibly hundreds of thousands, if you wait till the gain that potential.
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
You can't eliminate or even predict all motives, but it's our responsibility not to give them the obvious ones.
And they will attack so long as there are rainy days. And they will attack because they don't like the color of the flag. And they will attack because they are poor and we are rich. I don't want them to justify attack because we started a war or killed their people or generally did something specific to piss them off. Because once that justification exists, the attacks will spread. A lot.
It's also one's responsibilty to prevent attacks. As you say, they will always have motives...whether you think you gave it to them or not.
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
The complete destruction of Israel? Do you even know what the Palestinians really want?
Better than you it would seem.
Read the PLO charter some day. It has only a single mandate: The destruction of the state of Israel. Once you realize that fact, then you will realize the fight for a Palestinian state is simply a ploy to futher that goal: Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian
identity serves only tactical purposes. The
founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool
in the continuing battle against Israel ...
-- Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Department head
of the PLO and member of its Executive
Council, Dutch daily Trouw, March 1977
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
It was meant to provoke, and it was clear that it would provoke more than Barak's embarrassment. It was clear that it would provoke violence. Arafat was not looking for an excuse. He already had one (illegal settlements and displacement of Palestinian people) Sharon was in desperate search for an excuse to rally the people behind him in his quest for power.
Always blame the jew.
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
I am not anti-Semitic. I do not hate Jews. Although I am not a Jew myself, your accusations couldn't be further from the truth. In any further argument please refrain from making this fallacious and insulting allegation.
Well, when you make statements that you hate Israel, and that the US is wrong in it's policy towards Israel, a policy that prevents the destruction of Israel, it's not a difficult conclusion to make. You can say you don't hate Jews, but it seems a pretty thin veil, given your other statements.
Well, when you make statements that you hate Israel, and that the US is wrong in it's policy towards Israel, a policy that prevents the destruction of Israel, it's not a difficult conclusion to make. You can say you don't hate Jews, but it seems a pretty thin veil, given your other statements.
Thankfully, at least you have stopped prefacing the word 'Jew' with 'Dirty'.
I, and I'm sure many other members of the forum, would appreciate that you refrain from it.
Tulkas, can't you see that I can be against Sharon, against Illegal Jewish settlements. Against violence, even (hypothetically) against the state of Israel as an autonomous entity in Palestine (I know it's not the "holy land" but why couldn't Britain have established it in Wales or something) and still not be anti-Jew?
I suppose you think I'm anti-American because I disagree with Bush. I shudder to think where your loyalties would lie had you lived in Hitler's Germany. You'd be calling people "anti-Germany" before you took a look at your own morals.
If you hate Israel, as you said, and would support policies that would lead to the destruction of Israel, and the elimination of the Jews there, then no, I can't see how you aren't anti-jew.
If you had stated you hated America and supported the destruction of America and the massacre of all Americans, then I would say you were anti-American.
I shudder to think if you had been around during Hitler's reign in Germany. You'd be calling on world govenments to appease Hitler and allow the holocuast to continue...after all, why give Germany a reason to hate you by attacking them as you say.
Comments
Why no SC action against Israel's illegal settlements? US veto threat. Why no SC action against Milosevic? Russian veto threat. Why only 3 SC-sponsored wars out of 26 since '48? 15 different nations trying to agree on one real course of action is like herding cats.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Well, you're right trumptman. I mean why even have a multinational organization at all anymore? The US should just force its weight around, enforcing whatever it wants, whenever it wants. All in the name of democracy. *sigh*
Indeed, why have the UN when some people make up their minds before the others even start talking...ahem...vetoes...
Terrorist attacks are going to happen from time to time.
This is an interesting argument, and not without merit. It goes something like this: "9/11 was just part of the cost of living in the modern world. It's a bearable cost, and we're better off absorbing it than trying to prevent it."
I think another way to put it is "If we just ignore them, they'll get bored with killing us. They can't kill us that fast, anyway."
I think the history of al-Qaeda suggests that both are false. They don't get bored, and they get better and better at it. Our options are to withdraw into a shell, afraid to piss anyone off, ever, and the world can go to sod; or to proactively prevent them from hurting us while we remain engaged in the world.
Look to Israel for proof!
A great idea. You seem to forget, though, that the intifada started before Sharon took office. Sharon was created by the intifada. He is the evil baby of the intifada. He'd just be another right-wing crank if not for the intifada. Keep that causality in mind. And, keep in mind that Sharon appears to be "winning" the intifada - attacks on Israelis have plummetted in recent months. As a reward, Israel re-relected him with a rock-solid parliamentary majority. Israelis are surely better off now than in the early days of the intifada, and they know it.
Wow. I didn't say they should make it look like we're planting evidence. I said they should try to catch us doing it, because in all likelihoodwe're going to do it.
I don't believe Iraq has WOMD. If they don't, Bush is f%cked. He would never let that happen. I actually wish, with all of my heart, that if evidence is manufactured, I hope we are caught.
Again, whose side are you on? You have no basis for your statement about planting evidence. It is outrageous. And...you don't believe Iraq has any WOMD? WTF? He is already arming his troops with them in th South. I have not even heard the most ardent anti-war protestor say he does not have any WOMD. That's just an unbelievable statement. We know he used to have them because he has admitted it himself. We know he had them in 1998. Are you even serious?
They are there? Says who? Colin Powell? OF COURSE FOX NEWS AND BUSH AND POWELL AND "INTELLIGENCE" WILL REPORT WOMD. Idiot.
So now ALL of our leaders are lying? Really? Tony blair is lying? It isn't just one TV netowrk and the President here, tonton. Wow, it is going to be almost sad in a few days when we find what we find.
Terrorist attacks are going to happen from time to time. Countries may invade other countries. That's when we react. Not before. We punish AFTER an act is committed. Read Philip K. Dick. He proves why we cannot punish before acts are committed, even when we can predict them reliably.
So we should just accept that they happen? We should only play defense? We should respond after thousands more die? That's unacceptable.It will do a hell of a lot of good when we get nuked...I'm sure sending in a few crusie missles after New York is gone is going to make the relatives of 2,000,000 dead Americans feel better. I refuse to accept that terrorism is forgone conlcusion. I cannot believe you are actually saying that there is a rational for *not* punsihing the future perpertrator of a terroristic act...even when we KNOW it will happen.
That is exactly what pisses me off. I live with people's hatred of Americans every day, even in a peaceful place like Hong Kong. The fact that you're all cozy in your little American city, separated from the rest of the world gives you the false belief that diplomacy doesn't matter it does. And lack of diplomacy is going to cast far more American lives and far more innocent lives...
LACK OF DIPLOMACY? My God. WE HAVE HAD DIPLOMACY FOR TWELVE YEARS!!! We passed 17 resolutions. We tried sanctions. Even diplomacy must end. Diplomacy doesn't work with irrational madmen, tonton.
As for your Israel comments, I'm no fan of Sharon. That being said, they really have an impossible situation on their hands. I don't think for a second that it is all Israel's fault.
Who are we afraid of? The terrorists. But people are ignorant to the idea of who created those terrorists in the first place.
That's just dumb.
f you slap your kid around for being bad he may fight back one day. If you give him patience and understanding, no matter how bad a kid he is, he will be far less likely to murder you in your sleep, and some day, he may realize the example you've shown of the difference between right and wrong.
Slapping a kid around? Well, that's obviously not good. But a good spanking when he deserves it? That's different. As for terrorists, "patience and understanding" will NOT work. They must be hunted and killed. Period.
Saddam is a threat. But we are under much greater threat after this action. Can you deny that? Even with Saddam out of the picture, can we ever feel safe again? You might say we never felt safe, but can we claim to feel safer with him gone after we have waged an internationally condemned war without provocation? No we do not feel safer. We will never feel safer again.
I can and DO deny that the threat is greater. I absolutely deny it. The rest of your comment is just utter bullshit. The war has not been "internationally condemned", "unilateral", "unprovoked" or any other favorite Leftisim of yours. We have some 40-60 nations supporting us. We have about 11 sending troops. You obviously have no idea why some nations say what they do. France and Russia have major, major business dealings with Iraq. They also don't want to see us open up the oil taps in Iraq. Russia wishes to become a major player in the international oil market. China resents any US exapansion of power because it is ITSELF eager to gain world influence. And provovation you say? How about firing on our aircraft? How about defying 17 resolutions? How about openly praising 9/11 when almost every other nation on this earth, including Libya, Cuba and Syria expressed sympathy? How about mudering his own people? Should we, as the world's power (and that's a fact whether we or anyone else likes it) just sit back and watch him slaughter people? Should we allow him to violate the cease fire of the original Gulf War.....a war in which he undeniably started? I can't accept that.
And finally, you mention nations that are prosperous yet aren't the target of terror. Well, that's nice for the Swiss! Who do you think provides the Swiss's security militarily? Who do you think would stand up to North Korea if they invaded the South? Who stopped Iraq the first time? Who punshed Libya for bombing a discotech? Answer: The United States of America. We have too. We are the only nation with the resources to do it.
Originally posted by SDW2001
We have some 40-60 nations supporting us. We have about 11 sending troops.
I'd like to step into the middle of this discussion and personally thank Poland for offering to send those 200 troops.
Originally posted by tonton
Wrong again. Al Qaeda has had a motive. The US policy toward Israel is unacceptable.
Not true...al-Quaeda was disinterested in the Palestinians prior to 9/11, and they're major attacks in the 90s all occured during a period of relative Israeli-Palestinian peace. And the pro-Palestinian terrorists have occasionally targeted Americans, but have never tried striking in the US - just like the IRA, they knew it would backfire against their cause.
I disagree that they are better off. They are scared.
They are scared. But less so than they were a year or 18 months ago, when things really sucked. They have Sharon to thank for that, and they know it. I don't think Israelis are dumb. If they really thought they'd be better off without Sharon, they'd have ditched him.
He visited the Temple Mount to provoke an intifada
A major terrorist campaign featuring suicide bombers targeting schoolchildren and shoppers that has killed thousands of people begun purposefully because a man who's not even in any government visits a site holy to his religion. [shakes head sadly]
For great justice! Move zig!
Originally posted by tonton
How the hell is that unique?
(Insert Muslim country here) is in a (!unique) position, struggling for the life of every Muslim in (that country) against many nations that hate it.
Um....so, go ahead and insert an actual name of a country here....please find a muslim country that is surrounded by nations that wish to eliminate every single person in said country. You statement above is meaningless. If you can't see the uniqueness of the Israeli situation, you are ignorant beyond belief.
Originally posted by tonton
Muslims hate Israel because they take land, bulldoze houses in peaceful areas with people inside, kill children (more last week) and wage a war that kills civilians. I hate Israel too.
Really? Thanks for the insider tip. I always thought it had to do with all those dirty jews that live there. Isn't that why you hate them too? I mean muslim were slaughtering jews long before there was a modern state of Israel. Again, you statement shows your incredible ignorance. You seem very full of hatred. You really do make the world a better place. nazi
The popular idea is that the war will increase terrorism. To me that is a tenuous idea based on largely irrational fears. ^THEY^ are waiting to get us, all they are waiting for is a trigger! Or even better, ^THEY^ will create more terrorists!
I would answer with 1: THEY don't need a trigger and 2: THEY aren't waiting to erupt into WWIII. Fear-mongers try to make you believe that, but the brown masses aren't animals. They are smart, they know the score.
To me if the war on Iraq brings something onto the US terrorism-wise then that means that someone who was planning on acting against us was just made to act quicker before a more full plan caused more casualties.
It's not like we're going to piss off a few poor guys from Yemen with AKs and that will have any real effect on us. To make a big impact on the US as a terrorist you have to have some kind of funding. Lest we forget that OsamaBinPoophead was/is a richboy who used his personal wealth to attack us. Hussein ElCamel from 347th West Kabul St. in Afghanistan can hate us all he wants but without a big organization there's very little he can do to hurt the US.
I guess if I believed every fear-mongering message out there I'd live in my closet with a tin-foil hat on, sucking my thumb and voting for every klaxon politician trying to tell me I'm going to die very soon.
You can't hide from terrorists. Not everything is the US's fault.
Originally posted by tonton
Originally posted by Towel
This is an interesting argument, and not without merit. It goes something like this: "9/11 was just part of the cost of living in the modern world. It's a bearable cost, and we're better off absorbing it than trying to prevent it."
Very well put, and EXACTLY what I believe. Did you write that?
So, absorbing attacks is better than preventing attacks? Wow.
Originally posted by tonton
Wrong. That doesn't say the same thing. They won't get bored. They'll keep killing as long as they have a motive.
Well, since Osama stated motives include anyone who is not a believer, I guess you had better get busy converting the rest of the US to radical Islam.
Originally posted by tonton
Wrong again. Al Qaeda has had a motive. The US policy toward Israel is unacceptable. "So they have gotten better at it". Our only option is to set a moral standard that is consistently fair, wise, and not at all based on trade or religious issues. We need to gain compliance through respect, not by invoking fear.
They will attack so longs as there are non-muslims. The US policy towards Israel prevents the complete destruction of Israel. But that would be ok with you, right? The world might be better without all the filthy Jews around, right? You want to gain compliance through respect? All you advocate is appeasement. A weak nation has no respect.
Originally posted by tonton
I disagree that they are better off. They are scared. And FYI the intifada was started as a result of Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, and it was exactly what he wanted. He visited the Temple Mount to provoke an intifada so he could take the hard line and take power. Everything went as planned. A very smart, but very evil man.
The Temple Mount visit was meant to embarrass Barak over the govenments seeming lack of concern with the destruction of historical and religious artifacts at Temple Mount. It was authorised by the Palestinian Waqf, the authority for the Temple Mount. Arafat used this visit to spark the uprising. But, alway blame the Dirty Jew, right T?
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
We should attack the British. It is all their fault anyway. Isreal-Palestine. Northern Ireland. India-Pakistan. Iraq. Is there any place in the world that they didn't **** up?
Iceland
Originally posted by tonton
Oh... I see. You mean geographical position. In that case, I would argue that geography has little to do with F-16s firing missiles at houses with families and children inside. And where do you get off claiming that anyone wants every person in Israel dead, much less entire countries. All the Palestinians want is the occupied lands back and a cease to further settlement.
Well, geography is one factor. A PRETTY ****ING IMPORTANT ONE! So, you have never heard the Arab threats to push Israel into the sea? How about the ones to kill every jew in Palestine? Missed that too? What exactly do you think the wars against Israel were for? If you honestly believe they were simply trying to establish a Palestinian state, you are blind. Selective is putting it mildly.
Originally posted by tonton
You are really crossing the line. I do not hate Jews. I don't even dislike them. I actually think that in general they're nice people.
......Muslims hate Israel because they take land, bulldoze houses in peaceful areas with people inside, kill children (more last week) and wage a war that kills civilians. I hate Israel too.
Well, hate Jews, hate Israel...splitting hairs.
Originally posted by tonton
I am full of hate. I hate Ariel Sharon. I hate armed conflict in the Middle East. I guess that makes me a Nazi, right?
That you hate Israel and would sacrifice them to countries that hate them to be massacred...yes.
If they aren't trying to get anyone why are you scared of them?
Can't you see that by threatening them you're treating them like animals? "They know the score"? That sounds like the exact kind of arrogance that causes terrorism. Are you saying that we should try harder to intimidate them into submission? While this is a valid route, the advantages of such a strategy are far outweighed by the consequences.
We are not threatening everyone in the Middle East. We are threatening Saddam Hussein. And we should absolutely try to intimidate Hussein.
I think you're misrepresenting the policy.
When I say "they know the score" I mean that those in power of the middle eastern nations understand what we're doing, by and large. Of course the populations don't necessarily see what's going on, even a large part of our population doesn't even know.
There's a delicate balance between doing what you feel is right and making sure you please others.
There are countless hateful people that without provocation would die a natural, peaceful death.
Saddam Hussein isn't one of them. That's why we're going after him.
You do? Tell that to Tim McVeigh.
And the poor guys from Yemen that we piss off? They're the ones who will give their $100 life savings to the next Bin Laden and volunteer for the suicide missions.
Tim McVeigh was home-grown, that's not the same type of thing.
They can go blow themselves up on Israeli busses sure but how do they hurt us in the US? The 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia. There has been no shortage of anti-US indoctrination there for the last 20 years. I'm talking about terrorists that can hurt the US.
Bin Laden used hatred to attack the US. He didn't need his own money to do it. With enough hatred will come the means.
He absoultely needed money to do everything he has done. How can you say he didn't need money? That's ludicrous!
The US is certainly not making friends here.
Not right now, no. But world opinion is turning in the US's favor from the anti-war fever-pitch of a week ago. 30 nations are openly supporting, 15 more don't want to be named but are supportive.
It's not so dire, methinks.
Let's hope for the best!
What about Blair?
I think it seems even more see the need for war to disarm Iraq.
[qb]motion supporting the use of UK forces in Iraq passed by a large majority - 412 to 149.
[/qb]
Imagine that.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2862749.stm
Fellowship
Originally posted by tonton
Absorbing attacks: Worst case scenario- thousands dead.
Preventing attacks: Impossible. Tens of thousands dead.
Absorbing attacks: possibly hundreds of thousands, if you wait till the gain that potential.
Originally posted by tonton
You can't eliminate or even predict all motives, but it's our responsibility not to give them the obvious ones.
And they will attack so long as there are rainy days. And they will attack because they don't like the color of the flag. And they will attack because they are poor and we are rich. I don't want them to justify attack because we started a war or killed their people or generally did something specific to piss them off. Because once that justification exists, the attacks will spread. A lot.
It's also one's responsibilty to prevent attacks. As you say, they will always have motives...whether you think you gave it to them or not.
Originally posted by tonton
The complete destruction of Israel? Do you even know what the Palestinians really want?
Better than you it would seem.
Read the PLO charter some day. It has only a single mandate: The destruction of the state of Israel. Once you realize that fact, then you will realize the fight for a Palestinian state is simply a ploy to futher that goal: Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian
identity serves only tactical purposes. The
founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool
in the continuing battle against Israel ...
-- Zuheir Muhsin, late Military Department head
of the PLO and member of its Executive
Council, Dutch daily Trouw, March 1977
Originally posted by tonton
It was meant to provoke, and it was clear that it would provoke more than Barak's embarrassment. It was clear that it would provoke violence. Arafat was not looking for an excuse. He already had one (illegal settlements and displacement of Palestinian people) Sharon was in desperate search for an excuse to rally the people behind him in his quest for power.
Always blame the jew.
Originally posted by tonton
I am not anti-Semitic. I do not hate Jews. Although I am not a Jew myself, your accusations couldn't be further from the truth. In any further argument please refrain from making this fallacious and insulting allegation.
Well, when you make statements that you hate Israel, and that the US is wrong in it's policy towards Israel, a policy that prevents the destruction of Israel, it's not a difficult conclusion to make. You can say you don't hate Jews, but it seems a pretty thin veil, given your other statements.
Originally posted by Tulkas
Well, when you make statements that you hate Israel, and that the US is wrong in it's policy towards Israel, a policy that prevents the destruction of Israel, it's not a difficult conclusion to make. You can say you don't hate Jews, but it seems a pretty thin veil, given your other statements.
Thankfully, at least you have stopped prefacing the word 'Jew' with 'Dirty'.
I, and I'm sure many other members of the forum, would appreciate that you refrain from it.
Originally posted by tonton
Tulkas, can't you see that I can be against Sharon, against Illegal Jewish settlements. Against violence, even (hypothetically) against the state of Israel as an autonomous entity in Palestine (I know it's not the "holy land" but why couldn't Britain have established it in Wales or something) and still not be anti-Jew?
I suppose you think I'm anti-American because I disagree with Bush. I shudder to think where your loyalties would lie had you lived in Hitler's Germany. You'd be calling people "anti-Germany" before you took a look at your own morals.
If you hate Israel, as you said, and would support policies that would lead to the destruction of Israel, and the elimination of the Jews there, then no, I can't see how you aren't anti-jew.
If you had stated you hated America and supported the destruction of America and the massacre of all Americans, then I would say you were anti-American.
I shudder to think if you had been around during Hitler's reign in Germany. You'd be calling on world govenments to appease Hitler and allow the holocuast to continue...after all, why give Germany a reason to hate you by attacking them as you say.