Note to Israeli's

Gonz, I can only hope you know how wrong that conclusion is. Its rediculous. And its the kind of thing that keeps this whole thing going...:disgust2:
 
Oh, sorry, I forgot to add the IRA(and other terrorist groups)...

YOU ARE NOT (whatever it is they want you to be) SO THEY WANT TO KILL YOU.

It is that simple.
 
Squiggy said:
So...all such disagreements should be handled on a first strike priority? Problems can't be solved without understanding them.
Click to expand...

Actually, problems can be solved on a first-strike priority. That old saw 'violence never solved anything' does not apply unless you re the one on the receiving end of said violence...History backs me up much more than you think...
 
So...during the racially tense 60s and 70s we should have just destroyed all the blacks in the US? Problem solved?
 
Squiggy said:
So...during the racially tense 60s and 70s we should have just destroyed all the blacks in the US? Problem solved?
Click to expand...

What has this got to do with terrorism? Can't find a valid argument, so you grasp at straws hoping to cloud the issue? Blacks/Asians/Latinos are, were, and will be part of the US citizen equation since the US began, and when, one day, the US ends. Justify and rationalize that statement. :p
 
I'll type real slow so you can read at your own pace...

If the criminal/terrorist uses terrorist activities (terrorist is defined) to attempt to make political/religious/other change then kill 'em. They are a danger to the greater good.

Stop trying to make me what I am not.
 
Gato_Solo said:
What has this got to do with terrorism? Can't find a valid argument, so you grasp at straws hoping to cloud the issue? Blacks/Asians/Latinos are, were, and will be part of the US citizen equation since the US began, and when, one day, the US ends. Justify and rationalize that statement. :p
Click to expand...


You know damn well that parallels can be drawn between the plights of the blacks and the palestinians. The point was that by your statement about using first strike, you would have given validity to the white majority of the 60s to anihilate blacks because they didn't understand the "reasons" for them to be acting that way.

Dubya Jr. said:
I'll type real slow so you can read at your own pace...

If the criminal/terrorist uses terrorist activities (terrorist is defined) to attempt to make political/religious/other change then kill 'em. They are a danger to the greater good.

Stop trying to make me what I am not.
Click to expand...

So ...an oppressed people should surrender themselves to their oppressors instead of fighting with whatever means they can muster?...
 
Gato_Solo said:
What has this got to do with terrorism? Can't find a valid argument, so you grasp at straws hoping to cloud the issue? Blacks/Asians/Latinos are, were, and will be part of the US citizen equation since the US began, and when, one day, the US ends. Justify and rationalize that statement. :p
Click to expand...


I think it has to do with how we treated miniorities back then
 
Squiggy said:
So...during the racially tense 60s and 70s we should have just destroyed all the blacks in the US? Problem solved?
Click to expand...


no, but a crackdown on all the extremists on both sides would have been nice.


And if you think Israelis want to destroy all palastinians, you are way way off the mark.

You want to understand how Israelis and Palastinians think, speak to them, I have friends in Israel, and thanks to the net I have made friends with Palastinians, all they want is peace, it's the extremists that don't allow this.

All I ever hear is trash about Soldiers shooting civilians, well speak ing to my friends who are soldiers there (everyone has to go into the army there) It's not a task they enjoy, but when you have suicide bombers, and children with grenades, you have to protect yourself. This shooting of UNARMED civilians, it's 90% of the time a load of crap, if you are helping along the guy with the bomb to kill soldiers, you may be unarmed, but you are no longer acting as a civilian.

As to the 10% where civilians are injured (even killed) let's say 5% are accidents (no shouting an american plane bombed a canadian training exesize not long ago)

and for the other 5% that happens, yes it's intentional murder, and should be punsihed, but don't go saying it is only Israeli's that have irrational murderous soldiers, rememeber Lt. Calley
 
Squiggy said:
You know damn well that parallels can be drawn between the plights of the blacks and the palestinians. The point was that by your statement about using first strike, you would have given validity to the white majority of the 60s to anihilate blacks because they didn't understand the "reasons" for them to be acting that way.
Click to expand...

How many murders took place? How many balcks became terrorists? Your argument is based on hypocrisy on this one.
Paralleles can also be drawn between atheism and catholisism, but the two are vastly different. You're losing your touch if you think I'll jump on that. ;)

Back to the topic. Terrorism, at it's root cause, is nothing more than premeditated, cold-blooded, murder. Regardless of the reasoning behind the murder, it is, and should be, a crime.
 
I'm not saying that at all, Paul. My argument has been that Israel is wrong too. And there is much less justification for some of their actions than there is for the Palestinians.
 
paul_valaru said:
no, but a crackdown on all the extremists on both sides would have been nice.
Click to expand...


to clarify, so this is NOT taken out of context

the extrimist on both sides

groups like the aryan brotherhod, the KKK, and B.L.A.

the groups that decided that is should be a fight of arms, and that peaceful solutions where not acceptable.
 
Gato_Solo said:
How many murders took place? How many balcks became terrorists? Your argument is based on hypocrisy on this one.
Paralleles can also be drawn between atheism and catholisism, but the two are vastly different. You're losing your touch if you think I'll jump on that. ;)

Back to the topic. Terrorism, at it's root cause, is nothing more than premeditated, cold-blooded, murder. Regardless of the reasoning behind the murder, it is, and should be, a crime.
Click to expand...

WTF? :confuse3: YOU put forth an argument for solving problems with first strike. I offered an example that I hoped would open some eyes to the falacy of that argument.
Hypocrisy? I was part of the white minority during that period. Then, just as now, I took the time to understand...
 
Squiggy said:
I'm not saying that at all, Paul. My argument has been that Israel is wrong too. And there is much less justification for some of their actions than there is for the Palestinians.
Click to expand...


hell yes, it's a fucked up situation.

as for justification, they both have there reasons, the bonfire is lit, what happens now is twigs added to a forestfire, go back 200 years, this conflict is not a new one. Just what I see on some news chanels makes me sick, totally biased towards the palastinisan cause (like in the 80's it was opposite)

you hear of civilians being killed, I know a bunch of guys I went to camp with who's fathers where killed by these "civilians"


everytime peace is close, someone fucks it up, this guy who was killed, he fucked it up, now he can't anymore.

hell (and now I go radical) I think arrifat should be arrested, and tried for his crimes from back in the day that the US actually saw the PLO as a terrorist organization. Back before they legitimized them to help the peace process.
 
paul_valaru said:
to clarify, so this is NOT taken out of context

the extrimist on both sides

groups like the aryan brotherhod, the KKK, and B.L.A.

the groups that decided that is should be a fight of arms, and that peaceful solutions where not acceptable.
Click to expand...


The only times force should be used are, in order...
1. When force is first used against you. The reaction should be, above all things, overwhelming.
2. When all peaceful avenues are exhausted. This does not mean that a person can go out, after 'begging' to be allowed to do something illegal, they can go ahead and do so. It means that, if a person has a grievance that cannot be addressed in any other way, then force may be justified. Once used, however, see rule #1. ;)
 
Gato_Solo said:
This does not mean that a person can go out, after 'begging' to be allowed to do something illegal, they can go ahead and do so.
Click to expand...


Which brings us to the invasion of Iraq...:eh:
 
Gato_Solo said:
The only times force should be used are, in order...
1. When force is first used against you. The reaction should be, above all things, overwhelming.
2. When all peaceful avenues are exhausted. This does not mean that a person can go out, after 'begging' to be allowed to do something illegal, they can go ahead and do so. It means that, if a person has a grievance that cannot be addressed in any other way, then force may be justified. Once used, however, see rule #1. ;)
Click to expand...


lol, the vicious circle of middle east politics summed up in 2 rules
 
paul_valaru said:
lol, the vicious circle of middle east politics summed up in 2 rules
Click to expand...

Not entirely. Rule #1 deals with the complete leveling of everything in your path. Not surgical strikes. Yes, folks, I'm talking big war...not slapping on wrists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top