[quote]doogie wrote:
Clearly it IS a legal country, but I’m more interested in what you would consider to be a moral country. Virtually every country in the world is the result of some people kicking other people’s ass. Where do you draw the line in history and determine what is moral and what isn’t?
[/quote]
Point taken. But Israel came to be by means that were not so clear cut as a nation moving in and taking over with their military.
[quote]SuperBeaver wrote:
Jeff R
Sorry if i wasn’t clear. I do not condone the terrorist actions. [/quote]
Really?
It appears you are condoning them.
While the Palestinians have a legitimate gripe Hezbollah does not.
As soon as the terrorism stops the world can put pressure on Israel to treat the Palestinians better. It worked in South Africa.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
SuperBeaver wrote:
Jeff R
Sorry if i wasn’t clear. I do not condone the terrorist actions.
Really?
I do think there is a valid reason for them and i’m saying that if i was in there shoes that i might do the same thing.
It appears you are condoning them.
While the Palestinians have a legitimate gripe Hezbollah does not.
As soon as the terrorism stops the world can put pressure on Israel to treat the Palestinians better. It worked in South Africa.
[/quote]
People seem to not want to differentiate between the standard for having a grievance against someone and something that could justify terrorism.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
SuperBeaver wrote:
Jeff R
Sorry if i wasn’t clear. I do not condone the terrorist actions.
Really?
I do think there is a valid reason for them and i’m saying that if i was in there shoes that i might do the same thing.
It appears you are condoning them.
While the Palestinians have a legitimate gripe Hezbollah does not.
As soon as the terrorism stops the world can put pressure on Israel to treat the Palestinians better. It worked in South Africa.
[/quote]
Actually maybe i am in a way. But i did say that i think they should go for peace and in my current position i would not commit or recommend an act of terroism. I just understand it. I don’t think understanding neccesarily goes hand in hand with support for an act. Because i do understand it but i do not support it!
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Everybody is up in arms against Hezbollah. They fire rockets into Israel. They kill people. They shouldn’t do that.
Israel shells and bombs Lebanese cities. They kill 10 times the number of civlians. But you somehow justify that and cheer them on.
Why?[/quote]
You’re an idiot. The civilian casulaties are because hez chooses to operate within civilian buildings dipshit.
[quote]
PEOLPLE OF ISRAEL ! ! !
LEAVE THIS AREA IMMEDIATLY AS HEZBOLLAH WILL BE FIRING ROCKETS IN TO IT DURING THE NEXT DAYS (as they have been doing for a couple of weeks now).
Glad we sorted that out.[/quote]
You are a moron…again ignore the meat of what im saying so you can try to make a moot point by talking in caps.
Someone called wreckless a “troll” … he is no troll. Trolls are benign compared with wreckless. He is a neo-Nazi.
But we must understand him. He comes from Belgium which has a proud neo-Nazi tradition. Genocide and racism are, after all, so ingrained in Belgium’s history.
Millions of Africans were exterminated in the Belgian Congo. Read ?King Leopold?s Ghost.?
Oh, and the Jews? Many Belgians actually volunteered to fight on the Nazi side in WW2 ? the 5th SS Volunteer Sturmbrigade was called Wallonia and was entirely manned by Belgians. Belgian SS men fought in their very own Waffen SS 28th Panzer Grenadier Division. I suppose it?s not too late for wreckless ? the neo Nazi movement is alive and well in Belgium.
Belgium was saved by the Ango-Saxon world in WW1 and WW2. The tradegy is that the idiots in Belgium and France are sucking up to the Islamo-Nazis and will wait for the US and UK to come to their rescue again. (As I suppose is already happening in Iraq). Perhaps they shouldn’t be saved … why not have the sound of the muezzin calling the faithful to prayer echo across Brussels, Bruges, Antwerp … If they don’t value their traditions, history and Christian perhaps they deserve what they will ultimately get.
It’s funny how when anyone points out any issues with Israel they automatically get get accused of anti semitism or a neo nazi. In fact the person who does those accusations are the Nazi’s of free speech. They try to subdue the opitions and points of others by shaming them with comparisons to mass murderers and those guilty of genocide. All of that for offering a different angle.
it goes like this, when you can’t attack what the person says, you then attack the person.
I noticed this too. The debates decay into personal attacks. I think there might be a few teenagers or people in their early twenties on here who havn’t grown out of their angry stage yet.
I’m probaly being a bit too rational here. I felt like trying to jar some people out of their entrenched opinions. Hatred doesn’t solve anything, just turns everything to shit. You guys want shit - be my guest.
[quote]SuperBeaver wrote:
Jeff R
Sorry if i wasn’t clear. I do not condone the terrorist actions. I do think there is a valid reason for them and i’m saying that if i was in there shoes that i might do the same thing.[/quote]
Thanks for your response. I cannot go with your reasoning. If you think it’s ok to target civilians and you “might do the same thing” that is despicable.
So here we are.
terrorists should be destroyed. They have left the realm of humanity. They are beyond the pale. No wasting a single thought on them if they engage in terrorism. They are not human.
They are there. It is a reality.
Another question entirely. I’ll bet guilt played a large part.
Actually, they are living side by side. However, there are groups that believe that Jews should be destroyed.
Agreed. Heated and not a little sad.
Wrong. hezbollah are demons. They are the slime of humanity. Anyone who makes it their aim to destroy innocents as a “legitimate” tactic, are not human.
Do you seriously think the Israelis could “talk” to hezbollah? Think about it. What precipitated this latest spasm of violence? Can Israel allow kidnapping and murder of IDF? Could talking change that? Think about munich. We are talking about brute aggression. Time and time again history has shown that appeasement and “talking” in the face of brute aggression emboldens the enemy.
[quote]The problem is people get their priorites wrong. Wanting to be right, revenge, justice, control rather than peace. Hezzbolah or middle eastern terrorists are not the only people on this planet who fall foul of this.
But as i said - this is a hot topic.
[/quote]
You seem like a sincere person. However, we are far beyond this type of thinking. The situation has come to a head. We have hezbollah’s leader calling for extermination of the Jews. We have iran’s nutcase President saying, “I have a solution: wipe out Israel.”
For a final thought: Imagine you were living in Tel Aviv. Imagine your brother was one killed or abducted. I guarantee you would think differently. Don’t try to deny it, you would.
It’s sad that the Roman response to hezbollah is the only viable alternative. In many ways, we haven’t advanced in 2000 years.
JeffR
[quote]reckless wrote:
So since most Israeli citizens are in the IDF, or have family in the IDF (harboring) they’re not civilians either.[/quote]
First, you are a disgusting person.
Now, with that obvious truth stated, let’s get down to it.
The difference (of course) is that hezbollah’s stated aim is killing the Jews in Israel. Men, women, and children. Indiscriminate killing. Even a person as reprehensible as you cannot seriously maintain that Israel is trying to kill everyone in Lebanon.
Is “steel” another way of saying still? I read your response to “focussed.” WEAK!!!
Anyway, I have sympathy for Israel. The moment the groups in opposition decided to use terrorism, it went to 100% to zero. Period.
By the way, if the formation of Israel equals terrorism, then you could make the same argument concerning the formation of just about every country on the map. Read about the Celts in your own country. I believe it was the Belgae, the Romans, the Germans, the Dutch, and the Spanish in your country. Back and forth. Please tell me that similar “terrorist” tactics weren’t used to displace these peoples in your country.
Then I hope you choke on your own hypocrisy.
Either way, your argument means nothing at this juncture. Israel has a right to exist. It is a reality. Unless you advocate extermination of the Jews, it’s a settled fact.
Of course I am. Oh, if you gave a “flying fuck” about important things, you wouldn’t be so brutally wrong-headed.
[quote]Let me sumn it up effR.
For you, Israel are the choosen people. They can get away with anything, because their god told them they could.[/quote]
Completely wrong. I belong to no Church or denomination. However, Israel exists and I cannot countenance the tactics used by the terrorists.
I think the Jewish people are equal!!! They have the right to exist. They have the right to be married without flesh tearing bombs destroying the wedding party. They have the right to go shopping without losing limbs.
Spare me the “Israel is killing civilans.” There is a MONSTER difference between collateral damage AND TARGETING CIVILIANS AS YOUR STATED AIM.
There is a shred of humanity in you!!!
[quote]Israel shells and bombs Lebanese cities. They kill 10 times the number of civlians. But you somehow justify that and cheer them on.
Why?[/quote]
In a private moment of reflection (if you are able) ask yourself this question: If hezbollah had the strength of Israel, what would be the fate of Israeli civilians?
Would they bother to warn of impending attacks? Would they try to limit casualties?
You just cannot make comparisons between the two.
It doesn’t work.
JeffR
Someone wrote this- [quote]
By using cause and effect language you are effectively using value-neutral language. Israel does x, it follows that the terrorists could only do y. But from this, you are deriving ethical claims, namely, Israel is to blame.
Moving towards value neutral language is a bad move from the start because your argument is at heart a moral one. You argue what Israel is doing is wrong in a moral sense, not a politically disadvantageous sense.
You also fail to note that the natural thing for anyone to do when attacked by terrrorists is to strike back militarily. ‘Being terrorized causes punitive military strikes at those who attacked you.’ So the same reasoning that led you to blaming Israel can lead you to exonerating them. Bad reasoning.
Also it’s worth noting that any historian worth his weight in pink dumbbells knows that establishing true cause and effect is tenuous at best.
You also fail to see the difference, at least in your reasoning in these posts between having a reason to do an action and being justified in doing that action. Israel is justified in defending its people, it may make policy mistakes in doing so, but the action is fundamentally justified. There may be reasons for the Palestinians to be angry and resentful, but they do not justify their actions. [/quote]
So i’ll respond. Everything i have written is from the perspective embodied in your last sentence- “There may (undoubtedly are) be reasons for the Palestinians to be angry and resentful, but they do not justify their actions”. Another point i have been making, which i implore you to study and seek out, is that there is no alternative for resolution of these grievances. many things have been tried-treaties are biased and ‘neocolonial’, asserting Israel’s existence, but negating Palestinian human rights. FACT. Look it up. Civil action has been ignored/rejected. PR elected governments to the PA have been demonised, and marginalised as ‘extremists’. Of course they are extremists, if they disagree with Israel’s policy which they of course will, they’re extremists.
If i thought any of this was a joke, this’d be the funniest
“You also fail to see the difference, at least in your reasoning in these posts between having a reason to do an action and being justified in doing that action. Israel is justified in defending its people, it may make policy mistakes in doing so, but the action is fundamentally justified.”
I will remind you first, that Israeli civilisation should be more civilised (and probably is) than arab culture. Do i have to explain this? Even without this, they are in such a commanding position diplomatically, being sponsored and unconditionally endorsed by The USA, that these ‘policy mistakes’ should be very sparse. They run shit de jure.
Furthermore, can you see the confusion/hypocrisy in your own words? Justified= a moral or legal right. The international community, in accord except for USA and some dependants of the USA (rarely) that Israel has repeatedly and without apology or repair committed War Crimes, against the people they have supplanted. THEY ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DEFENDING THEIR PEOPLE if they continue to do it in their present/past style. THEY ARE JUSTIFIED IN DEFENDING THEIR PEOPLE if they accept limits to their own innocence/justification.
Just because a minority (a fucking tiny minority) of surrounding states’ arab citizens take up arms to attack the invading nation (Israel) which unilaterally destroys their status quo, they are also justified only in doing it by means of peace, diplomacy or negotiation. This peaceful resolution may be a ‘pipe-dream’, but is far more likely to occur if the Israelis are a) taken to account for all of their past war crimes (just as any terrorist would be if the international community had such evidence against him) b) Returned to green line borders (As the UN has been DEMANDING since 1967, without compliance) and c) stop assuming the eternal nature of their privilege in ‘justification’. If my language is value-laden, it is a fault of my own. I try to present, and support facts. If my language is ‘neutral’, good. It should be. If it were otherwise i’d be ‘prejudiced’. It does not follow that i’m prejudice because i will condemn the genocide/war crimes/ diplomatic intransigence of the Israelis. This is because it is truth. To not speak the truth would be evil. I can think of two cliches which are suitable for this conflict. The first refers to Israeli aggression, which occurred because they took arab land- “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Just because someone attacks you viviously, does not mean the correct way to respond is by escalating. That lead to escalation, and on a big enough time-scale (or with US sponsorship so freely available) EXTINCTION.
The second quote- “All evil needs to triumph is that good men look on and do nothing.” To whoever compared Israel to Winston Churchill, this is one of his. And in this instance, The evil or terrorism is well documented, and criticised. However, the evil of Israeli methods is a bit more esoteric. I am just vocalising little-known facts.
Let me just ridicule one more thing you said (i forget your name)
“the natural thing for anyone to do when attacked by terrrorists is to strike back militarily.”
I agree, it is natural to strike back in aggression. But can anyone here say they are ‘natural’. Aren’t we all subversive, eating 2 tins of tuna instead of the ‘natural’ paradigm of eating three packets of crisps (etc). We all accept that the civilisied, (best) response to a situation is studied, and guided by complex factors.
The ‘natural’ thing to do when some guy looks at my girls clevage when i’m out, is to smash him. Grab a few glasses and make his smile unpretty. But should i be supported, or endorsed in doing that? Of course not. I don’t know about you, but i was always told my the rational elders to ‘walk away if possible, and get a grown-up’. Of course i don’t always do that. But it’s the civilised way, to walk away, not lower yourself to retaliating to terrorism like-for-like, with state-sponsored ‘terror’, (which is a concept you all need to learn), and rather to get an elder. Palestine and Israel went to the UN. The UN said- a) arabs stop being terrorists. b) Israel give back the land you stole. c) Israel, if you’re protesting about arab methods, don’t lower yourself and respond in kind (in fact Israel have killed FAR more Palestinians/neighbouring arabs than the terrorists every could).
So both sides were judged at fault. Neither side have budged. But if we remember that the ‘tenuous’ (FUCK OFF) causality of the conflict was a) land theft b) Arab attack c) more land theft d) Pathetic, weakened arab attack in the form of terrorism, we can also adduce the neccessary order of conflict resolutin. HINT give the land back, it may not solve everything since you acted like a similar monster for so long that hatred is culturally embedded, but at least then you can have the moral community behind you, as you will have fulfilled what was asked for/brutally extorted by the arab terrorists.
Do we support peace, or just Israel. I don’t care which side is right (i have far closer and more affectionate familial ties to Israel) but i can’t say they are justified in the way they are behaving. To anyone who knows, they’ve lost the moral high ground.
Respect due. Zap made a really good point, which shows that sense is universal (if you’ve got it)
Palestine have a legitimate gripe. Hezbollah do not. Excellent point man.
Understand me when i say that Lebanon has had a really shit time of all this, housing (but not so much agreeing with) anti-Israelis of such diverse natures, yet each time, Beirut gets fucked.
Lebanon has seen more terror and pain that Israel (except historically, holocaust, gulag et al) because they house people who oppose Israel. Someone else made a point about ‘all the vast arab lands palestinians could live in’. I think Lebanon is an example of how Palestinians will never be accepted in any other country. Jordan etc etc do not want that for them. So Palestine needs to be an existing state. (That’s a foundation, before we get into size, government etc of it)
Just to clarify one more possible ‘tenuous’ cause why arab-states won’t help, and Palestinians are subsequently even more desperate
Correcting JeffR’s correction-
[quote] Before the seperate Israel state there were Jews living with Arabs in palestine. That’s the way it should be in my opinion.p
Actually, they are living side by side. However, there are groups that believe that Jews should be destroyed. [/quote]
They WERE living in harmony. Then jews bought a lot of land that the arabs needed to work and live from, quoite unfairly. (A long story related to Ottoman feudalism anachronisms). Then these jews were the people who meant the palestinians couldn’t work/eat. That’s when shit got ugly. And don’t give me that shit about Israeli arabs. Israel is officially and openly a racist state. Israeli arabs now can’t work in like 90% of the land, and stolen arab land was used to make jew-only cities. FACT
SECOND POINT
No, no, no. You’re thinking of war between nation-states. That’s true in that case. But ‘guerilla terrorists’ are a different case. There has never been a subversive terrorist oranisation stopped only through direct war with the terrorists/ their civilians, ever. I said this before. It’s true. You can show them how big/tough you arer as a state, but it’s BRAVADO. You must appease a terrorist in part (of course only giving reasonable concessions- in the case of palestine- return to green line borders is the accepted imperative) if you want to stop him. Otherwise, as youmay have noticed is going on now- you have to kill entire countries just to get the few minority bad guys. There’s a word for that. Genocide.
I agree with you on this, and like you said to Beaver- I believe you’re a sincere person. Your quote- [quote]
For a final thought: Imagine you were living in Tel Aviv. Imagine your brother was one killed or abducted. I guarantee you would think differently. Don’t try to deny it, you would.[/quote]
Imagine you’re living in Gaza. You’re born in a hot tin cage, surrounded by young Israeli soldiers who can go home at the end of the day. You live in the most densely populated area on earth, and intermittently some rebels do some shit that causes (or so you’re told) the Israelis to hover with helicopter gunships, and kill dozens of civilians. This is regular. You grow up. You’re pissed off. ‘I guarantee you would think differently.’
Devils advocate. (Also seen as objectivity- both sides have cause to kill out of spite and vengeance. I’m looking for ways we can avoid that)
Don’t get into ‘the Romans could have solved it’. If they’d left Israelites where they were, maybe there’d be equilibrium now.
Your reply to wreckless- what you referred to (nation-forming0 in this instance isn’t terrorism, it’s colonialism. The UK put the jews there, on the insistence of the Zionists. The UK actually preferred Argentina as a candidate. (I wonder how that would have turned out?) And when the UK were crippled from having fought an arduous war on the same side as the persecuted European jew, while the Americans at most delivered supplies but generally stayed as neutral as Switzerland until THEY were bombed, and then they nuked that country- genocide, The USA took over. That is colonialism. It still is.
The fact that you can happily use ‘collateral damage’ is very profound. Collateral damage is inexcusable. The nations with means to commit collateral damage like that should be more restrained,intelligent and respectful of human life.
[quote]If hezbollah had the strength of Israel, what would be the fate of Israeli civilians? Would they bother to warn of impending attacks? Would they try to limit casualties? [/quote] Very often terrorists do warn of attacks actually son. Often they directly warn the governemnt of the attacked country. sometimes that information is suppressed for 50 years and the government get their own propaganda by letting their civilians die. I choose not to be a fucking pawn. I agree if Hezbollah had the might of Israel, they’d probably kill as much as Israel do now (see the comparison) BUT they don’t. BUT they get criticised while Israel need only say ‘collateral damage, apologies’ and they’re free to carry on.
[quote]dannyrat wrote:
Someone wrote this-
By using cause and effect language you are effectively using value-neutral language. Israel does x, it follows that the terrorists could only do y. But from this, you are deriving ethical claims, namely, Israel is to blame.
Moving towards value neutral language is a bad move from the start because your argument is at heart a moral one. You argue what Israel is doing is wrong in a moral sense, not a politically disadvantageous sense.
You also fail to note that the natural thing for anyone to do when attacked by terrrorists is to strike back militarily. ‘Being terrorized causes punitive military strikes at those who attacked you.’ So the same reasoning that led you to blaming Israel can lead you to exonerating them. Bad reasoning.
Also it’s worth noting that any historian worth his weight in pink dumbbells knows that establishing true cause and effect is tenuous at best.
You also fail to see the difference, at least in your reasoning in these posts between having a reason to do an action and being justified in doing that action. Israel is justified in defending its people, it may make policy mistakes in doing so, but the action is fundamentally justified. There may be reasons for the Palestinians to be angry and resentful, but they do not justify their actions.
So i’ll respond. Everything i have written is from the perspective embodied in your last sentence- “There may (undoubtedly are) be reasons for the Palestinians to be angry and resentful, but they do not justify their actions”. Another point i have been making, which i implore you to study and seek out, is that there is no alternative for resolution of these grievances. many things have been tried-treaties are biased and ‘neocolonial’, asserting Israel’s existence, but negating Palestinian human rights. FACT. Look it up. Civil action has been ignored/rejected. PR elected governments to the PA have been demonised, and marginalised as ‘extremists’. Of course they are extremists, if they disagree with Israel’s policy which they of course will, they’re extremists.
If i thought any of this was a joke, this’d be the funniest
“You also fail to see the difference, at least in your reasoning in these posts between having a reason to do an action and being justified in doing that action. Israel is justified in defending its people, it may make policy mistakes in doing so, but the action is fundamentally justified.”
I will remind you first, that Israeli civilisation should be more civilised (and probably is) than arab culture. Do i have to explain this? Even without this, they are in such a commanding position diplomatically, being sponsored and unconditionally endorsed by The USA, that these ‘policy mistakes’ should be very sparse. They run shit de jure.
Furthermore, can you see the confusion/hypocrisy in your own words? Justified= a moral or legal right. The international community, in accord except for USA and some dependants of the USA (rarely) that Israel has repeatedly and without apology or repair committed War Crimes, against the people they have supplanted. THEY ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN DEFENDING THEIR PEOPLE if they continue to do it in their present/past style. THEY ARE JUSTIFIED IN DEFENDING THEIR PEOPLE if they accept limits to their own innocence/justification.
Just because a minority (a fucking tiny minority) of surrounding states’ arab citizens take up arms to attack the invading nation (Israel) which unilaterally destroys their status quo, they are also justified only in doing it by means of peace, diplomacy or negotiation. This peaceful resolution may be a ‘pipe-dream’, but is far more likely to occur if the Israelis are a) taken to account for all of their past war crimes (just as any terrorist would be if the international community had such evidence against him) b) Returned to green line borders (As the UN has been DEMANDING since 1967, without compliance) and c) stop assuming the eternal nature of their privilege in ‘justification’. If my language is value-laden, it is a fault of my own. I try to present, and support facts. If my language is ‘neutral’, good. It should be. If it were otherwise i’d be ‘prejudiced’. It does not follow that i’m prejudice because i will condemn the genocide/war crimes/ diplomatic intransigence of the Israelis. This is because it is truth. To not speak the truth would be evil. I can think of two cliches which are suitable for this conflict. The first refers to Israeli aggression, which occurred because they took arab land- “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Just because someone attacks you viviously, does not mean the correct way to respond is by escalating. That lead to escalation, and on a big enough time-scale (or with US sponsorship so freely available) EXTINCTION.
The second quote- “All evil needs to triumph is that good men look on and do nothing.” To whoever compared Israel to Winston Churchill, this is one of his. And in this instance, The evil or terrorism is well documented, and criticised. However, the evil of Israeli methods is a bit more esoteric. I am just vocalising little-known facts.
Let me just ridicule one more thing you said (i forget your name)
“the natural thing for anyone to do when attacked by terrrorists is to strike back militarily.”
I agree, it is natural to strike back in aggression. But can anyone here say they are ‘natural’. Aren’t we all subversive, eating 2 tins of tuna instead of the ‘natural’ paradigm of eating three packets of crisps (etc). We all accept that the civilisied, (best) response to a situation is studied, and guided by complex factors.
The ‘natural’ thing to do when some guy looks at my girls clevage when i’m out, is to smash him. Grab a few glasses and make his smile unpretty. But should i be supported, or endorsed in doing that? Of course not. I don’t know about you, but i was always told my the rational elders to ‘walk away if possible, and get a grown-up’. Of course i don’t always do that. But it’s the civilised way, to walk away, not lower yourself to retaliating to terrorism like-for-like, with state-sponsored ‘terror’, (which is a concept you all need to learn), and rather to get an elder. Palestine and Israel went to the UN. The UN said- a) arabs stop being terrorists. b) Israel give back the land you stole. c) Israel, if you’re protesting about arab methods, don’t lower yourself and respond in kind (in fact Israel have killed FAR more Palestinians/neighbouring arabs than the terrorists every could).
So both sides were judged at fault. Neither side have budged. But if we remember that the ‘tenuous’ (FUCK OFF) causality of the conflict was a) land theft b) Arab attack c) more land theft d) Pathetic, weakened arab attack in the form of terrorism, we can also adduce the neccessary order of conflict resolutin. HINT give the land back, it may not solve everything since you acted like a similar monster for so long that hatred is culturally embedded, but at least then you can have the moral community behind you, as you will have fulfilled what was asked for/brutally extorted by the arab terrorists.
Do we support peace, or just Israel. I don’t care which side is right (i have far closer and more affectionate familial ties to Israel) but i can’t say they are justified in the way they are behaving. To anyone who knows, they’ve lost the moral high ground. [/quote]
You either didn’t read or didn’t understand my post.
If i were to remove all the media spin and were just to start from scratch to learn the real truth, then i could really know what’s going on over there.
Till then, i ask myself. What causes a human being to explode themselves? What causes a human being to teach their children to do the same? All to make a point. The easiest answer is to ofcourse call them demons and paint them to be less then human. You know, Evil.
There’s things going on in those people’s lives that we’ll never hear or see in any media. People use guerilla warfare as a last resort to stand up to a superior and opressive enemy. Now twist the storytelling a little and call them terrorists instead of guerillas. Yes, the word “terrorist” sure generates more public support, doesn’t it?
[quote]Gregus wrote:
This is an unwinable war. The violence will never end there and not because there’s fanatics living there, but rather because Israel is an illegal nation. I hope this is not uncomfortable for some but it’s the truth. Sure it may be “legal” in our convenient system, but morally speaking it’s not. It was put there and in effect drawn in on the map by the west after WW2. Oooo, never mind the people that live there already with their own culture etc… They’ll get used to it, it will better them anyway. So there you have it.
This is my simplistic and kindergarden level take on this issue. But there is a fundamental truism to what i said.
Sure you can rebuke what i said with fancy language, links and arguments. Simple fact remains though, Israel should not be there in the first place. Until we deal with this, we’ll just be dealing with the side effects of it being there. And since israel will not go anywhere now, this is a conflict without end. Accept it, move on and wash your hands of the whole deal. If you don’t you’re bound to bring their troubles over here. Opps, wait, that happened already too. [/quote]
According to your logic, all the damn whities shouldn’t be in America.
Biggest bastard gets to eat first.
Way of the world.
Arabs wanted to keep Palestine for themselves? They should have fucking fought harder.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Everybody is up in arms against Hezbollah. They fire rockets into Israel. They kill people. They shouldn’t do that.
Israel shells and bombs Lebanese cities. They kill 10 times the number of civlians. But you somehow justify that and cheer them on.
Why?
You’re an idiot. The civilian casulaties are because hez chooses to operate within civilian buildings dipshit.
[/quote]
My bad. I guess that makes it allright than.
Carry on.
[quote]Phoenix1911 wrote:
PEOLPLE OF ISRAEL ! ! !
LEAVE THIS AREA IMMEDIATLY AS HEZBOLLAH WILL BE FIRING ROCKETS IN TO IT DURING THE NEXT DAYS (as they have been doing for a couple of weeks now).
Glad we sorted that out.
You are a moron…again ignore the meat of what im saying so you can try to make a moot point by talking in caps.[/quote]
No no, I was broadcasting.
[quote]coolexec wrote:
Someone called wreckless a “troll” … he is no troll. Trolls are benign compared with wreckless. He is a neo-Nazi.
But we must understand him. He comes from Belgium which has a proud neo-Nazi tradition. Genocide and racism are, after all, so ingrained in Belgium’s history.
Millions of Africans were exterminated in the Belgian Congo. Read ?King Leopold?s Ghost.?
Oh, and the Jews? Many Belgians actually volunteered to fight on the Nazi side in WW2 ? the 5th SS Volunteer Sturmbrigade was called Wallonia and was entirely manned by Belgians. Belgian SS men fought in their very own Waffen SS 28th Panzer Grenadier Division. I suppose it?s not too late for wreckless ? the neo Nazi movement is alive and well in Belgium.
Belgium was saved by the Ango-Saxon world in WW1 and WW2. The tradegy is that the idiots in Belgium and France are sucking up to the Islamo-Nazis and will wait for the US and UK to come to their rescue again. (As I suppose is already happening in Iraq). Perhaps they shouldn’t be saved … why not have the sound of the muezzin calling the faithful to prayer echo across Brussels, Bruges, Antwerp … If they don’t value their traditions, history and Christian perhaps they deserve what they will ultimately get.
[/quote]
This really is strange. I’ve never been called a neo-Nazi before.