Post by: Arvarden on July 29, 2006, 09:45:00 AM
I can't wait!
\0/
Post by: thewickedjester on July 29, 2006, 09:49:00 AM
QUOTE(juan_2006 @ Jul 28 2006, 11:28 PM) 
Oh my god...israel is doomed...i heard this is a prophecy from the bible... fuck now all the countries are gonna start fighting and it will be crazy.....whats next, the u.s.a invades canada....even on news shows their talking about wwiii.....im getting scared now...
No, next we are going to settle shit when America wakes up and realises theres no way out of it, because its now a chain reaction and we just keep going and pissing off little sandy countries which go and piss off OTHER small sandy countries.
We need another General Blackjack Pershing is what we need...
Post by: lordvader129 on July 29, 2006, 02:10:00 PM
QUOTE(thewickedjester @ Jul 29 2006, 11:56 AM)
We need another General Blackjack Pershing is what we need...
damn straight
QUOTE
HOW TO STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISTS...... it worked once in our History...
Once in U.S. history an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so "Black Jack" told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a lesson.
Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The U.S. soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs' blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.
All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.
Pointing a gun into the face of Islamic terrorists won't make them flinch. They welcome the chance to die for Allah. Like Gen. Pershing, we must show them that they won't get to Muslim heaven (which they believe has an endless supply of virgins) but instead will die with the hated pigs of the devil.
Post by: melon on July 29, 2006, 05:16:00 PM
that quote is lamer than a 1 leged horse. they cant even get there facts right! its 40 virgins not an endless amount. what you are suggesting is that by being more barbaric than them you can be a beacon of freedom for them to aim for?
Americas tactics always have and always will be underhanded and wrong. its a common fact known in every country apart from america.
Post by: thewickedjester on July 29, 2006, 07:24:00 PM
And I still say we need to engineer some pork bullets, that'll put this war on hold in an instant heh.
Post by: throwingks on July 30, 2006, 10:21:00 AM
Both sides are not as bad as the other! Hezbollah are terrorists. Jews won land in a war and the losers of the war aren't happy. Go figure.
I Guess we Americans should give the all land back to the Native Americans. Maybe we should give a little land back. Wait we did. And, Israel gave a little land back too.
I am also guessing Arvarden isn't educated. Throw all the Jews in the oven for retalliating? Nice logic!?!
Not all Jews are Zionists, but that is irrelevant to this conversation.
Post by: _iffy on July 30, 2006, 11:18:00 AM
Isreal is attacking civilian and national property because they feel hezbo uses those places. (eg: Airport)
If isreal (or america for that matter) wants to fight terrorists, they have an obligation to fight "honourably".
They must follow the rules of war, UN sanctions, and their own laws. Fighting dirty against people who fight dirty isn't just. Your no better than who your fighting.
Isreal, is fighting angry and with clouded minds. All they're doing is making new enemies, and this shit will never stop for them.
After 9/11 when the US fought osama in afganistan, they fought with "honour". Following the rules and being "the better man". When they invaded iraq they didn't, and they made new enemies.
The way to stop terrorism is to stop being a target. Stop pissing people off. Like the "war on drugs" don't go after the supply, fight the demand.
*FYI - If you ask non-american countries who the most scary country is, they all say america.
*Just something to think about when discussing other counties.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Back on topic...
I personally think there won't be a WWIII. The world has become comercialized, busines' are global, and economies are inter-dependant. It will be hard to have another Hitler, because no country would support him now. It's not good business. There's more money to be made in peace than in war.
Second, there will never be a draft again. After vietnam and how the draft worked then, governments have learned that forcing people to fight doesn't work. There has to be a villian or a cause that everyone feels is worth fighting for. North Korea, lebanon/isreal don't qualify. People demand diplomatic solutions to all problems now.
Third, everyone knows that if there is a WWIII, it will end in a nuclear holocaust. Fist person to launch a nuke, will panic everyone else to launch their's. They won't wait to see where the nuke is heading.
juan 2006 when you watch the news watch the facts. Don't even listen to that suposition bullshit. Fuck CNN.
Fuck wolf shitzer and his situation toilet.
Post by: throwingks on July 30, 2006, 10:24:00 PM
The Arab - Israeli conflicts have nothing at all to do with Bush. Bush is a fuck-up, yes. But, Israel has been around a lot longer than he has been in office.
Everybody wants to take an extremist side. Both are wrong, Bush is not at fault, and a World War is in nobody's interest but terrorists who wish to eradicate all opposing ways of life.
If you want to say anyone is at blame it is either the terrorists themselves (Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, etc.) or the people that let them terrorize for so long (U.N., Israel, U.S.A., etc.). Which side you pick is up to you, but it is nobody elses fault.
Post by: nickthegreat on July 31, 2006, 02:42:00 AM
Take UK and Ireland - thats a better example. Religiously motivated, bombings of the UK (read Israel), drawn out over decades, and no obvious 'solution' - at least without both sides making massive concessions.
Whilst the British sided with the protestants (for a lack of local knowledge) and thus antagonised the situation, *they did not send inaccurate civilian slaughtering rockets into Ireland on some piss poor basis of the 'defence' of london* - despite londoners dying due to IRA attacks.
Israeli action cannot be excused, nor can Hezbollah, but the US is the bully in the corner who is egging on the fight and occassionally getting a kick in: no wonder, with such weight behind the Israelis, some Arabs feel the need to resort to non conventional warfare.
Its also worth wondering why the military support from the US consists substantially of agressive, rather than defensive, weapons. Personally Id say Apache's are ideal for hunting and slaughtering, and have been used to such effect.
Edit: the reason why I appear to take a more favourable Arabic position is that within the mainstream media they tend to get the short straw despite the situation being almost a stalemate in terms of blame. Guess that shows how much the media is influenced by government policy, which is a shame within a democracy to say the least.
Post by: Arvarden on July 31, 2006, 05:45:00 AM
QUOTE(throwingks @ Jul 30 2006, 05:28 PM)
Both sides are not as bad as the other! Hezbollah are terrorists. Jews won land in a war and the losers of the war aren't happy. Go figure.
I am also guessing Arvarden isn't educated. Throw all the Jews in the oven for retalliating? Nice logic!?!
If Hezbollah are terrorists what are the Israeli's? Freedom fighters? Take a look at government sponsored terror and tell me nothing but good will come out of this conflict.
BTW if you had one ounce of education you would not jump all over a joke I made, but well done for missing LV's blatent racism based on myth.
Oh and someone added this comment to my post "We all know of the extremists hate towards the jews...now lets see the masters at work" with out my permission.
/claps
Post by: Arvarden on July 31, 2006, 06:01:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 31 2006, 06:16 AM)
This is simple...the lebanese govt either needs to control it people...or it needs to accept aid from other countries.
Both sides conduct military operations against each other, each side cross's the border to carry out there operations. One of the main reason's why the border is not secure is because the UN are there to observe rather than to keep the peace. The reason why the UN troops don't bare arms is due to the fact that western powers do not want to see UN troops firing on Israeli positions.
The Lebanese government are in a similair situation to the old school PLO, WW governments ask them to remove the radical element in there society but at the same time restricting arms etc to the governemnt forces. Abbas has stated on more than one occasion that if he had the man power and tools he would happily comply with international demands.
Post by: pug_ster on July 31, 2006, 08:06:00 AM
Whereas Theodore Roosevelt would 'walk softly and carry a big stick,' Bush would 'walk with a loudspeaker and carry threats but no action.' Iraq and now Lebanon are examples of how he further polarize between the US and the Arab world, causing hostilities that would takes a long time to mend.
Post by: pug_ster on July 31, 2006, 09:21:00 AM
http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=2254974
As usual, chickenhawk Bush will do nothing about this situation.
Before 9/11 Iran, Iraq, Syria, Korea, and Venzuella hated the US but at least they don't work with each other. Ever since Bush has rubbed these countries the wrong way, the Axis of Evil started to find a similiarity and the common enemy is the US.
Post by: _iffy on July 31, 2006, 10:06:00 AM
QUOTE(pug_ster @ Jul 31 2006, 12:13 PM)
(George Bush) His calls for people choosing sides 'them or us' and use threats to other countries who are not 'one of us.'
"Only a sith deals in absolutes"
Post by: throwingks on July 31, 2006, 10:16:00 AM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Jul 31 2006, 07:52 AM)
If Hezbollah are terrorists what are the Israeli's? Freedom fighters? Take a look at government sponsored terror and tell me nothing but good will come out of this conflict.
Unfortunatley that is what happens when your country harbors terrorists.
QUOTE
BTW if you had one ounce of education you would not jump all over a joke I made, but well done for missing LV's blatent racism based on myth.
Your joke wasn't funny. Missed LVs.
QUOTE
Oh and someone added this comment to my post "We all know of the extremists hate towards the jews...now lets see the masters at work" with out my permission.
/claps
Post by: puckSR on July 31, 2006, 11:17:00 AM
QUOTE
Both sides conduct military operations against each other, each side cross's the border to carry out there operations.
True....
but in this case one of the sides is a govt sanctioned military organization.
The other side is guerilla group that is outside the control of their govt.
The point, which I was trying to make earlier:
Israel MUST attack Hezbollah, and in turn parts of Lebanon.
Hezbollah cannot sign treaties or call for a cease fire....nor will they.
If the military actions of Hezbollah were sanctioned by the Lebanese govts then diplomatic channels might exist.
But, as Lebanon has already explained...Hezbollah is not an stratified political organization(in the sense of being a govt)...but rather a guerilla force that acts autonomously.
If Lebanon was OFFICIALLY sanctioning Hezbollah then I might have a different perspective. In that case we might be able to talk about who is right, we might be able to discuss morality and political agendas....
However...this is a case of a non-authorized guerilla force attacking a soverign nation.
That nation has EVERY right to defend itself, especially if it means going into another soverign nation to discipline the aggressors(if the other nation cannot discipline the aggressors itself).
Go back to my Texas/Mexico analogy.
We used to have a problem with Texas forces crossing the border to attack banditos. They frequently were accused of excessive force, however....that is the price a nation pays for not being able to control its own people.
Post by: Arvarden on July 31, 2006, 12:23:00 PM
In the past Lebanon was promised help to combat Hezbollah which never materialized. How can you expect them to remove/sanction Hezbollah now there country lies in ruins?
You are asking the impossible.
Post by: _iffy on July 31, 2006, 01:45:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 31 2006, 03:24 PM)
If Lebanon was OFFICIALLY sanctioning Hezbollah then I might have a different perspective. In that case we might be able to talk about who is right, we might be able to discuss morality and political agendas....
However...this is a case of a non-authorized guerilla force attacking a soverign nation.
That nation has EVERY right to defend itself, especially if it means going into another soverign nation to discipline the aggressors(if the other nation cannot discipline the aggressors itself).
I agree that israel has every right to battle with hezbo, but they should have had permission from the lebanese government to enter their land. They never did that and that's why I feel isreal is acting wrong.
It's kind of like police planting evidence to catch a suspect they know to be guilty but can't prove. When fighting terrorist (which in actuality are just criminals or law breakers) you must follow your rules which you say are improtant. Otherwise your no better than who your fighting, and get no simpathy from me.
What isreal is doing to lebanon is wrong. But i agree isreal must fight hezbollah.
BTW - what ever happen to the isrealy soldier who was kidnapped in gaza. It happened before hezbollah kidnapped their two isrealy soldiers.
Is isreal just taking advantage of what they wanted to do all along? Invade lebanon? - just a thought. I don't know if i even believe it.
Post by: melon on July 31, 2006, 02:58:00 PM
and will idiots stop mentioning friggin 9/11????
that was the saudis not the Lebonese.
you just come accross as a retard who believes everything you see on fox news.
Post by: lordvader129 on July 31, 2006, 02:59:00 PM
QUOTE(_iffy @ Jul 31 2006, 03:52 PM)
I agree that israel has every right to battle with hezbo, but they should have had permission from the lebanese government to enter their land. They never did that and that's why I feel isreal is acting wrong.
It's kind of like police planting evidence to catch a suspect they know to be guilty but can't prove. When fighting terrorist (which in actuality are just criminals or law breakers) you must follow your rules which you say are improtant. Otherwise your no better than who your fighting, and get no simpathy from me.
What isreal is doing to lebanon is wrong. But i agree isreal must fight hezbollah.
BTW - what ever happen to the isrealy soldier who was kidnapped in gaza. It happened before hezbollah kidnapped their two isrealy soldiers.
Is isreal just taking advantage of what they wanted to do all along? Invade lebanon? - just a thought. I don't know if i even believe it.
well at the same time you think, if the police come to your house and say 'we know for a fact there is a criminal hiding in here, can we come in a take a look?" and you say no and shut the door, they are gonan break down the door and look anyway
by not giving israel permission to enter their land lebanon is committing the equivilent of obstruction of justice
although a question that has to be asked is, did israel attempt to secure permission, or did they just move in?
Post by: _iffy on July 31, 2006, 04:28:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Jul 31 2006, 07:06 PM)
by not giving israel permission to enter their land lebanon is committing the equivilent of obstruction of justice
QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 31 2006, 07:46 PM)
Ok...
_iffy...not to be mean...but your analogy SUCKED.
This is very different. They didnt "plant" evidence. Police and countries also play by COMPLETELY different rules.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 31 2006, 07:46 PM)
Israel doesnt have to "ask" permission in this case.
Israel only has to request that Lebanon "cease hostilities".
Since Lebanon did not cease hostilities...this can be viewed as an act of war. A country ALWAYS has a right to defend itself from foreign aggression. There is absolutely no question that rockets fired from Lebanon are landing in Israel. According to almost every international law I am familiar with....Israel has every right to attack Lebanon as long as a "military force is acting aggresively" towards Israel.
Second, essentially hezbolah are criminals. In this case foriegn criminals.
analogy...
This happens quite a bit so...
a chinese theif flees china and makes america his new home. China calls america and say hand him over. The thief says to america if you do this they will torture me. America, which doesn't believe in the corporal punishment, tells china we'll give him if you promise not to torture him. China says no. Internation lawyers and courts are heard, until a comprimise can be made.
Imagine if china didn't ask america to hand him over. Imagine if the chinese army just invaded US soil kicking down doors and opening fire on people who resemble the thiefs mugshots. What would the rest of the world think and do?
Isreal should have asked lebanon for permission to enter their land and hunt down hezbollah. Lebanon would have said yes. Lebanon could have helped isreal with intel, logistics and supplies. IMO.
Post by: puckSR on July 31, 2006, 05:37:00 PM
QUOTE
First Isreal has the right to defend itself. Not invade other countries.
Wrong...if the only way for Israel to defend itself is to invade another country....then they are perfectly within their rights.
QUOTE
Second, essentially hezbolah are criminals. In this case foriegn criminals.
analogy...
This happens quite a bit so...
a chinese theif flees china and makes america his new home. China calls america and say hand him over. The thief says to america if you do this they will torture me. America, which doesn't believe in the corporal punishment, tells china we'll give him if you promise not to torture him. China says no. Internation lawyers and courts are heard, until a comprimise can be made.
analogy...
This happens quite a bit so...
a chinese theif flees china and makes america his new home. China calls america and say hand him over. The thief says to america if you do this they will torture me. America, which doesn't believe in the corporal punishment, tells china we'll give him if you promise not to torture him. China says no. Internation lawyers and courts are heard, until a comprimise can be made.
Still a horrible analogy.
1. Lebanon says that it cannot catch the "criminal"
2. This is not a singular person...but an entire organization
3. These criminals are CURRENTLY commiting crimes against another country. Once your "thief" leaves China...he is no longer robbing Chinese. In this case Hezbollah is still attacking Israel.
4. Lebanon is not refusing to hand over the criminals because of objections....Lebanon has claimed a complete inability to apprehend or stop the criminals
QUOTE
That's only if lebanon follows isreals laws. Which they don't. There an independant and sovern nation. Not a provence of isreal.
Right...which means that they both follow international law....
Which means that they have the right to attack a country that is attacking them.
QUOTE
Isreal should have asked lebanon for permission to enter their land and hunt down hezbollah. Lebanon would have said yes. Lebanon could have helped isreal with intel, logistics and supplies. IMO.
1. Lebanon would not have said "Yes". Hezbollah is very popular in Lebanon...and Israel is very unpopular. Any govt that supported Israel hunting down Hezbollah in Lebanon would have been immediately removed from power.
2. Lebanon cannot provide anything. The reason Hezbollah can continue these attacks is because most Lebanese support or at the very least do not oppose the violence.
3. Why ask for permission? This is really getting silly. What country has ever asked for "permission" to attack another country...from the country they were attacking?
Your missing the entire picture iffy.
The Lebanese govt cannot attack Hezbollah. They cannot stop Hezbollah. Hezbollah is popular.
Lebanon cannot support Israel. They cannot assist Israel. Israel is not popular.
The Lebanese govt is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either do the right thing...and piss off all of your country....or do the wrong thing and provoke a war with Israel.
Israel had absolutely NO CHOICE. They were being attacked. The attacks became worse. Israel now must either defend itself or surrender. I dont expect them to surrender....
IN OTHER WORDS>>>
Israel had NO CHOICE.
If you want to discuss motive, purpose, decisions, etc....discuss the motives and decisions of the Lebanese govt. Discuss the motives and decisions of Hezbollah....
But leave Israel out of it....they had no choice...they did what any country or person would do and defended themselves from attacks!!!!
Post by: Arvarden on August 01, 2006, 05:43:00 AM
Britain did not bomb civilian infrastructure during the IRA's campain of terror. So when you say "they did what any country or person would do and defended themselves from attacks" you are plainly grabbing at straws to defend the Israeli's. I'll give you another example, when Argentina invaded the falklands we didn't bomb the mainland nor did we go out of our way to cause civilian casualties.
Israel had a choice, they could either start negotiations regarding prisoner releases or they could do what they are presently doing. Like the wall they have built and the bombs they are dropping none of them seem to be working towards a lasting peace plan. If the Israeli's wanted peace with her neighbours they would have abided by various UN resolutions and the land grabbing for the iron certain would be a pipe dream for the hardcore in Israels society.
Infact if Bush and his poodle stopped shipping bombs to the middle east the Israeli's would not be able to bomb civlians on the scale we are witnessing. Talk about giving a rogue nation <that refuses to acknowledge it's own WMD program>the green light....sigh.
Post by: nickthegreat on August 01, 2006, 09:40:00 AM
QUOTE(Arvarden @ Aug 1 2006, 12:50 PM)
Britain did not bomb civilian infrastructure during the IRA's campain of terror.
Good point
PuckSR - you say they have no choice, - this is the black and white vision that bush and all religious fanatics have. Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, Us and Them, all that shit. "no choice but to defend themselves"? - Turd
Their actions are merely reinforcing Hezbollah's belief that they too are 'Right' - as the evidence of 'Israeli Evil' can be seen all around: the death of innocents. This makes a mutual resolution much less likely at any point in the future.
If the Israeli government appealled to the international community, or perhaps even (heaven forbid) the UN, y'know, maybe follow some international laws once in a while rather than getting the US to veto them, then perhaps at least they could start engendering some sympathy within the arabic populace: I mean they are fucking pissed off with this shit too.
Or back to the UN point; if they told the US where to go perhaps one of the many Resolutions that have been created and accepted by the international and arabic world could be enacted: the basis for a long term solution perhaps? at least it would be a perspective thats detatched from their ingrained conflict and thus might hold some legitimacy.
In any case, after years and billions of dollars pumped into a failed ICBM defense system ('star wars'
) I think that the US could perhaps give the Israeli's weapons to negate the rockets being fired into their nation, rather than those that are naturally used to seek vengence (apache/tanks etc). (Im not sure if this is possible - but I do know the US has the ability to shoot down certain rockets already - theatre missile defense - so why they couldn't shoot down the ice age looking shit thats heading Israel's way I don't know - perhaps because they too see in black and white and would rather categorically 'win') - So no, I don't think 'they have no choice'nick
edit: damnit, new reply when typing...............
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 1 2006, 04:31 PM)
Israel has every right to attack Hezbollah....and to enter Lebanon without permission to attack Hezbollah if Lebanon claims "inability".
The issue of civilian casualities is seperate....
No, its not - otherwise the British would have every right to have invaded the US due to the massive funding that Irish Americans were providing the IRA - after all, the US govt turned around and stated they had an 'inability' to do anything about it...... (not that we would have achieved much, but my point is there would still have been no legitimate reason to attack your nation)
- fair play on the giving back land point, but they have to distance themselves from what looks like an empty gesture: by allowing a 3rd party to intervene that is impartial (to a greater degree)
Post by: jha'dhur on August 01, 2006, 11:40:00 AM
QUOTE(nickthegreat @ Aug 1 2006, 11:47 AM)
No, its not - otherwise the British would have every right to have invaded the US due to the massive funding that Irish Americans were providing the IRA - after all, the US govt turned around and stated they had an 'inability' to do anything about it...... (not that we would have achieved much, but my point is there would still have been no legitimate reason to attack your nation)
- fair play on the giving back land point, but they have to distance themselves from what looks like an empty gesture: by allowing a 3rd party to intervene that is impartial (to a greater degree)
These days that will land you in Gitmo. US is tongue lashing Iranians over the same game that they invented.
I saw that traitor Oliver North in the DC airport and I told him THANKS.
We are battling the Islamic forces North, Reagan and Bush Sr created to stop spread of communisim.
Post by: sunker on August 01, 2006, 01:20:00 PM
Post by: _iffy on August 01, 2006, 03:30:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 31 2006, 09:44 PM)
Still a horrible analogy.
1. Lebanon says that it cannot catch the "criminal"
2. This is not a singular person...but an entire organization
3. These criminals are CURRENTLY commiting crimes against another country. Once your "thief" leaves China...he is no longer robbing Chinese. In this case Hezbollah is still attacking Israel.
4. Lebanon is not refusing to hand over the criminals because of objections....Lebanon has claimed a complete inability to apprehend or stop the criminals
1. If lebanon says they cannot catch the "criminals" Isreal can ask to do it for them.
2. Your reading the analogies too literally(sp) so much that you miss the message.
3. Once the thief leaves china he is still a thief. Still an outlaw. Cops won't stop chasing you if you stop commiting crimes.
4. see point #1
The point of this analogy is by simply talking to the nation where the criminals are in, an expedition treaty can be easily aquired. If the prosecuting nation, doesn't even ask for one, and invade the hosting nation with force, they're breaking international laws.
QUOTE(me)
That's only if lebanon follows isreals laws. Which they don't. There an independant and sovern nation. Not a provence of isreal.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 31 2006, 09:44 PM)
Right...which means that they both follow international law....
Which means that they have the right to attack a country that is attacking them.
No sovern nation, has attacked isreal. You are right with international laws though - Did lebanon sign an agreement to abide by those laws (really don't know - don't flame for this)
QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 31 2006, 09:44 PM)
IN OTHER WORDS>>>
Israel had NO CHOICE.
If you want to discuss motive, purpose, decisions, etc....discuss the motives and decisions of the Lebanese govt. Discuss the motives and decisions of Hezbollah....
But leave Israel out of it....they had no choice...they did what any country or person would do and defended themselves from attacks!!!!
I had a lot more quotes from you(puck) and rather repeat them because most of them are the same, i'll just sumerize(spelling i know). puck your points all take a view of Isreal haveing no choice, they have to attack the country of lebanon, in order to get hezbollah, so they can get their two kidnapped solders (which are probably dead now) back because they can't sacrifice their lives.
Which is fine.
My view is that isreal shouldn't attack lebanon to get to hezbollah. They should work with lebanon or get lebanon permission to enter their land.
Isreal didn't even try, so what i'm saying is isreal is no different from any other terroist organisation that uses violence to get what they want.
ANALOGY ...YAH!!...
what hezbollah did to isreal is like what brazillian cab drivers do to american tourists. Kidnapping. America hasn't declared war on brazil have they? Stealth bombers aren't nukeing rio de janeiro right now are they?
puckSR, argueing with you is always good. You bring up points that i haven't thought of and you read everyones replies. However, your not going to change my mind on this issue. If i can't convince you, than i'll agree to disagree.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Jul 31 2006, 09:44 PM)
Black and White, Good and Evil?????
Look....when anyone is being attacked they have 2 basic options
1. Fight back
2. Run away
Since a country cannot "run away"...what other option did they have?
3. talk
Post by: sidewinder33 on August 02, 2006, 02:05:00 AM
QUOTE(_iffy @ Aug 1 2006, 03:37 PM)
talk
Heres an analogy I think summarizes this situation or any situation with Muslims, a starving bear is chasing you through the woods, despite your best efforts to calm the bear, and negotiate, the bear is still relentless, it does not care about your feelings, it does not want to stop, it just wants to devour you. You have the ability to kill the bear but that isn't the PC thing to do, you must either kill or be killed in this situation, you can't run forever and the bear is locked onto you. These terrorists are the same way. They do not want to talk; you cannot talk to someone who would just as soon shoot you if they could. Terrorists are terrorists for a reason, they do not wish to take any formal steps that the civilized world has setup for aggressions between nation or beliefs. They only want to eradicate Israel, not make a deal. Talking is not an option.
And this is somewhat on topic but people who don't believe in good and evil are idiots. Yes there are different points of view in the world, and thats fine but when one point of view it to eradicate another nation or race, that is ..... thats right evil. Iran has openly made aggressive statements towards America, and in the old days shit like that was fight'n words, you mess with the bull you get the horn. Even if you can't seem to see good and evil how can you side with a nation who's goal is now to destroy you. Iran hates America its a given I'll bet if you walked into the Iranian capital and said "you know what Im and American and I support you fuck America I hate them all too", right after you got past I'm an American you'd be dead. They do not think the same way we do. The world cannot "get along and talk things out" when one side is only going to be settled when you are dead. I bring I ran into this because they are using this shit in Lebanon to take heat off of them so they can keep working, on getting nukes, we need to stop pussy footing around. The UN is the biggest crock of shit, they cant even wipe their own ass. These other nation just don't quite seem to get the picture, America is #1 in the crosshair of all these psychos, but Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Western Civilization are next in line. Instead of fearing America, maybe you guys should realize that we are the only thing keeping the shit from hitting you guys right now.
IMHO the real problem is that the world has been trying to appease these people for decades and now they are getting cocky (Hitler) its only a matter of time before history repeats itself.
Post by: nickthegreat on August 02, 2006, 06:37:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 1 2006, 07:29 PM)
Hmmm...
NO
First, if that was proper justification, then Israel would be attacking many more countries right now. Hezbollah is being funded HEAVILY by other countries...
Secondly, a few of you need to realize the difference between "having the right" and "actually doing something".
I may have the "right" to do something, but may decide not to do it for many alternative reasons.
America does not 'have the right', it assumes it does, but within the international scene the 'right' is dictated by 'law', something that the US frequently overlooks. Something cannot just be 'moral' or 'right' from your (as in a nations) own singular viewpoint
Ok...think about it nick
Israel had 3 choices:
1. Attempt to physically stop Hezbollah
2. Negotiate with Hezbollah
3. Do nothing
4. Attempt to find a peaceful solution outside of direct negotiation? The UN is only impotent because, as I have said, the US blocks any Resolutions that provide the potential for peace.
Since Israel labels Hezbollah a terrorist organization....they WILL NOT negotiate hence black and white. Israel labels them a terrorist organisation ( and i admit that they act that way) but alot of the middle east see the inverse of this, hence Israeli occupation, hence hezbollah as a political party (a large one at that). Back to my earlier point: technically the US can be viewed as a 'terrorist organisation' - based upon some of its international behaviour and internationally accepted definitions (hence why I mentioned Geneva and Nuremburg), but that should not prohibit rational discussion between it and other nations. Labelling each side is unproductive - you are instantly placing yourself on the moral high ground
Obviously, while "do nothing" is an option...it doesnt seem like a very good option
So, in a practical world Israel is left with the option of defending itself/attacking Hezbollah
Now, Nick, you and a few other people are arguing against the WAY that Israel is defending itself and attacking Hezbollah. That is fine, I am not even discussing method. But you should, as this is what will lay or destroy the ground work for a reasonable outcome
Black and White, Good and Evil?????
Look....when anyone is being attacked they have 2 basic options
1. Fight back black
2. Run away white
Since a country cannot "run away"...what other option did they have?
terrorism is a non conventional type of warfare, so 'run' or 'fight' is a completely impotent example, what about internal terror? non conventional warfare requires a non conventional response. And until both the US and Israel accept this they will perpetuate the situation.
Oh right
Hmm...I am pretty sure that there is a reason that they are not using "missile defense shields".
Maybe they arent safe in populated areas
where as the current situation could be described as 'safe' for both sides
Maybe the rockets being fired are too low-flying to be picked up on radar.
maybe. AA guns then? my point is I doubt this has even been considered
I doubt it is because "they see in black and white".
I quote both Condi and Bush "the creation of a new Middle East". Not the "creation of a new middle eastern 'peace', a new middle east.
Right...maybe they should have pulled out of certain areas!!! Wait...they did that
Maybe they should cease hostilities towards arabic countries!!! Wait they tried that
Maybe they should try something DIFFERENT then: my point entirely.
If anything, I would be willing to bet that Israel has no problem making concessions. The problem is that when your enemy is full of terrorist cells and religious fundamentalists...they take a all or nothing attitude.
Hezbollah doesnt want Israel out of certain areas....Hezbollah wants Israel completely destroyed.
There is an old skit where a salesman is negotiating with a customer
"How much for that stereo?"
"$300"
"How about $1?"
"Hmmm...you drive a hard bargain...how about $250?"
"How about $1?"
"Ok, Ok...your killing me...$200?"
"How about $1?"
Hezbollah and other groups like them are not flexible...they want Israel gone...and when Israel concedes a piece of land...they continue to attack...
They hope that maybe Israel will concede even more land as long as the attack
This isnt a very fruitful negotiating system.
don't get me wrong, I do see your point, and it is a tough situation - but then why revert back to a prior negotiating system (one of violence) that patently hasn't worked either?
Thanks for the intelligent post though
...........................................QUOTE(sidewinder33 @ Aug 2 2006, 09:12 AM)
Heres an analogy I think summarizes this situation or any situation with Muslims (and theres the problem - Muslims do not equal Terrorists, Bears, or any other problem, or at least no more so than any other religion) a starving bear is chasing you through the woods, despite your best efforts to calm the bear, and negotiate, the bear is still relentless, it does not care about your feelings, it does not want to stop, it just wants to devour you. You have the ability to kill the bear but that isn't the PC thing to do, you must either kill or be killed in this situation, you can't run forever and the bear is locked onto you. These terrorists are the same way ( no their not, at least PuckSR seems to realise demands are made, however unreasonable, as they were prior to 9/11 -whether you hear about them as a citizen is different) . They do not want to talk; you cannot talk to someone who would just as soon shoot you if they could. Terrorists are terrorists for a reason,(.hezbollah are labelled 'terrorists' by a small number of nations only, correctly or incorrectly) they do not wish to take any formal steps that the civilized world has setup for aggressions between nation or beliefs ( Please, don't make me say this again; NOR DO THE US OR ISRAEL: your right, the civilized 'world' has set up formal steps, steps that neither country follows.) They only want to eradicate Israel, not make a deal. Talking is not an option.
And this is somewhat on topic but people who don't believe in good and evil are idiots. (Bush "your either with us or against us" - I don't believe in JUST good or evil. People who can't see situations with right on both sides, to whatever degree, are idiots ) Yes there are different points of view in the world, and thats fine but when one point of view it to eradicate another nation or race, that is ..... thats right evil. Iran has openly made aggressive statements towards America, and in the old days shit like that was fight'n words, you mess with the bull you get the horn. Even if you can't seem to see good and evil how can you side with a nation who's goal is now to destroy you. Iran hates America its a given I'll bet if you walked into the Iranian capital and said "you know what Im and American and I support you fuck America I hate them all too", right after you got past I'm an American you'd be dead. They do not think the same way we do. The world cannot "get along and talk things out" when one side is only going to be settled when you are dead. I bring I ran into this because they are using this shit in Lebanon to take heat off of them so they can keep working, on getting nukes, we need to stop pussy footing around. The UN is the biggest crock of shit, they cant even wipe their own ass (because of the veto system and the US position regarding Israel). These other nation just don't quite seem to get the picture, America is #1 in the crosshair of all these psychos (you asked yourself why? given that your so far away and all), but Britain, France, Russia, Germany, Western Civilization are next in line. Instead of fearing America, maybe you guys should realize that we are the only thing keeping the shit from hitting you guys right now. (OMG you need a slap, sorry, but 'the shit' whilst devastating is not (yet) the signal that the end of the world is nigh and that the US is the saviour. If terrorism did escalate there would be nothing the US could do: the proliferation of nukes is widespread and uncontrolled: Rumsfeld's Red Report back in 98 (i think) declared the biggest international risk from locally based nukes - so why the concern now about Iran (a country ruled by a religious dictatorship with territorial boarders) - to be honest that seems like the perfect candidate for applying to the principles of Mutually Assured Destruction (the reason why the US will not attack them if they have any sense at all): they are not a nuclear threat in the strictest sense: the threat comes from those who treat nuclear powers like they are shit on their shoe. A similar view can be taken historically with N korea in peacetime. Fair enough religion is an extra factor in Iran; just as it is within your administration, and your personal viewpoint (hence the bear example). There are, however, many dangerous things in this world, and many dangerous ways to react to them. While PuckSR has some very valid points on Israel, I cannot agree with you on Iran, or terrorism in general. You, my friend, are poking the bear in the eye with a big stick.
IMHO the real problem is that the world has been trying to appease these people for decades and now they are getting cocky (Hitler) its only a matter of time before history repeats itself.
Hitler = a major military threat. Terrorism = nasty, but more americans died in bathtubs (think that stat comes from 2000) than in terrorist attacks (troops at war do not count).
Phew. I might just resort to one word insults soon.......... its quicker
Post by: puckSR on August 02, 2006, 10:04:00 AM
QUOTE
America does not 'have the right', it assumes it does, but within the international scene the 'right' is dictated by 'law', something that the US frequently overlooks. Something cannot just be 'moral' or 'right' from your (as in a nations) own singular viewpoint
America????
We are talking about Israel!!!!!!
QUOTE
Israel states that it has no quarrel with the government or people of Lebanon, and that it is taking extreme precautions to avoid harm to them. Yet a number of its actions have hurt and killed Lebanese civilians and military personnel and caused great damage to infrastructure. While Hezbollah's actions are deplorable, and as I've said, Israel has a right to defend itself, the excessive use of force is to be condemned.--Kofi Annan
QUOTE
Israel labels them a terrorist organisation ( and i admit that they act that way) but alot of the middle east see the inverse of this, hence Israeli occupation, hence hezbollah as a political party (a large one at that). Back to my earlier point: technically the US can be viewed as a 'terrorist organisation' - based upon some of its international behaviour and internationally accepted definitions (hence why I mentioned Geneva and Nuremburg), but that should not prohibit rational discussion between it and other nations. Labelling each side is unproductive - you are instantly placing yourself on the moral high ground
Wrong....
America cannot be viewed as a Terrorist organization in the same way that Hezbollah can...
Terrorist is perhaps the wrong word....but it is commonly used in reference to violent negotiations.....
America has never kidnapped people and held them for ransom
Part of Hezbollah is non-terrorist....however, kidnapping soldiers and requesting prisoner exchange is a non-negotiable position. No country on the face of the earth is going to negotiate in that situation
QUOTE
4. Attempt to find a peaceful solution outside of direct negotiation? The UN is only impotent because, as I have said, the US blocks any Resolutions that provide the potential for peace.
Just out of curiosity...could you give me an example???
QUOTE
terrorism is a non conventional type of warfare, so 'run' or 'fight' is a completely impotent example, what about internal terror? non conventional warfare requires a non conventional response. And until both the US and Israel accept this they will perpetuate the situation.
Hezbollah is truly not "terrorist", they are guerilla
They are fighting a fairly conventional war...last time i checked firing rockets into a country and having ground assault forces attack their troops is "conventional warfare"
QUOTE
mm...I am pretty sure that there is a reason that they are not using "missile defense shields".
Maybe they arent safe in populated areas
where as the current situation could be described as 'safe' for both sides
Maybe the rockets being fired are too low-flying to be picked up on radar.
maybe. AA guns then? my point is I doubt this has even been considered
I doubt it is because "they see in black and white".
I quote both Condi and Bush "the creation of a new Middle East". Not the "creation of a new middle eastern 'peace', a new middle east.
Maybe they arent safe in populated areas
where as the current situation could be described as 'safe' for both sides
Maybe the rockets being fired are too low-flying to be picked up on radar.
maybe. AA guns then? my point is I doubt this has even been considered
I doubt it is because "they see in black and white".
I quote both Condi and Bush "the creation of a new Middle East". Not the "creation of a new middle eastern 'peace', a new middle east.
This link might be helpful
basically...it isnt an issue of "not willing" it is an issue of the technology being so antiquated that it makes modern defense difficult
QUOTE
Right...maybe they should have pulled out of certain areas!!! Wait...they did that
Maybe they should cease hostilities towards arabic countries!!! Wait they tried that
Maybe they should try something DIFFERENT then: my point entirely.
Maybe they should cease hostilities towards arabic countries!!! Wait they tried that
Maybe they should try something DIFFERENT then: my point entirely.
Hmm...THEY ARE...
BLOWING THE CRAP OUTTA THEIR COUNTRY
In all honesty...it is a new solution.
You basically agreed with my point.
They have tried appeasement...
They have tried negotiations...
They have tried carefull targeted attacks...
They have tried counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism
Now...they are going to go with...blow you up till you stop or die
QUOTE
Muslims do not equal Terrorists, Bears, or any other problem, or at least no more so than any other religion
I believe he was trying to make the point that when dealing with a terrorist enemy who is Muslim
I dont believe he was trying to characterize ALL Muslims
He also might have been referring to Muslims opposed to Israel....
QUOTE
hezbollah are labelled 'terrorists' by a small number of nations only, correctly or incorrectly
The way in which you operate 'defines' you as a terrorist.
Hezbollah frequently operates as terrorists, and so does Hamas
The fact that they are also a valid political party, and hold some popularity is a different state of affairs.
They may not be "evil" terrorists...but they are terrorists
Post by: jha'dhur on August 02, 2006, 12:41:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 12:11 PM)
Wrong....
America cannot be viewed as a Terrorist organization in the same way that Hezbollah can...
Terrorist is perhaps the wrong word....but it is commonly used in reference to violent negotiations.....
America has never kidnapped people and held them for ransom
Part of Hezbollah is non-terrorist....however, kidnapping soldiers and requesting prisoner exchange is a non-negotiable position.
Stop changing word definitions, terroists employ violence to obtain political change.
- Cuba
- Somalia
- N. Ireland
- Nicuragua
- Panama
But I guess exiling people to Gitmo, or just kidnapping them and torturing them in Romania or Turkey is acceptable civilized behaviour
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 12:11 PM)
I dont believe he was trying to characterize ALL Muslims
He also might have been referring to Muslims opposed to Israel....
The way in which you operate 'defines' you as a terrorist.
Hezbollah frequently operates as terrorists, and so does Hamas
The fact that they are also a valid political party, and hold some popularity is a different state of affairs.
They may not be "evil" terrorists...but they are terrorists
So do the americans, you probably still dont know or understand why americans went to Somalia, or even Vietnam.
The Americans invaded Iraq with no legal justification, given their judgement Syria should invade Israel.
Why demolish private homes in GAZA.
MADNESSS
Post by: Arvarden on August 03, 2006, 09:48:00 AM
The whole Iraq war was based on WMD's pointing in our direction.
Post by: jha'dhur on August 03, 2006, 11:44:00 AM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 03:08 PM)
I was referring to groups of people who leverage violence/kidnappings for gain....
You mean thugs/gangsters. Oldest racket on the books.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 03:08 PM)
They are going to need to develop at least a diplomatic excuse for their actions.
We had:
1. WMDs
2. Evil dictator
3. Exile of UN inspectors
WMD's was total BS the CIA didnt even buy what Bush was selling thats why he passed the buck onto the British Intelligence because CIA wouldnt approve the speech
Evil dictators describe most governments to varying extents, same can be said of Bush or Clinton.
UN inspectors (Stephen Kay) were reporting lack of expertise by Iraqis pertaining to WMD's.
Plus UN inspection team was loaded with US spies who would paint targets for bombing. IAEA left Iraq because of war being immenent (last time), not Saddam.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 03:08 PM)
We were in vietnam because a strong anti-communist sentiment and a fear of Chinese influence over other areas of asia
Why do you think we were there?
OIL!!!!!
Post by: nickthegreat on August 03, 2006, 02:47:00 PM
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
America????
We are talking about Israel!!!!!!
The fact that you cannot see the link means you have not researched this topic from an objective enough perspective, or from objective enough sources. Two obvious reasons spring to mind, and i will expand upon them in relation to other questions you asked in the prior post.
1. The US has stood alone in vetoing the International Resolutions that condemn Israeli actions and the occupation (from the ICJ, the General Assembly and the Security Council), and additionally they have vetoed many plans to 'talk' or start a peaceful resolution. I will provide examples in a second, but the point is that not only is it incorrect to state that Israel has never had the option to resolve the situation by non-aggressive means, but that the US has stood out against the International CONSENSUS against Israeli behaviour. Like I said, examples in a bit - but this begs the question why the unwavering support.
2. So the US has provided political support to Israel, a 'nation' that is crippled at the International level due to its status - that seems reasonable enough at first glance, they are protecting a nation that is impotent within the international negotiating arena. But unwavering Military support is unacceptable, and places the US undeniably in the same boat as Israel - this has led to a widely known branding of the country as the 51st US state - this is especially true given when and where some of this support has occurred. All Im trying to show you here is that its not as simple as you might think, and its certainly not as simple as self defence. Take the beginning of the 2nd Intifada: There was, and this is undisputable, NO fire from palastinian forces, rock throwing outside a Mosque in an area under a military occupation, yes, but no gun fire: and yet the response was an Apache one aimed at civilian complexes. If it helps hunt down the example Im fairly sure this occured on the 29th sept 2001 (could have been 2000). In anycase, not a month after this happened Clinton provided the Israelis with the biggest shipment of Apaches and spares yet, with NO restrictions on use (which they would have been well within their rights to dictate). If this was not the outrageous act that I (and many authors within respectable Journals - Current History is a good one) claim it to be it would not have raised an official protest from Amnesty International (US actions, not those of the Israelis).
In anycase the US provision of Arms regardless of use, and in fact with full knowledge of intended use (it was, for example, well known that political assassinations - inherently an act of international terrorism - were carried out by US donated Apaches - in fact the FIRST were carried out by the Israelis against Hussein Abayat on the 9th of November 2000) links the US too closely to Israel to be impartial or any sort of moral judge: they are certainly closer than mere allies. If you don't believe that the relationship is more unusual than most alliances, consider why the US removed their 6th fleet from Tunisia, THEIR ALLY, just prior to an Israeli airforce attack that killed 75 civilians? Perhaps because they might well have had to inform Tunisia? Obviously the US rates some allies over others....... (incidently that was unanimously denounced as an 'act of armed aggression' by the Security Council - look it up, it was in 1985 - 'armed aggressor' is actually one step worse than an 'international terrorist' by definition.)
There are many valid arguments FOR military support, but to suggest that we are talking about Israeli action and that in no way involves America is a very selective way of looking at the arab/israeli conflict. Israeli behaviour would certainly have been altered minus US backing. Even without military support, it is the action of the US via veto, that enables/has enabled Israel to act without fear of international repraisal.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
Wrong....
America cannot be viewed as a Terrorist organization in the same way that Hezbollah can...
Actually 'Right':
The ICJ in 1986 (humourously two yrs after Regan came into office and announced a war on 'state sponsored' terror) condemned America for 'international terrorism' and the unlawful use of force against Nicuragua. In fact they were being generous, I can see no reason why it was not an act of aggression, which is in fact a war crime under the Geneva conventions. The ICJ ordered a halt to the military action and remuneration of billions of dollars. Congress reacted by pumping more money toward the war, Nicuragua took the US to the Security Council (US vetoed decision) and then the General Assembly, with the same outcome. It was widely known that the State Department also authorised attacks on what they called 'soft targets' - including civilian agricultural cooperatives. ( I think one major mainstream proponent of this action was Michael Kinsley, then editor of the 'New Republic' - can't remember if that is its exact title, but its close)
For further acts (that should well be denounced as acts of aggression, but were covered by 'the threat of communism') see the Nationalisation of the Gutamalan Fruit Company, and of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Both sparked CIA incursions under the guise of the spread of communism (yet both leaders were strong proponents of democracy) - and unsurprisingly, in the former, Allan Dulles was the former CEO of the Fruit firm, and John Dulles a major shareholder (or vice versa). In anycase given the official US definition of terrorism (taken from the 1984 US army manual)
"the calculated use of violence, or threat of violence, to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature"
it seems difficult to understand how America cannot be classified in the same light; international terrorist (as stated by the highest international legal body, the ICJ) maybe, but I would argue a state of that type is far more dangerous than an 'individual terrorist'. Don't get me wrong, BOTH SHOULD BE CONDEMNED, but in the West we should at least realise the hypocritical nature of our governments claims.
However, Israel in itself is certainly a different case:
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
Terrorist is perhaps the wrong word....but it is commonly used in reference to violent negotiations.....
America has never kidnapped people and held them for ransom
Part of Hezbollah is non-terrorist....however, kidnapping soldiers and requesting prisoner exchange is a non-negotiable position. No country on the face of the earth is going to negotiate in that situation
In 1985 the TWA flight 897 Hijackers claimed, correctly, that Israel was regularly hijacking ships in International waters, in transit between Lebanon and cyprus. Occupants were killed and kidnapped. If you look in certain journals you will be able to find evidence of this (unlikely to be US based of course, but I do appreciate the link to Foreign Affairs, a good journal). I think Noam Chomsky for one has raised this issue, whether you value his viewpoint or not, he is certainly thorough (and from an Israeli background.)
This does not justify the TWA hijackers, but indicates that it is a two sided conflict.........
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
Just out of curiosity...could you give me an example???
gladly.
Examples of US vetos (or abstentions) of International Consensus:
1976, January - A political settlement of the conflict upon the Internationally recognised borders, with regard to Resolution UN242 (which is the main point of contention between the US/Israel and the rest of the world because it would inherently acknowledge Palestinian rights.) UN242 is supported by all states and the PLO, but is vetoed by the US.
UN 242:
"with appropriate arrangements to guarantee the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of all states in the region and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised borders"
An acceptance of this would have to lead to an acceptance of both a palastinian and Israeli state, and as Shlomo Ben-Avi noted in 98 the Oslo process was founded upon the principle that Palestinians should become a permanent neo-colonial dependency of Israel (Chomsky again, I think, Distorted Morality?)
1980, (not sure of the date) - Security Council Resolution - condemning illegal population settling and the breaking of the 4th Geneva Convention. US 'abstains' this time.
1982, Israel invaded Lebanon, around 20000 killed + the US had to veto several Resolutions of the SC this time to enable the Israelis to keep fighting without retaliation from the rest of the World.
1985, The Iron Fist Operations in Southern Lebanon - UN Security Council ordered the Israeli's to leave, but they had US authorisation, so they stayed. There was no pre-tense of self-defense, this was not even brought up.
1985, As mentioned, Israelis bomb Tunisia, condemned by rest of the world. 'Armed Aggression'.
1987, UN General Assembly Resolution - denounced terrorism in all its forms and called for all states to fight against it - fair enough? 2 countries vetoed.... Why? This paragraph (and this was explicit):
"nothing in the present resolution could in anyway prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence as derived from the United Nations Charter of peoples forcibly deprived of that right, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation."
1. 'colonial and racist regimes' refers to S.Africa and their government's ( the US' Ally) abuse of the African National Congress dubbed terrorists
2. Foreign Occupation is obvious. In anycase my point is that as in the African example, friends that behave badly are seen as defending themselves, enemies that behave badly are 'terrorists'.
Either way the US vetoed the Resolution: And none of the above paragraph attacks or disadvantages the Israelis: The solution to the above paragraph is known as the two state settlement and has been around since the 70s, holds international consensus and is accepted by the former Israeli foreign Minister, Shlomo Ben-Avi.
2001, 5th Dec - Meeting of the 114 High Contracting Parties of the Geneva Convention.
This is important because, as you are probably well aware, the Geneva Convention was a response to the actions of the Nazis and allows for crimes, such as those tried in Nuremburg, and those responsible, to be held accountable. The 114 nations 'unanimously' decided that the 4th convention applied to the occupied territories, thus making the actions within War Crimes. The 4th Convention specifically protects civilian populations with regards deportation, torture, illeagal settlements and willful destruction of property. The Nations 'unanimously' decided because the US boycotted the conference. Why? Because not even the US press could ignore their nation so blatently vetoing such important legislation - where as SC Resolutions are far more easy to ignore; hence why I get the feeling you were a little disbelieving of my claims that the US continually flies in the face of international opinion - Western Press gives it little coverage
2001, 14th Dec - UN Security Council Resolution for sending International Monitors to the region (effectively what the Israeli troops are claiming will cause their withdrawal from Southern Lebanon currently.) US Vetoed: It was well known that President Bush disliked Palastinian approval of proposals.
Examples of Israel and US rejecting Peace Proposals from the Arabic side:
1970: President Sadat offered Egypt a complete peace treaty (in compliance with US terms/policy) in return for Israeli withdrawal from N Eastern Sinai (nothing to do with Palestinians); Both Kissenger and Carter rejected it, which led to the 1973 War, and then Carter suddenly recognised Sadat's offer and framed the agreement as a great triumph - but both Israel and the US were prepared to allow the war in the first place.
2002 March, The Saudi Plan - accepted by the Arab league and supported by the majority of the US population. The New York Times called it "a historic offer of full peace and recognition of Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal"
This was a proposal throughly supported by the PLO (a terrorist organisation by US definition since the late 80s) - therefore its not as simple as claiming that neither nations will negotiate with terrorists, nor that terrorists will offer peace. Interestingly only the Boston Globe managed to point out that this Saudi Plan was not new, but merely a reiteration of the 1981 Saudi Plan that was halted by the US (under duress from the Israelis, who flew helicopters over the Saudi oil fields to show the US that accepting the offer was not wise.) However, between 76 and 2002 Peace proposals similar to that of the Saudi Plan were reiterated frequently.
Obviously the Plan was never adopted.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
They are fighting a fairly conventional war...last time i checked firing rockets into a country and having ground assault forces attack their troops is "conventional warfare"
no, conventional is state versus state, and thus can be regulated to some extent (or at least punished retrospectively, hence Geneva)
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
This link might be helpful
basically...it isnt an issue of "not willing" it is an issue of the technology being so antiquated that it makes modern defense difficult
Fair enough, but Im surprised to say the least. I personally think Foreign Affairs (being based in DC) might have a certain tint to its perspective; but maybe Im being sceptical. And to be honest I only read the first 3 paragraphs.... got the idea, but am running out of energy.... will read it though
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
Hmm...THEY ARE...
BLOWING THE CRAP OUTTA THEIR COUNTRY
In all honesty...it is a new solution.
You basically agreed with my point.
They have tried appeasement...
They have tried negotiations...
They have tried carefull targeted attacks...
They have tried counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism
Now...they are going to go with...blow you up till you stop or die
no, 1982 and 85 prove that this tactic has been tried many a time.
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
I believe he was trying to make the point that when dealing with a terrorist enemy who is Muslim
I dont believe he was trying to characterize ALL Muslims
He also might have been referring to Muslims opposed to Israel....
He might have been, but its very important to be careful:
so let me get my views straight.
Both sides when killing civilians are effectively terrorists as far as Im concerned. When committing such acts neither has had the backing of the International community. Maybe the Israelis look less so, but then history has conveniently forgotten how many times they have been branded as such by the highest international organisations, and have behaved as such. In anycase, both sides are right and both sides are wrong, and both are often hugely immoral (look at the Qana massacre of 100 Lebanese in a UN refugee camp if you still cannot believe there is wrong on both sides)
so therefore you are right:
QUOTE(puckSR @ Aug 2 2006, 05:11 PM)
The way in which you operate 'defines' you as a terrorist.
Therefore the US has also sailed very close to the edge in the Israeli case, and as the ICJ noted, in others it has gone over.
Nick
PS: might take a while to reply, going to sleep for a couple of days....
HAHA, page 4 is mine