 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Heresy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 06:12 pm |
|
The Engine wrote: Heresy wrote: What's wrong with Hezbollah rearming?
Let us stop pretending that you people care about Israel for any reason other than that you enjoy it when they bomb muslims.
Well they're a terrorist organization for starters. Need there be more of a reason?
By most Muslim's definition, the IDF is a terrorist organization, but we give them several billion dollars every year.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Why haven't you learned that yet?
|
The Engine
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:03 pm |
|
Heresy wrote: The Engine wrote: Heresy wrote: What's wrong with Hezbollah rearming?
Let us stop pretending that you people care about Israel for any reason other than that you enjoy it when they bomb muslims.
Well they're a terrorist organization for starters. Need there be more of a reason?
By most Muslim's definition, the IDF is a terrorist organization, but we give them several billion dollars every year.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Why haven't you learned that yet?
One man's terrorist is a liberal's freedom fighter, you mean.
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:06 pm |
|
According to your thoroughly loopy definition, all armies engaged in military activity are therefore necessarily engaged in terrorist activities.
There are two major definitions of terrorists
One is a "the killing of civilians for political purposes."
The other is "coercion through fear."
Both concern tactics.
Nakasaki and Hiroshima are examples of the tactic being used. It may be argued that they are examples of the tactic being used justly, but they are nonetheless examples of the tactic being used.
Other facts about combatants - such as not wearing uniforms, being Arab, or appearing on so-and-so list of "known terrorist organizations", while fitting in with your personal prejudices, are irrelevant to the definition of "terrorism".
Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:08 pm by BushFramedRogerRabbit
|
The Engine
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:10 pm |
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote: According to your thoroughly loopy definition, all armies engaged in military activity are therefore necessarily engaged in terrorist activities.
There are two major definitions of terrorists
One is a "the killing of civilians for political purposes."
The other is "coercion through fear."
Both concern tactics.
Nakasaki and Hiroshima are examples of the tactic being used. It may be argued that they are examples of the tactic being used justly, but they are nonetheless examples of the tactic being used.
Other facts about combatants - such as not wearing uniforms, being Arab, or appearing on so-and-so list of "known terrorist organizations", while fitting in with your personal prejudices, are irrelevant to the definition of "terrorism".
If you're equating the US military with terrorist organizations, you're
1) Extremely dishonest
2) Not on the side of freedom and Democracy (in other words, a traitor)
3) Not looking at the facts objectively-terrorists target civillians intentionally. The US military does not do that. In fact, they go out of their way, more so than any other military ever, throughout history, to do just the opposite.
|
stevecanuck
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:44 pm |
|
Heresy wrote: What's wrong with Hezbollah rearming?
Hezbollah's founding document quotes the following hadith:
The Day of Judgement will not come until Muslims fight the Jews. And the stones and the trees will say, "Oh Muslim, oh servant of God. There is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him".
They overtly advocate perpetrating genocide against the Jews. It's in writing.
Do you approve of their stated goal?
|
stevecanuck
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 07:53 pm |
|
Heresy wrote: The Engine wrote: Heresy wrote: What's wrong with Hezbollah rearming?
Let us stop pretending that you people care about Israel for any reason other than that you enjoy it when they bomb muslims.
Well they're a terrorist organization for starters. Need there be more of a reason?
By most Muslim's definition, the IDF is a terrorist organization, but we give them several billion dollars every year.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Why haven't you learned that yet?
Most M.E. Arab Muslims will also tell you 9/11 was an inside job and/or that the Israelis did it.
Most M.E. Arab Muslims will also tell you PEPSI is an acronym for Pay Every Penny, Save Israel. And yes they really do believe that. I've had several tell me that.
Those people live in a different world uncomplicated by fact.
|
stevecanuck
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:01 pm |
|
ignorance is bliss wrote: andytown wrote: HERESY
SORRY TO CORRECT YOU
BUT WARS CAN START FROM MIS OR DIS INFORMATION
and the IRA came to a political settlement with the U.K.
the other way round---UK CAME TO THE IRA---ask MAGGIE OR BETTER STILL JOHN MAJOR
OH! DEBATING WITH IGGY---COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME
Iggy hasn't posted on this thread until..................now, Collins old chum.
The missus is going to be pissed with you when she finds out you've been down at the local pub all day, come home & thrown up all over the cat again.
I bet even the wee Leprechuans at the bottom of your garden are going to be rolling in mirth when they see her throw your drunken arse out the back door for the niooght. 
If Andytown knows anything about hockey, he might be referring to me, not you. As you can see by my avatar, I'm a fan of the Calgary Flames, and our best player's nickname is IGGY (Jarome Iginla, who dispatched the Dallas Stars last night with 2 goals and an assist).
BTW, flying to Oz tomorrow to see new granddaughter......
|
Heresy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:12 pm |
|
If you are pro-Israeli, by definition you're not very objective, or interested in facts. What came first, the IDF or Hezbollah and Hamas? Hezbollah and Hamas are a reaction to the policies and actions of Israel, not the other way around.
Civilians in a democracy are fair targets, because the government is run by representatives who were voted in by the civilians. By voting in leaders who pursue aggressive military solutions, the civilians become willing combatants. Many pro-Israeli people do not seem to have a problem with using that logic to explain away the deaths of all those civilians in Gaza last winter. After all, the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas in a democratic election.
|
The Engine
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:15 pm |
|
Heresy wrote: If you are pro-Israeli, by definition you're not very objective, or interested in facts. What came first, the IDF or Hezbollah and Hamas? Hezbollah and Hamas are a reaction to the policies and actions of Israel, not the other way around.
Civilians in a democracy are fair targets, because the government is run by representatives who were voted in by the civilians. By voting in leaders who pursue aggressive military solutions, the civilians become willing combatants. Many pro-Israeli people do not seem to have a problem with using that logic to explain away the deaths of all those civilians in Gaza last winter. After all, the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas in a democratic election.
Wow. You really are fringe. ![[surprise]](/forums/themes/default/party-smiley-042.gif)
|
The Engine
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:17 pm |
|
Heresy wrote: If you are pro-Israeli, by definition you're not very objective, or interested in facts. What came first, the IDF or Hezbollah and Hamas? Hezbollah and Hamas are a reaction to the policies and actions of Israel, not the other way around.
Civilians in a democracy are fair targets, because the government is run by representatives who were voted in by the civilians. By voting in leaders who pursue aggressive military solutions, the civilians become willing combatants. Many pro-Israeli people do not seem to have a problem with using that logic to explain away the deaths of all those civilians in Gaza last winter. After all, the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas in a democratic election.
I'm sure the terrorists are happy to have a cheerleader, like yourself!
![[yay]](/forums/themes/default/luxhello.gif) ![[donkey]](/forums/themes/default/donkey.gif) ![[osama]](/forums/themes/default/violent-smiley-104.gif)
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:30 pm |
|
terrorists target civillians intentionally
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:33 pm by BushFramedRogerRabbit
|
Drudge X
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 16th, 2005 |
| Location: | Failure, USA |
| Posts: | 18601 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:34 pm |
|
Heresy wrote: If you are pro-Israeli, by definition you're not very objective, or interested in facts. What came first, the IDF or Hezbollah and Hamas? Hezbollah and Hamas are a reaction to the policies and actions of Israel, not the other way around.
Civilians in a democracy are fair targets, because the government is run by representatives who were voted in by the civilians. By voting in leaders who pursue aggressive military solutions, the civilians become willing combatants. Many pro-Israeli people do not seem to have a problem with using that logic to explain away the deaths of all those civilians in Gaza last winter. After all, the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas in a democratic election.
Thanks for letting us know that you are in favor of bombing a school bus full of children.
|
quantumystic
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:58 pm |
|
The Engine wrote: You seem to be a terrorist sympathizer.
What happened in Gaza City is about the use of massively disproportionate force in the midst of a large urban civilian population. Including weapons that are banned in such circumstances, like white phosphorus.
The Goldstone Report identifies war crimes by both sides. It doesn't unilaterally condemn only the Israelis. But that's not "good enough" for the Israeli cheerleaders. "Israel's government leaders can do no wrong."
BS.
I'll let you in on something. Not wanting state governments to act like war criminals doesn't make someone a "terrorist sympathizer".
|
quantumystic
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:04 pm |
|
Drudge X wrote: Heresy wrote: If you are pro-Israeli, by definition you're not very objective, or interested in facts. What came first, the IDF or Hezbollah and Hamas? Hezbollah and Hamas are a reaction to the policies and actions of Israel, not the other way around.
Civilians in a democracy are fair targets, because the government is run by representatives who were voted in by the civilians. By voting in leaders who pursue aggressive military solutions, the civilians become willing combatants. Many pro-Israeli people do not seem to have a problem with using that logic to explain away the deaths of all those civilians in Gaza last winter. After all, the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas in a democratic election.
Thanks for letting us know that you are in favor of bombing a school bus full of children.
Thanks for letting us know you're in favor of using one of the most horrific burning chemical agents known to mankind against an entire city full of civilians... Women. Children.
If I ever had to choose between myself and loved ones dying by a bomb, or by white phosphorus... I choose the bomb everytime. You have no freakin' clue how horrible that stuff is.
|
Voted4Reagan
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:07 pm |
|
quantumystic wrote: The Engine wrote: You seem to be a terrorist sympathizer.
What happened in Gaza City is about the use of massively disproportionate force in the midst of a large urban civilian population. Including weapons that are banned in such circumstances, like white phosphorus.
The Goldstone Report identifies war crimes by both sides. It doesn't unilaterally condemn only the Israelis. But that's not "good enough" for the Israeli cheerleaders. "Israel's government leaders can do no wrong."
BS.
I'll let you in on something. Not wanting state governments to act like war criminals doesn't make someone a "terrorist sympathizer".
Actually Mystic...the use of White Phosphorus is NOT PROHIBITED if it is used as a Smoke screen or as an Illumination round. If it is strictly used as an anti-personnel weapon it is against the accords... not in the applications in which it was used..
Israel committed no crime using white phosphorus illumination and smoke rounds in this capacity.
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:36 pm |
|
Actually Mystic...the use of White Phosphorus is NOT PROHIBITED if it is used as a Smoke screen or as an Illumination round. If it is strictly used as an anti-personnel weapon it is against the accords...
Moron.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/777549.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5521925.ece
Your blatant prejudice cannot whitewash clear, documented facts.
|
McRocket
Member
| Joined: | Sun Feb 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2952 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:36 pm |
|
WA Mozart wrote: A fascinating leap of logic. 'They' were, must have been, all terrorists. They knowingly, and willingly, killed innocent civilians. The death toll of innocent civilians was staggering. All guilty. .... Churchill, Marshall, Harris, Patton, George VI, Montgomery, Roosevelt, McArthur, Bradley, Dowding, Brooke, de Gaulle, Mountbatten etc etc.....
All terrorists, every last one of em. ...according to your definition.
Mozart
No, according to your definition.
I said the firestorm bombing of cities.
Patton, George VI, Monty, McArthur, Bradley, de Gaulle and Mountbatten had absolutely nothing directly to do with the firestorms.
And of the others, only Harris (to my knowledge) had direct responsibility.
Throw in LeMay and that would be the two I would guess had the most and only direct responsibility for supervising the firebombing of civilians ona massive scale.
And btw, I consider the atomic bombings to have saved far more lives then they took and were probably not acts of terrorism. They undoubtedly shortened the war incredibly, saved millions of lives (mostly Japanese during the planed Allied invasion of Japan) and saved tens of thousands of Allied prisoners who the Japanese instructed were to be killed were the home islands ever invaded.
The firestorms didn't shorten the war to any significant extent (imo). They just killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.
|
Heresy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:53 pm |
|
I try to explain how the people you define as terrorists rationalize their actions, and I am finding your replies to be quite irrational and devoid of substantive argument. What exactly did not make sense about my argument, other than the fact that you don't agree with it, and can't seem to come up with a good argument against it?
What's the difference between a dead civilian who was the target of a "terrorist" attack, and a dead civilian who is collateral damage to a military strike? Either way, they're f**king dead. Saying that you are sorry, and that you didn't mean to kill them, doesn't exactly bring them back. It doesn't really matter anyways, you guys are making a big deal out of a couple of dead Israeli civilians, but you don't give a f**k about over 1,000 dead palestinian civilians. You say the Palestinians bring it upon themselves, but refuse to acknowledge any possibility that the Israelis bring attack upon themselves through the course of the policies they carry out.
|
quantumystic
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 11:00 pm |
|
Voted4Reagan wrote: Actually Mystic...the use of White Phosphorus is NOT PROHIBITED if it is used as a Smoke screen or as an Illumination round. If it is strictly used as an anti-personnel weapon it is against the accords... not in the applications in which it was used..
Israel committed no crime using white phosphorus illumination and smoke rounds in this capacity.
Sorry, friend. Here's where you're mistaken:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/int/convention_conventional-wpns_prot-iii.htm
It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.
Incendiary weapons do not include:
Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems.
White Phosphorus is not an "incidental" incendiary substance. Chemically, the moment it comes into contact with atmospheric oxygen, it form Phosphoric Pentoxide. And the moment that comes into contact with any form of moisture... it burns.
The IDF used air-delivered white phosphorus dispersion shells directly over the civilian population of Gaza City. Knowing full well that upon dispersion, it would be exposed to atmospheric oxygen, and then the particles would "dust" the civilian population... where the Phosphoric Pentoxide reacts to the moisture content in human tissue.
What you choose to call something is irelevant. I can call a nuke an "illumination round". It's still a nuke, with all the inherent properties. And white phosphorus is still an incendiary weapon.
The rest of the world, vis a vis the UN, is saying just that. And the only reason we're defending Israel's use of it is because we sold it to them, and we used it against the Iraqis in Fallujah during Operation Phantom Fury.
We are not on the side of the angels on this one.
|
The Engine
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 01:29 pm |
|
BushFramedRogerRabbit wrote: terrorists target civillians intentionally
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You seem to be obsessed with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and continually try to utilize them to justify all terrorism directed against the United States, so I will attempt to educate you.
Japan, first of all, committed numerous war crimes against both civillians and allied soldiers during the war. They seemed to have no reguard to life whatsoever. They beheaded helpless women, children, bound soldiers, etc. just for the sheer pleasure of watching them die. Some of their officers cooked and ate the remains of US servicemen, after they had killed them.
Also, the Japanese were fierce fighters, who would rather die than surrender. They were preparing the entire Japanese mainland for one huge, suicidal final battle. It is estimated that at least 10 million Japanese and 1-million US servicemen would have died as a result of an invasion of the island nation. And, considering the fierce fighting which had taken place upon both Naha and other islands, these estimates were probably far short of reality.
The two atomic bombs claimed the lives of approximately 250,000 people. Which is unfortunate, however, they ultimately saved the lives of over 10 million people.
And, the fact that you have to reach back in time 64 years to find something the USA did which justifies terrorism in the modern world is, well, sad. You're clearly desperate. Do you think your nation is without sin?
|
Current time is 03:59 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|
|
|
