ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

xingu wrote:

...

Dumb conservatives. They think they can institute any policy through the barrel of a gun. They're failing in Afghanistan and Iraq. You wonder how many people have to die before they understand there are other ways besides brute force.

The greatest teachers the conservatives have are the terrorist themselves. They want to be just like them. Whatever the terrorist do it gives them the excuse to behave just like them.

Your post is pseudology. Terrorists declare they are murdering those who are not trying to murder terrorists or anyone else. Conservatives declare they are murdering the murderers of those who are not trying to murder terrorists or anyone else.

You allege "there are other ways besides brute force" to institute a policy of self-defense against those who have declared -- and repeatedly declare -- they are going to murder all of you, have murdered many of you, and are working to murder more of you. There exists zero historical evidence of successful examples that support what you allege.

Wishing otherwise is insufficient to make it so!

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

You allege "there are other ways besides brute force" to institute a policy of self-defense against those who have declared -- and repeatedly declare -- they are going to murder all of you, have murdered many of you, and are working to murder more of you. There exists zero historical evidence of successful examples that support what you allege.

Not true. Example: Northern Ireland, IRA, McCartney sisters...

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
You allege "there are other ways besides brute force" to institute a policy of self-defense against those who have declared -- and repeatedly declare -- they are going to murder all of you, have murdered many of you, and are working to murder more of you. There exists zero historical evidence of successful examples that support what you allege.

Not true. Example: Northern Ireland, IRA, McCartney sisters...

Are you suggesting that Northern Ireland and/or the IRA ever announced or presumed to eradicate all non-Irish from the face of the earth? That they were ever fighting for anything other than their independence and self determination? (I'm not sure about the McCartney sisters.)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Are you suggesting that Northern Ireland and/or the IRA ever announced or presumed to eradicate all non-Irish from the face of the earth?

Maybe not from the face of the Earth, but from the map of Northern Ireland - yes, I'm pretty sure about that....

Foxfyre wrote:

(I'm not sure about the McCartney sisters.)

Then I suggest you read up on them. Fascinating story. Google them.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
You allege "there are other ways besides brute force" to institute a policy of self-defense against those who have declared -- and repeatedly declare -- they are going to murder all of you, have murdered many of you, and are working to murder more of you. There exists zero historical evidence of successful examples that support what you allege.

Not true. Example: Northern Ireland, IRA, McCartney sisters...

Not true! These examples did not declare -- and repeatedly declare -- they were going to murder all of any group, did murder many of that group, and were working to murder more of that group.

Also, these examples were in fact opposed by self-defense brute force, before they were finally willing to negotiate.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

old europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
You allege "there are other ways besides brute force" to institute a policy of self-defense against those who have declared -- and repeatedly declare -- they are going to murder all of you, have murdered many of you, and are working to murder more of you. There exists zero historical evidence of successful examples that support what you allege.

Not true. Example: Northern Ireland, IRA, McCartney sisters...

Not true! These examples did not declare -- and repeatedly declare -- they were going to murder all of any group, did murder many of that group, and were working to murder more of that group.

Also, these examples were in fact opposed by self-defense brute force, before they were finally willing to negotiate.

Whatever. You were claiming there are no other ways but brute force, that there exists zero historical evidence of successful examples to the contrary. You were mistaken.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

That they were ever fighting for anything other than their independence and self determination?

Ooops. You squeezed that line in, otherwise I would have answered that one, too. Yes, the IRA has been fighting for "independence and self determination". Sounds a bit like what Fatah or Hamas are occasionally stating, doesn't it?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Are you suggesting that Northern Ireland and/or the IRA ever announced or presumed to eradicate all non-Irish from the face of the earth?

Are mixing up here a bit? Northern Ireland is part of the UK and the IRA is a terroristic group, mainly based in the Irish Republic.

0 Replies

ican711nm, are you attributing that quote to me when I was only quoting a Christan/Zionist leader who has access to the Oval Office? Here is the passage I used, "Imagining Amir's mindset as he prepared himself to kill Rabin, Hagee wrote, "Tonight, if God was good, an opportunity would show itself. No longer would Rabin be able to transfer Israeli lands to Palestinians. The damage he'd done in the West Bank and Gaza was enough. Israel had a divine right to the land, and to give it away was an act of treason against Israel and an abomination against God." The Rabin assassination goes to the heart of the matter. Our "Democratic" friend Israel is ruled by a mindset of Rabin's assassins. Many a Rabbi had called for his death quoting scripture that in their minds demanded that a leader who gave away land should be killed. Rabon's assassination was openly demanded in banners and slogans long before it happened. Many Rabbis rejoiced when it happened. There is an imperialist mindset driving both American and Israeli policy that is based on biblical interpretations. It plays a far greater role than I want to admit but the writings of these fanatics are clear, their access to the White House is clear and events are unfolding according to their plan. I believe the next step is inevitable, "Damascus:
The city of Damascus has been around for thousands of years and it has never been destroyed in battle. The Prophet Isaiah predicted that someday this city would be destroyed. Isaiah 17:1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from [being] a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap." These holy rollers are crazy enough to make it happen. http://www.raptureready.com/rap27.html

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Are you suggesting that Northern Ireland and/or the IRA ever announced or presumed to eradicate all non-Irish from the face of the earth?

Are mixing up here a bit? Northern Ireland is part of the UK and the IRA is a terroristic group, mainly based in the Irish Republic.

Ha! Good point, but no surprise there. Foxy is also mixing up Lebanon and Hezbollah....

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

Are you suggesting that Northern Ireland and/or the IRA ever announced or presumed to eradicate all non-Irish from the face of the earth?

Are mixing up here a bit? Northern Ireland is part of the UK and the IRA is a terroristic group, mainly based in the Irish Republic.

Ha! Good point, but no surprise there. Foxy is also mixing up Lebanon and Hezbollah....

Oh really? How have I done that?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

Are you suggesting that Northern Ireland and/or the IRA ever announced or presumed to eradicate all non-Irish from the face of the earth?

Are mixing up here a bit? Northern Ireland is part of the UK and the IRA is a terroristic group, mainly based in the Irish Republic.

Ha! Good point, but no surprise there. Foxy is also mixing up Lebanon and Hezbollah....

Oh really? How have I done that?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

Are you suggesting that Northern Ireland and/or the IRA ever announced or presumed to eradicate all non-Irish from the face of the earth?

Are mixing up here a bit? Northern Ireland is part of the UK and the IRA is a terroristic group, mainly based in the Irish Republic.

Ha! Good point, but no surprise there. Foxy is also mixing up Lebanon and Hezbollah....

Oh really? How have I done that?

0 Replies

I suppose, old europe heard you loud and clear.

But what about IRA and Northern Ireland?

0 Replies

I did not nor have ever said that the IRA and Northern Ireland were one and the same. But would any of you suggest that the IRA did not at one time have at least tacit approval and shelter from Northern Ireland?

I did not nor have ever said that Hezbollah and Lebanon were one and the same. But would any of you suggest that the Hezbollah does not have at least tacit approval and is provided shelter in Lebanon at this time?

OE is the one who put the IRA and Northern Ireland together in the same sentence. I was just accommodating him.

My point was, however, that there is no comparison between Northern Ireland and the IRA and Lebanon and Hezbollah.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I did not nor have ever said that the IRA and Northern Ireland were one and the same. But would any of you suggest that the IRA did not at one time have at least tacit approval and shelter from Northern Ireland?

Again: Northern Ireland is part of the UK, predominantly Protestant while the IRA is a (Catholic) terror group.

The government of Northern Ireland - as long as they had one - was never pro-IRA, actually, they were totally the opposite and thus NI is governed by London again. (Well, there were other reasons, too.)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I did not nor have ever said that the IRA and Northern Ireland were one and the same. But would any of you suggest that the IRA did not at one time have at least tacit approval and shelter from Northern Ireland?

Again: Northern Ireland is part of the UK, predominantly Protestant while the IRA is a (Catholic) terror group.

The government of Northern Ireland - as long as they had one - was never pro-IRA, actually, they were totally the opposite and thus NI is governed by London again. (Well, there were other reasons, too.)

You're right. NI was trying to separate and the IRA was trying to keep Ireland together. I had the order of it mixed up.

I still don't however, see the parallel between that and the current situation with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

OE is the one who put the IRA and Northern Ireland together in the same sentence. I was just accommodating him.

My point was, however, that there is no comparison between Northern Ireland and the IRA and Lebanon and Hezbollah.

Well, I was answering to ican (probable a mistake) who claimed there was absolutely no other way of dealing with terrorists than killing them, and absolutely no historical evidence that any method other than brute force has ever been successful vis-a-vis a terrorist group.

That was where I mentioned the IRA and Northern Ireland (and the McCartney sisters) "together in the same sentence".

As you know as well as anybody who's been following the discussion, you were the one who started comparing Northern Ireland and the IRA and Lebanon and Hezbollah.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

NI was trying to separate and the IRA was trying to keep Ireland together.

Just to remember. Manchester, Omagh ... yes, keeping Ireland together. Shocked

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
old europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
You allege "there are other ways besides brute force" to institute a policy of self-defense against those who have declared -- and repeatedly declare -- they are going to murder all of you, have murdered many of you, and are working to murder more of you. There exists zero historical evidence of successful examples that support what you allege.

Not true. Example: Northern Ireland, IRA, McCartney sisters...

Not true! These examples did not declare -- and repeatedly declare -- they were going to murder all of any group, did murder many of that group, and were working to murder more of that group.

Also, these examples were in fact opposed by self-defense brute force, before they were finally willing to negotiate.

Whatever. You were claiming there are no other ways but brute force, that there exists zero historical evidence of successful examples to the contrary. You were mistaken.

No, I am not mistaken in what I actually wrote. Your paraphrase of what I actually wrote is mistaken (i.e., a false paraphrase).

Use of brute force is a necessary way to resolve the kinds of disputes I described. Only after the necessary brute force is applied are successful negotiations of such disputes probable. Thus there are not other ways than brute force to resolve such conflicts. There are only supplemental ways in addition to brute force to solve such problems.

0 Replies

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know