2
   

we say terrorists kill innocent people...

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2006 07:10 am
najmelliw wrote:
I can and do fault the isralis for the deaths of the cicilians, since they tdo not have to attack, or attack with heavy artillery.

I notice you don't mention anything about the firebombing of school buses and other deliberate assassination of the weak and helpless by the Palestinians. Nice double standard.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2006 07:13 am
Michael_S wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Michael_S wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cyracuz wrote:
Quote:
Waging war without moral justification (which I by no means admit we've done) has zero to do with terrorism.


So you think there's no connection between the meddling of our countries and the terrorist bombings?

The question isn't whether there's a connection or not. The question is whether such meddling itself constitutes terrorism.


does that mean we are moving on to talk about the semantics of terrorism and what defines a terrorist (unfortunately I suspect the question was rhetorical).

Anyway. Heres a common definition of terrorisim

Quote:
terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear


In the current confilict with Israel and Lebanon, are the Israel army using violence (or the threat of violence) against Lebanese civilians? Yes.

Is this in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature? Yes

Is this done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear ? Yes

If you have evidence that the Israeli army has attacked civilians as an intended and not accidental target, as the Palestinians do, you need only present evidence for it. It's the Palestinians who firebomb school buses, not the Israelis.


Certainly, and of course the type of terrorisim you describe is terrorisim under any definition and quite despicable.

This is from todays news from Amnesty International.

Quote:
Civilians have been targeted in Lebanon by the Israeli Defence Forces and in northern Israel by Hizbullah leaving hundreds dead.

After weeks of fighting, bombs and rockets continue to fall indiscriminately on women, children, ambulances, rescue workers and other innocent victims of this escalating conflict. These deliberate attacks violate international humanitarian law and constitute war crimes.

It's my suspicion that this is nonsense, and that the Israeli bombs actually do have combatant targets. They certainly are justified in a military response to the sorts of atrocities which are the Palestinian MO.
0 Replies
 
Michael S
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2006 10:05 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Michael_S wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Michael_S wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cyracuz wrote:
Quote:
Waging war without moral justification (which I by no means admit we've done) has zero to do with terrorism.


So you think there's no connection between the meddling of our countries and the terrorist bombings?

The question isn't whether there's a connection or not. The question is whether such meddling itself constitutes terrorism.


does that mean we are moving on to talk about the semantics of terrorism and what defines a terrorist (unfortunately I suspect the question was rhetorical).

Anyway. Heres a common definition of terrorisim

Quote:
terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear


In the current confilict with Israel and Lebanon, are the Israel army using violence (or the threat of violence) against Lebanese civilians? Yes.

Is this in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature? Yes

Is this done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear ? Yes

If you have evidence that the Israeli army has attacked civilians as an intended and not accidental target, as the Palestinians do, you need only present evidence for it. It's the Palestinians who firebomb school buses, not the Israelis.


Certainly, and of course the type of terrorisim you describe is terrorisim under any definition and quite despicable.

This is from todays news from Amnesty International.

Quote:
Civilians have been targeted in Lebanon by the Israeli Defence Forces and in northern Israel by Hizbullah leaving hundreds dead.

After weeks of fighting, bombs and rockets continue to fall indiscriminately on women, children, ambulances, rescue workers and other innocent victims of this escalating conflict. These deliberate attacks violate international humanitarian law and constitute war crimes.

It's my suspicion that this is nonsense, and that the Israeli bombs actually do have combatant targets. They certainly are justified in a military response to the sorts of atrocities which are the Palestinian MO.


Lets examine this for a moment. I can give my reasoning for suspecting that civilians are being targeted.

By reading from many sources, it seems the Israelis are just about alone , with even their closest allies condeming the actions in Lebenaon. One must remember even the Nazis claimed to be doing no wrong, whilst all the time carrying out the worst possible attrocities. when all in the world start to suspect something , its usually a good indicator.

A comparison to when huricane Katrina went through the states, and people were looking to blame this on global warming and went to climatologists, who said "from a single incident nothing can be proved". One must take all the data from a sustained period and look at it collectively. I belive when the same is done with Isreal, each instance is not a case of a rogue soldier not following orders, or legitimate targets with collatoral damage or a missed target.

I belive that both Isreal and USA realize that to fall within the international guidlines on how to treat prisoners of war and following geneva conventions, they will not ahcieve thier goals. It's difficult to follow geneva conventions when the other side uses crowds to hide in, but nevertheless, USA and Isreal are forced to go outside of conventional acceptable practices.

By what reasoning do you suspect it is nonsense?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2006 10:30 am
Brandon

You scream for evidence, andwhen presented with it you disregard it as nonsense.

You don't wnt evidence. You want justification of your erroneous assumptions so you can go on being ignorant with a clear conscience.

You lost this discussion so many posts ago that to watch you embarrasing yourself just causes me to lose all respect for you.

Go read a newspaper.
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2006 12:04 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
najmelliw wrote:
I can and do fault the isralis for the deaths of the cicilians, since they tdo not have to attack, or attack with heavy artillery.

I notice you don't mention anything about the firebombing of school buses and other deliberate assassination of the weak and helpless by the Palestinians. Nice double standard.


OH really? I allready mentioned that I fault terrorists for suicide bombings... Their tactics are despicable, and retribution is hard to inflict.
So does a government have a right to attack a nation because of the actions of a few of it's citizens?

But given your penchants, I gather you think mass extermination of the islamites, or genocide of the palestinians, or some such nice method would be a good solution? It would after all stop terrorist attacks... Just eliminate ANY person who could make such an attack.
It seems the tactic Gunga favors... Great btw. if your son, without you knowing it, commits an act of terrorism and in reward you, and all your other relatives, are killed in retribution. Perhaps they should do the same for murderers in the US of A? Would THAT be fair?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2006 12:41 pm
Michael_S wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Michael_S wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Michael_S wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Cyracuz wrote:
Quote:
Waging war without moral justification (which I by no means admit we've done) has zero to do with terrorism.


So you think there's no connection between the meddling of our countries and the terrorist bombings?

The question isn't whether there's a connection or not. The question is whether such meddling itself constitutes terrorism.


does that mean we are moving on to talk about the semantics of terrorism and what defines a terrorist (unfortunately I suspect the question was rhetorical).

Anyway. Heres a common definition of terrorisim

Quote:
terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear


In the current confilict with Israel and Lebanon, are the Israel army using violence (or the threat of violence) against Lebanese civilians? Yes.

Is this in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature? Yes

Is this done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear ? Yes

If you have evidence that the Israeli army has attacked civilians as an intended and not accidental target, as the Palestinians do, you need only present evidence for it. It's the Palestinians who firebomb school buses, not the Israelis.


Certainly, and of course the type of terrorisim you describe is terrorisim under any definition and quite despicable.

This is from todays news from Amnesty International.

Quote:
Civilians have been targeted in Lebanon by the Israeli Defence Forces and in northern Israel by Hizbullah leaving hundreds dead.

After weeks of fighting, bombs and rockets continue to fall indiscriminately on women, children, ambulances, rescue workers and other innocent victims of this escalating conflict. These deliberate attacks violate international humanitarian law and constitute war crimes.

It's my suspicion that this is nonsense, and that the Israeli bombs actually do have combatant targets. They certainly are justified in a military response to the sorts of atrocities which are the Palestinian MO.


Lets examine this for a moment. I can give my reasoning for suspecting that civilians are being targeted.

By reading from many sources, it seems the Israelis are just about alone , with even their closest allies condeming the actions in Lebenaon. One must remember even the Nazis claimed to be doing no wrong, whilst all the time carrying out the worst possible attrocities. when all in the world start to suspect something , its usually a good indicator.

A comparison to when huricane Katrina went through the states, and people were looking to blame this on global warming and went to climatologists, who said "from a single incident nothing can be proved". One must take all the data from a sustained period and look at it collectively. I belive when the same is done with Isreal, each instance is not a case of a rogue soldier not following orders, or legitimate targets with collatoral damage or a missed target.

I belive that both Isreal and USA realize that to fall within the international guidlines on how to treat prisoners of war and following geneva conventions, they will not ahcieve thier goals. It's difficult to follow geneva conventions when the other side uses crowds to hide in, but nevertheless, USA and Isreal are forced to go outside of conventional acceptable practices.

By what reasoning do you suspect it is nonsense?

Well, partially the fact that you can't give a single example of non-combatants being targetted DELIBERATELY.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2006 12:45 pm
najmelliw wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
najmelliw wrote:
I can and do fault the isralis for the deaths of the cicilians, since they tdo not have to attack, or attack with heavy artillery.

I notice you don't mention anything about the firebombing of school buses and other deliberate assassination of the weak and helpless by the Palestinians. Nice double standard.


OH really? I allready mentioned that I fault terrorists for suicide bombings... Their tactics are despicable, and retribution is hard to inflict.
So does a government have a right to attack a nation because of the actions of a few of it's citizens?

It's not a few. It's their standard MO. It's been occurring constantly for many years.

najmelliw wrote:
But given your penchants, I gather you think mass extermination of the islamites, or genocide of the palestinians, or some such nice method would be a good solution? It would after all stop terrorist attacks... Just eliminate ANY person who could make such an attack.

Yes, I guess that's your best bet. Put words in my mouth that I have never said, and don't believe. You cannot win this argument sticking to the facts, not the personalities, and only the things I actually say.
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2006 12:56 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:

Yes, I guess that's your best bet. Put words in my mouth that I have never said, and don't believe. You cannot win this argument sticking to the facts, not the personalities, and only the things I actually say.


You started it. When you claim I have no eye for the Israeli side and the terrorist attacks on them, while I have deplored those actions on a2k several times, and then accusing me of having a double standard.

At least I used the words : I GUESS. Let me outine and underline the word guess [/u] since you seemed to miss it. It means that I frame my statement as my own, personal opinion, and therefor not as a fact

Now, I have tried to play it your way. Let me ask you this. As long as the government from any (democraticly run) country condones an action, it is therefor a just action and as such above dispute? Or is this just viable for the international political actions of the USA? Please, let me know.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2006 01:11 pm
najmelliw wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

Yes, I guess that's your best bet. Put words in my mouth that I have never said, and don't believe. You cannot win this argument sticking to the facts, not the personalities, and only the things I actually say.


You started it. When you claim I have no eye for the Israeli side and the terrorist attacks on them, while I have deplored those actions on a2k several times, and then accusing me of having a double standard.

No, another distortion by you. I never claimed any such thing. I only pointed out that you had only criticzed Israel, but failed to criticize the long string of atrocities by the Palestinians.

najmelliw wrote:
At least I used the words : I GUESS. Let me outine and underline the word guess [/u] since you seemed to miss it. It means that I frame my statement as my own, personal opinion, and therefor not as a fact

News flash, you're not entitled to criticize me for opinions I never expressed, even if you say, "I guess."

najmelliw wrote:
Now, I have tried to play it your way. Let me ask you this.

As long as the government from any (democraticly run) country condones an action,

it is therefor a just action and as such above dispute?


Or is this just viable for the international political actions of the USA? Please, let me know.

No, not at all. Israel's actions, and those of the US in the Middle East since the invasion of Kuwait, are justified based on the specific facts of the cases.
0 Replies
 
najmelliw
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Aug, 2006 01:26 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:

No, another distortion by you. I never claimed any such thing. I only pointed out that you had only criticzed Israel, but failed to criticize the long string of atrocities by the Palestinians.


And in what way precisely does this differ from the way I frased it?

Brandon9000 wrote:

najmelliw wrote:
At least I used the words : I GUESS. Let me outine and underline the word guess [/u] since you seemed to miss it. It means that I frame my statement as my own, personal opinion, and therefor not as a fact

News flash, you're not entitled to criticize me for opinions I never expressed, even if you say, "I guess."


I never criticized you. I just asked whether your sympathies would make the actions mentioned justifiable. But you apparently construed this as criticism, which means that you feel it holds a veiled attack on your viewpoints. You say that the accidental deaths of civilians in a war are deplorable but unavoidable.
So what stops the Israeli from loading an H-bomb, dropping it above Lebanon and then stating: "The purpose of the bomb was to destroy all Hezbollah structures and terrorists in the targetted area. Any civilian casualties are purely accidental." What precisely?

Brandon9000 wrote:

najmelliw wrote:
Now, I have tried to play it your way. Let me ask you this.

As long as the government from any (democraticly run) country condones an action,

it is therefor a just action and as such above dispute?


Or is this just viable for the international political actions of the USA? Please, let me know.

No, not at all. Israel's actions, and those of the US in the Middle East since the invasion of Kuwait, are justified based on the specific facts of the cases.


Justifed by who, Brandon?
0 Replies
 
Michael S
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 06:49 am
Brandon9000 wrote:

Well, partially the fact that you can't give a single example of non-combatants being targetted DELIBERATELY.


I have been more than obliging with providing examples and I would think to sugest otherwise is somewhat disingenuous.

I really don't mean to be the one that destroys your illusion , but uncle sam and Israel don't always play fair. Now one might discuss the tactics behind this or discuss is it possibe to have effective counter terrorisim that does not go out of bounds.

But the evidence is there, in the posts, in the news. The spin doctors are kept busy and there are some who believe it, perhaps they want to believe it or need to believe it (could this be you?). But it doesn't add up. By applying occums razor one arrives at the conclusion that Isreal/USA do commit acts of terrorisim.

Not by the definition you gave, despicable, yes, when civilians are targeted by a terrorist carrying a backpack with explosives and no this is not the approach USA/Israel use, they don't need to they have much more sophisticated weaponry.

One last word, it is not the poster who talks the longest or sticks to their position with disregard for answers suppied by other posters who "wins" a debate. By this logic a child having a tantrum is the winner every time, "I wanna ice cream, I wanna ice cream" regardless of anything the child is told. And now like several posters before me, I will take my leave and allow you to carry on by yourself.

Bye.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 12:47 pm
Re: we say terrorists kill innocent people...
Cyracuz wrote:
But do they?


Yes.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 12:50 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
What the **** are you talking about???

Do you really think dropping a ****' atom bomb in the middle of a city filled with men, women, children, and babies....WAS NOT INTENTIONAL???


The intent of dropping the A-bombs was not to kill civilians.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 12:52 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only times when we targetted civilians, and it was wrong, but it was also a long, long time ago.


The target at Hiroshima was the tens of thousands of combat troops in Hiroshima's large military districts.

The target at Nagasaki was the large armament factories outside the city.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 12:55 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Do the names Dresden and Tokyo mean anything to you??? We fire bombed both cities while they were filled with "innocent" civilians. And we targeted many, many other cities also.


We who? The burning of Dresden was a UK act.

Tokyo was also filled with lots of little arms factories.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 01:01 pm
Michael_S wrote:
Brandon, you've all but hijacked this thread with you're insistence that Israel and America are in no way to be considered terrorists.


The word "terrorism" has a definition.

The acts of Israel and the US do not fit that definition.


Quote:
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Aug, 2006 02:00 pm
Michael_S wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

Well, partially the fact that you can't give a single example of non-combatants being targetted DELIBERATELY.


I have been more than obliging with providing examples and I would think to sugest otherwise is somewhat disingenuous....

Forgive me, then. Could you please post a link to your example of the American or Israeli army deliberately attacking civilians as the actual intended target? I have no recollection of this post of yours, and would be grateful if you could take just a moment to refresh my memory. Obviously, atrocities committed by individual soldiers defying orders do not count, especially if they were put on trial for it afterwards.

If anyone else can find this example by Michael_S, that would do just as well.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Aug, 2006 10:38 pm
oralloy wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Yes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only times when we targetted civilians, and it was wrong, but it was also a long, long time ago.


The target at Hiroshima was the tens of thousands of combat troops in Hiroshima's large military districts.

The target at Nagasaki was the large armament factories outside the city.


We hit cities with several hundred thousand people to put an end to a war that had dragged on for years and killed over 50 million.

The goal, in my mind, was to crush the will of the Japanese leadership, arms factories or not. Mission accomplished.

For anyone to equate this with terrorism would indicate that they need their head examined.

We were attacked. Brutally, mercilessly. An unprovoked attack in a war that killed MILLIONS, not thousands.

We put an end to the war. And then we rebuilt the countries of our enemies and endeavored to make them friends.

No comparison at all to the terrorist activity that some think is analogous. It's not even close.

Brandon has done an excellent job in this thread of answering the jokers who have nothing better to do than bash the US and Israel and give a pass to every thug anywhere else on the planet.

We may not be perfect, but if you think they are more righteous in another country, I'll help you pack and move. Gladly I'll help, I'll even buy pizza for the movers.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 05:26 am
I agree with Brandon and real life...........

............

............

I'm gonna need to get that sentence framed.........
0 Replies
 
Jason Proudmoore
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Aug, 2006 06:33 am
oralloy wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
What the **** are you talking about???

Do you really think dropping a ****' atom bomb in the middle of a city filled with men, women, children, and babies....WAS NOT INTENTIONAL???


The intent of dropping the A-bombs was not to kill civilians.


What was the purpose of the atomic bomb then?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 01:21:58