G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Every single what? Palestinian?
More of you moral depravity?
Every single what? Palestinian?
More of you moral depravity?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
- Status
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Is there anybody you don't want to see killed? A lot of anger has built up over your 100 years on the planet....
Is there anybody you don't want to see killed? A lot of anger has built up over your 100 years on the planet....
There is only one rule of warfare - win, don't lose. If a village is hiding munitions, is the village innocent?
We've put too many rules in. The "let God sort it out" rule may be relevant in this case.
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
I don't disagree with the win, don't lose idea.
That's a far cry from "Kill every last one of them."
If a bank robber uses a baby to shield himself from the cops, is the baby innocent?
The village may be the baby or is it always black and white?
I don't disagree with the win, don't lose idea.
That's a far cry from "Kill every last one of them."
If a bank robber uses a baby to shield himself from the cops, is the baby innocent?
The village may be the baby or is it always black and white?
P
Priceless
Guest
It all comes back to Game of Thrones...
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
I'm sorry but this is absurd. We could have dropped a nuke on Iraq and killed everybody but we didn't. To answer your question, if the village is hiding the munitions under the threat of being killed if they don't by our enemies then yes, they are indeed innocent.
I'm sorry but this is absurd. We could have dropped a nuke on Iraq and killed everybody but we didn't. To answer your question, if the village is hiding the munitions under the threat of being killed if they don't by our enemies then yes, they are indeed innocent.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
To be fair to the IDF, the village is probably not the baby. Hamas is one of those "social services by day, terrorist by night" gangs that grow like weeds in the Middle East. A lot of Palestinian civilians are complicit -- they know Hamas is running terrorist ops under their noses, a lot of them probably even approve. Of course, those gangs also work as... gangs. If you say anything against them you disappear, or your niece does.
Nothing in that region is black and white. On the one hand the Palestinians are treated like beaten prisoners, and any human being under those conditions would lash out against his captors. Add to that they at least believe the Israelis stole their land and their future, and you have no problem crawling inside the head of a Palestinian who wants revenge.
On the other hand, they continually provoke the Israelis to do this, and the Israelis aren't insane to do it, because of groups like Hamas which, after all, got voted in. When the IDF talks about "mowing the lawn" they mean exactly what one would think -- going in, smashing all the Palestinians' stuff to bits, and making them start from scratch again. The Plan is to trap the Palestinians in an eternal iron age because that's the farthest they can hold them from having modern tools (armies, governments, schools, media outlets) to fight back.
I understand why the Israelis want to do this. I do not understand why we are helping them do it. Well, I understand, of course, since I live right in the middle of why we do. But because we do, we have to make up all sorts of compensatory narratives about how it's the right thing to do, rather than just the real politik thing to do, because we don't like admitting that we're just another country.
To be fair to the IDF, the village is probably not the baby. Hamas is one of those "social services by day, terrorist by night" gangs that grow like weeds in the Middle East. A lot of Palestinian civilians are complicit -- they know Hamas is running terrorist ops under their noses, a lot of them probably even approve. Of course, those gangs also work as... gangs. If you say anything against them you disappear, or your niece does.
Nothing in that region is black and white. On the one hand the Palestinians are treated like beaten prisoners, and any human being under those conditions would lash out against his captors. Add to that they at least believe the Israelis stole their land and their future, and you have no problem crawling inside the head of a Palestinian who wants revenge.
On the other hand, they continually provoke the Israelis to do this, and the Israelis aren't insane to do it, because of groups like Hamas which, after all, got voted in. When the IDF talks about "mowing the lawn" they mean exactly what one would think -- going in, smashing all the Palestinians' stuff to bits, and making them start from scratch again. The Plan is to trap the Palestinians in an eternal iron age because that's the farthest they can hold them from having modern tools (armies, governments, schools, media outlets) to fight back.
I understand why the Israelis want to do this. I do not understand why we are helping them do it. Well, I understand, of course, since I live right in the middle of why we do. But because we do, we have to make up all sorts of compensatory narratives about how it's the right thing to do, rather than just the real politik thing to do, because we don't like admitting that we're just another country.
Last edited:
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
twas a rhetorical question...
twas a rhetorical question...
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
It's only a rhetorical question if the person you ask doesn't have a good answer.*
(* This has been another life lesson from House.)
It's only a rhetorical question if the person you ask doesn't have a good answer.*
(* This has been another life lesson from House.)
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
My point would be that it's grey area from either perspective - Israel's or the Palestinians'.
There are certainly Palestinians who are enablers and there are most certainly those who hate Hamas and want a future different from what they are currently stuck with.
And while Israel most definitely has the right to defend themselves, they do very little to stop the endless cycle that you alluded to in your well thought response to my rhetorical question.
It's a mess that will probably never be cleaned up as parties on both sides of it seem to thrive under the status quo.
It's only a rhetorical question if the person you ask doesn't have a good answer.*
(* This has been another life lesson from House.)
My point would be that it's grey area from either perspective - Israel's or the Palestinians'.
There are certainly Palestinians who are enablers and there are most certainly those who hate Hamas and want a future different from what they are currently stuck with.
And while Israel most definitely has the right to defend themselves, they do very little to stop the endless cycle that you alluded to in your well thought response to my rhetorical question.
It's a mess that will probably never be cleaned up as parties on both sides of it seem to thrive under the status quo.
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
300 for 1??
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...0-2001-could-have-killed-bin-laden-but-didnt/
300 for 1??
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...0-2001-could-have-killed-bin-laden-but-didnt/
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
I don't understand your question. Assuming Clinton gave an honest accounting of the likely human cost of the attack to the audience that day, and there's no reason to think that he would have reason to lie to them for that topic on Sept. 10, he made the right call.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Are 300 dead villagers worth 1 dead Osama??
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
As opposed to neo-conservatives, who continue to devour Israel and Netan-boohoo's sh*t? Israel and the IDF somehow bear zero culpability for this situation, right?
Newsflash, Pio - there are two sides to every coin. I would think a self-professed, retired journalist would know that.
As opposed to neo-conservatives, who continue to devour Israel and Netan-boohoo's sh*t? Israel and the IDF somehow bear zero culpability for this situation, right?
Newsflash, Pio - there are two sides to every coin. I would think a self-professed, retired journalist would know that.
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Knowing what we know now? I'm not so certain. Knowing what we knew on Sept. 10, 2001 and prior? No, absolutely not. How would we have been any better than bin Laden at that point?
Knowing what we know now? I'm not so certain. Knowing what we knew on Sept. 10, 2001 and prior? No, absolutely not. How would we have been any better than bin Laden at that point?
G
Gurtholfin
Guest
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Even after 9/11, IMO there would be very few situations where making that call would be acceptable.
Love the graphic Fox News put up on the screen for that: "BOMBSHELL AUDIO: FMR PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON ADMITS IN 2001 HE COULD'VE KILLED BIN LADEN"
What a bunch of hacks.
Even after 9/11, IMO there would be very few situations where making that call would be acceptable.
Love the graphic Fox News put up on the screen for that: "BOMBSHELL AUDIO: FMR PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON ADMITS IN 2001 HE COULD'VE KILLED BIN LADEN"
What a bunch of hacks.
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Nice picture of an Israeli smart bomb falling on Gaza. Looks like they're hitting where they're aiming at.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/regional/
Nice picture of an Israeli smart bomb falling on Gaza. Looks like they're hitting where they're aiming at.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/regional/
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
You must have an extremely narrow definition of "this problem."
You must have an extremely narrow definition of "this problem."
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk
Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to destroying (by any means possible) a sovereign nation. And those means include getting as many of their own "innocent civilians" as possible killed. That's why their weapons are protected in tunnels while their people are encouraged (and in many cases) forced to stay where the Israelis have announced their intentions to strike. They have stated their goals repeatedly. Similarly, Israel has stated over the years that it wants only to live in peace with its neighbors. You may see some moral equivalence between the unprovoked lobbing of thousands of rockets into a country. And that country's efforts to neutralize the people and places from which those rocket attacks originate, but I don't.
I referred to several, specific, well documented episodes where images of "grieving mothers," "dead children" and shot up "red cross ambulances" have been shamelessly manipulated for consumption by the moral equivalence crowd. To my knowledge, Israel has not done this. "Spin" is engaged in by both sides in any conflict, whereas trade in fraudulent images may not be. BTW, delivering newspapers doesn't make you an expert on what a journalist's responsibilities are.
Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to destroying (by any means possible) a sovereign nation. And those means include getting as many of their own "innocent civilians" as possible killed. That's why their weapons are protected in tunnels while their people are encouraged (and in many cases) forced to stay where the Israelis have announced their intentions to strike. They have stated their goals repeatedly. Similarly, Israel has stated over the years that it wants only to live in peace with its neighbors. You may see some moral equivalence between the unprovoked lobbing of thousands of rockets into a country. And that country's efforts to neutralize the people and places from which those rocket attacks originate, but I don't.
I referred to several, specific, well documented episodes where images of "grieving mothers," "dead children" and shot up "red cross ambulances" have been shamelessly manipulated for consumption by the moral equivalence crowd. To my knowledge, Israel has not done this. "Spin" is engaged in by both sides in any conflict, whereas trade in fraudulent images may not be. BTW, delivering newspapers doesn't make you an expert on what a journalist's responsibilities are.
Last edited:
- Status