Just because Israel denies Finkelstein for politicalreasons that means he isn't a proper academic?
All arguments you made are besides the point anyway.
How the hell did you manage to derail this topic to be about Israel anyway?
Forum Index > General Forum |
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
Just because Israel denies Finkelstein for politicalreasons that means he isn't a proper academic? All arguments you made are besides the point anyway. How the hell did you manage to derail this topic to be about Israel anyway? | ||
L
Canada4732 Posts
Why do you care so much if they are building houses and living there? How can you honestly believe that the Arab violence will stop just because some Jews won't build their houses. I'd care if someone was making swiss cheese out of my territory with an admitted aim of pushing me to go live in jordan or egypt, with the tasty side effects of restricting my access to health care, work, education, and so on. I also might also be a little less incensed if my house wasn't bulldozed to make way for a settlement. | ||
Lefnui
United States753 Posts
On December 22 2008 17:22 IdrA wrote: Show nested quote + On December 22 2008 17:18 Krohm wrote: On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote: First of all I believe you can't defeat terrorists just with air strikes you usually have to rely on ground forces as well. But that doesn't mean bombing from the air isn't a good idea. Emerald, I am shocked how lightly you treat the death of your soldiers as if it was some movie or Starcraft. If you don't think your war there is right than just go back and defend as best you can against future terrorist attacks on your civillians. don't send your own troops needlessly to die because your enemy is hiding among civilians. The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. It must be clear that western armies will kill terrorists wherever they are. Only that way they will be defeated and stop using civilians as shelter. The blood of the soldiers you send to die and the life of their families is your moral responsibility, they must only be sent to die when there is no other way. ...So are you trying to justify the bombing of civilians just because terrorists use them as shields? Ugh, I really don't blame the president at all. His people are being killed all for the anti-terrorism cause. Killing civilians only causes more problems. It provides fuel for the terrorists to ensue more hate, and get more support. logically locke is correct, the civilians should be blaming the terrorists since they are using them as human shields, theyre the reason theyre being bombed. unfortunately rationality doesnt always work so we're left with a lose lose situation. Your insane rationale for killing civilians contradicts international law. "Terrorists are using them as human shields" doesn't justify killing innocent children. | ||
Locke.
Israel562 Posts
I was answering to this. I didn't bring Israel in, I just responded. If people say things I find wrong I will respond, I have no wish in making this a discussion about Israel. L., Shouldn't we worry that the PLO official declaration speaks about deporting all Jews who didn't live in Israel before 1917 (leaving all the 90 year old around), and describes their goal as controlling all the Israeli territories including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem? Unfortunately this is a war. The Palestinians want to destroy Israel and their leaders are openly saying that (before there were any settlments and before the "occupation" in 67). Why should Israel bring them health care and education if they want to destroy us? Or better yet, HOW can we do that when they send suicide bombers to blow up buses and constantly fire rockets on our cities. The ironic part is that Arab Israelis (as opposed to Palestinians) receive health care, education and have far more rights than in any other Arab country. | ||
VegeTerran
Sweden214 Posts
Expansion at that time was primarily into the northeastern sinai where israel had expelled thousand of farmers driven them into the desert and detroyed towns, mosques and cemetaries. Levelled the place in order to establish a new city. An all jew city called Yamit. The real question was how the us would react and would it continue with it's earlier policy therefore supporting egypts peace offer or would it shift and support Israeli expansion. There was a discussion Kissinger prevailed the national security advisor at the time and the united states adopted his policy of what he called stalemate meaning no negotiations just force that led directly to the 1973 war. US Terror - Afghanistan, The Taliban & War Maintaining Credibility How to fight terrorism | ||
Lefnui
United States753 Posts
| ||
closed
Vatican City State491 Posts
On December 22 2008 18:20 rushz0rz wrote: Show nested quote + On December 22 2008 18:07 Velr wrote: Oh, and one more thing. The US is not fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, you fight a war against a clear defined faction, the Taliban. Calling your enemy terrorist makes things probably easyer... They carry out terrorist activities, therefore they are terrorists! I don't see what difference it makes calling them a faction or terrorist, but they still fight like guerrillas, they still use IEDs, and they still strap bombs to women and make them walk into a market full of people. They are a disgusting group with a backwards ideology and deserved to be brutally suppressed. What else can they do? I love the language of the idiots who call people fighting for their own country "terrorists". Some of them are taliban, but Im sure that a lot of them are actually families of innocent people who died during the war. A lot of them probably think that they fight for their own freedom. Talibs made their lives pitiful, but at least they would not be randomly bombarded and ALIVE! If someone would bomb my house while "searching for terrorists" I would want fucking revenge and it doesnt have anything to do with religion. What are the numbers actually? How many "terrorists" have been killed? And how many civilians? Can you englighten me what other tactics can they use apart from guerrilla warfare? Perhaps melee attacks? Or blitzkrieg - but they dont have tanks as far as I know. Air strikes? No, they have planes.. They fight the only way they can. Of course, diplomacy? Democracy? What if they would vote for the Talibs? Take a look at Turkey - the army has made coupe the etats after many elections... As I understand, if the Japs would invade your country during WW2 you would not use guerrilla warfare, but rather get slaughtered in some sort of open attack? btw. Arent people who download music from the internet considered terrorists according to the US law? One day they might bomb your house too... On December 22 2008 18:03 BluzMan wrote: Show nested quote + On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote: The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. It must be clear that western armies will kill terrorists wherever they are. Only that way they will be defeated and stop using civilians as shelter. The blood of the soldiers you send to die and the life of their families is your moral responsibility, they must only be sent to die when there is no other way. Oh cool, I heard some Palestinian extrimists hide near your house, may I kill you? It's so funny that someone from Israel claims that fighting the terrorists is the moral responsibility of the innocent people. First of all, if you think so, then all the Jews (or at least you) should simply live the Palestine and go away (e.g. to Germany - the words of the Iranian president actually have sense) - "because this is your moral responsibility" and "otherwise people will die". In addition, I really like the fact that you think that during the war, you can easily snitch on the Talibs to the US soldiers and be not punished for that. These people are bombed by USA and shot by talibs if they decide to cooperate... It doesnt work like in WW2, when the Germans would come to a village, tell all the Jews to gather on the central spot and then send them to Auschwitz. Unfortunately the "terrorists" seem not to be willing to cooperate. To be honest I despise religion in general, and hate talibs, but I find it retarded that they are called terrorists. Call them talibs, call them guerilla, call them idiots - but they are not terrorists. In theory few of them flew into the world trade center, which has been rejected by many people. Maybe it was even supported by your own government, just like they knew about Pearl Harbour, because "big explosions" are a good way to control the sheep. I think around 3000 people died during the WTC attack. How many died during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? 100 000? 200 000? 500 000? Not that Saddam or the Talibs were nice, or anything, but seriously, it so damn easy to judge people by sitting in your cosy condo, while they can die any day; probably lost their jobs and struggle to get basic items. And if they will fight "the terrorists", these terrorists will simply shoot them. Maybe USA will reintroduce draft, this way you guys could see the war and perhaps learn something. Not everyone in Afghanistan is a Talib. Some people just want to be alive. It would probably be best if they chose democracy, or rather the type of democracy which happens in Turkey - everything controlled by the army. But is this a democracy, if we talk about morals? | ||
baal
10541 Posts
The middle east has taken USA's shit for long enough they should really go Jihad on their asses, they dont deserve any better. | ||
baal
10541 Posts
Well i guess the other 9999 were used in a similar fashion. | ||
closed
Vatican City State491 Posts
| ||
Locke.
Israel562 Posts
We might have "peace" on the paper with Egypt but I will be in danger if I would go as a Jew to Cairo. I only listened to the last video, I have to admit I find it nonsense. He speaks elegantly but it's nonsense. But he sums it up very well when he says in the end the he is a hypocrite and no one should take him seriously when he speaks about morality. "Everyone, myself included ...is such a total hypocrite ... that to even talk about right and wrong is a disgrace" - Chomsky BTW that's the tie Sadat used when he came to visit Israel | ||
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On December 22 2008 18:47 HeadBangaa wrote: Show nested quote + On December 22 2008 18:03 BluzMan wrote: On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote: The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. It must be clear that western armies will kill terrorists wherever they are. Only that way they will be defeated and stop using civilians as shelter. The blood of the soldiers you send to die and the life of their families is your moral responsibility, they must only be sent to die when there is no other way. Oh cool, I heard some Palestinian extrimists hide near your house, may I kill you? Locke lives in a country that is not impotent against terrorism, so the jurisdiction is not yours. Get it? But I heard they are hiding weapons of mass destruction somewhere. That overrides jurisdiction last time I heard. Because: "If we don't do it, who will?" Basically, international jurisdiction is determined solely by one organization - the United Nations. But that doesn't even matter because nothing warrants bombings of civilian areas and blaming some other people on that. You order the strike - you take the responsibility, that simple. Whatever babbling about "it's their fault" makes exactly zero sense. Sitting in a soft chair in some room with flags and president portrait might make you deluded about how you can sacrifice some unknown muslim fellas to warrant the safety of your citizens, make some pretty speeches with a worried face and get away with that, but here's the reality: murder is murder. Americans murder people all over the world to feel safe. Murder is murder because murder equals murder. M equals M, U equals U and so on, you must get it. Call murder a necessity and it still continues to be murder. Remeber why? Yeah, right, because murder is murder. A comparison of an object or entity with itself always returns true, even if you rename it, try to remember that, it's a very useful thing, will save you a lot of time in the future. Oh, I almost evaded the stupidity of your reply - so if I somehow get a document (let's assume I have a senate, I won't be asking anyone outside, you know) stating that a state is impotent against terrorism, I may kill it's people Here you are: The sovegrein staet of Israle (where the fuck is that?) is imptotent against terrorrists. I may kill Locke. Signed by Me, Oll Korrekt. I have a "paid" stamp somewhere, that will make it official. | ||
Locke.
Israel562 Posts
![]() if your country and the west thought like you we would all sing one anthem and have one beloved Fuhrer. Or when it's your country at risk it's fine to kill millions? | ||
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
This, of course, ignoring the fact that killing civilians is bad in and of itself. | ||
kazokun
United States163 Posts
On December 23 2008 02:55 IdrA wrote: Show nested quote + On December 22 2008 23:51 kazokun wrote: On December 22 2008 19:14 IdrA wrote: On December 22 2008 18:01 kazokun wrote: On December 22 2008 17:53 IdrA wrote: On December 22 2008 17:48 kazokun wrote: On December 22 2008 17:22 IdrA wrote: On December 22 2008 17:20 kazokun wrote: On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote: The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. That is just plain wrong. how so Look, there's two pov's that you can take. There's the utilitarian pov, and the argument for that basically boils down to the US having to bomb Afghanistan because killing terrorists (even with some civilian casualties resulting from it) means less deaths in the future. This meets the utilitarian view of the least harm for the least amount of people. Then, there's the Kantian pov, and the argument for that is that the actions, not the consequences that result from those actions, are what is most important. In the mind of a deontologist/kantian-ethicist it does not matter that you are potentially saving lives by killing terrorists (and harming civies in the process), what matters is that you are nixing your morality and have decided to kill people. Once again, the end result is not important to a deontologist, only the means by which it is reached. I hold the second point of view, of the deontologist. I believe it is just plain wrong to kill, and that it must never be done because doing so means you are violating your own moral code, and that is much worse than not doing anything. well thats pretty stupid the end results are what actually affect the real world. if your inaction causes more deaths than your action would it doesnt matter if you have the moral high ground, you've done a disservice to the world. I do not see how using irrational (unethical) actions to quell irrational actions is doing a service to the world. But yeah, judging by the way you responded, I am going to guess you're a full-on utilitarian? I just wanna ask, to what morally vacant ends are you willing to see America reach to assure a victory in Afghanistan? Would you be willing to bomb a village, with ample warning beforehand of course, just to kill some terrorists? Man, it's on your head, not mine, bud. the actions are neither irrational or unethical. inaction that causes harm is just as bad as action that causes harm, therefore it would be unethical to not act in a situation where not acting causes more damage than acting. if there were terrorists setting the next 9/11 in motion hiding in the village, hell yes. are you saying you wouldnt? i take back what i said, i dont see how you can claim the moral high ground in this situation. obviously 9/11 is an extreme example, but yes if i believed allowing the terrorists to survive would cost more lives than the collateral damage of the bombing, i would. So you're saying I'm immoral for not supporting the death of innocents? How can you support actions that fuel the motives of the terrorists more? Come dusk, the Afghans know that the bombs dropped on their village were American. To whom are they to put the blame? How will you be able to tell them that their deaths were for their own benefit? These people see the United States as a threat, not an ally. Why are we allowed to impose on their lives when they cannot do the same to us? For every village that the government bombs there is going to be at least one child who looks at the burning pile of rubble and body parts, forever compelled to go to any lengths to destroy the entity who destroyed his or her home. Each bomb plants the seeds for dissent. The bigger the bomb, the more helpless they will feel and the more drastic measures they will take to retaliate. Why support violence when it only breeds more violence? Even from a Utilitarian point of view, this course of action seems rash and improvised. The true Utilitarian would not advocate these useless forms of violence, so it is assumed that those who support the American style of diplomacy are themselves rash. Then we must assume that the American course of action was not born out of calculated necessity but out of the anger and frustration stemming from the tragic loss of life on September 11th. It is out of this blind rage that nearly a decade of disastrous foreign policy was enacted. We have treaded onto an immense minefield that we now don't see ourselves getting safetly out of. We have done this to ourselves because we could not think beyond the cold hard statistics of "getting even". We have traded our morality for the insanity of attrition. "All is well as long as they're dead and we're not," one would say. "Kill them all." It's wrong, unjustifiable, and heinous. the only will we are imposing on them is that they are not allowed to impose their will on us, which seems perfectly fine to me. we arent telling them how to live their lives or who to pray to, just that they cant blow themselves up in our buildings if we make a comic about allah. bombing villages does indeed create potential terrorists, as does allowing those children to grow up in the islamic terrorist environment. you seem to miss the point that there is no good solution when dealing with an enemy like this. we cant simply pack up and go home and expect them to ignore us. it is a war of cultures that cannot coexist as they stand, we either beat them into submission and force them to become acceptable members of the world, or we live under the constant threat of another bin laden. i personally dont think thats acceptable, and i dont see them voluntarily changing any time soon. We aren't telling the civilians how to live their lives, sure, but we are telling them how they're going to die. We are also telling them that their tribal way of government, which had been their way of life for hundreds if not thousands of years, is wrong and that democracy is the only suitable way to govern in a land who's people have no clear understanding of what it even means to be partial to everyone. We perceive their hard way of life as undesirable and thus do not see them as equal to us. You seem to have missed the point that we have made them into the enemy through making revenge politics a reality. The American people are too proud and stubborn to even try to understand the plight of people who aren't them. We need to pack up and go home BECAUSE we came in and wrecked the place. I do not think that the Afghani people would hate us even more if we left. I believe that their animosity towards us would in fact cool down. Yeah, maybe in fifty years they might like us again if we leave them alone, so we must. "It is a war of cultures that cannot coexist as they stand, we either beat them into submission and force them to become acceptable members of the world, or we live under the constant threat of another bin laden." -IdrA Do you know how mad that sounds? People are not like animals, you cannot beat a person into obedience, you cannot pummel little villages into the ground and have their people accept you as their rulers. They'll hate you every second of their lives for it, and rightfully so. If you want people to change, you have to let them change. Any other way just grounds their belief that you're imposing your will onto them. I don't know how that doesn't make sense to you. I see you as a person of results. You want to hear at the end of the day that things got done and that's it. You don't really care how it's done, you just want it done. Fast and easy. You also prefer to shift the blame onto other people. Perhaps that is the reason why you can legitimize killing innocents, and perhaps you will forever be incapable of seeing that as wrong. If you have no qualms with that, then perhaps all is lost. I hate how you say there is no good solution when "dealing" with these people, as if they were some sort of pest that you need to exterminate. | ||
L
Canada4732 Posts
L., Shouldn't we worry that the PLO official declaration speaks about deporting all Jews who didn't live in Israel before 1917 (leaving all the 90 year old around), and describes their goal as controlling all the Israeli territories including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem? You should. Does that give Israel carte blanche to do whatever you want with regards to settlements on land which is not in your country? No. | ||
iloveoil
Norway171 Posts
1 American life > 1 Afghan life | ||
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On December 23 2008 07:21 BluzMan wrote: Show nested quote + On December 22 2008 18:47 HeadBangaa wrote: On December 22 2008 18:03 BluzMan wrote: On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote: The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. It must be clear that western armies will kill terrorists wherever they are. Only that way they will be defeated and stop using civilians as shelter. The blood of the soldiers you send to die and the life of their families is your moral responsibility, they must only be sent to die when there is no other way. Oh cool, I heard some Palestinian extrimists hide near your house, may I kill you? Locke lives in a country that is not impotent against terrorism, so the jurisdiction is not yours. Get it? But I heard they are hiding weapons of mass destruction somewhere. That overrides jurisdiction last time I heard. Because: "If we don't do it, who will?" They aren't "hiding weapons of mass destruction". Everyone knows Israel is nuclear, along with USA, Russia, etc. I understand that you're trying to mock the American-Iraq war, but you're just regurgitating buzz phrases that aren't applicable to Israel's situation. I'm not even going to read the rest of your post since it started so wrongly. | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On December 23 2008 03:43 Locke. wrote: You got it plain wrong. This is our country first of all because it is the land of the Jews, the fact that we're here and it's hard to move us comes after. First of all before the Jews started coming back to Israel the land was basically empty, read Mark Twain's book on his visit to Israel. Second through the years, and we're talking around 2000 years there wasn't a single period of time where the few local inhabitants defined themselves as Palestinians or wanted to have a country for themselves. As for the occupation in 67. Who did we occupy it from? Egypt, Syria, Jordan - not the "Palestinians".The "Palestinians" never asked Egypt, Syria or Jordan for independence, why is that? "On May 23, 2008, Finkelstein was denied entry to Israel because ..."he had contact with elements 'hostile' to Israel"... He was banned from entering Israel for 10 years.[6]" - academic objectivity at its best The belief that Jews are entitled to the land and that the settlements are fair is as much religious fanaticism as anything else going on in the world. There was a group of several hundred thousand people living there, even a couple hundred years ago, and Israel displaced them. The banning of Finkelstein reveals just what type of democracy Israel is these days. He's a pre-eminent scholar, only denied tenure by the deep pockets and loud mouth of an asshole like Dershowitz. The accusation of Finkelstein is akin to the accusation of Obama "paling around with terrorists." They've even called him an anti-semite, despite being born to Holocaust survivors and being one of the top authors on the subject. | ||
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On December 23 2008 08:12 kazokun wrote: we're telling them that if they cant control the terrorists in their midst theyre going to die because those terrorists will otherwise kill us. i agree with you that its not right to force democracy on them if they dont want it, but we're not pushing democracy in favor of the tribal governments, but in favor of the totalitarian regimes that ruled the countries before we invaded. Show nested quote + On December 23 2008 02:55 IdrA wrote: On December 22 2008 23:51 kazokun wrote: On December 22 2008 19:14 IdrA wrote: On December 22 2008 18:01 kazokun wrote: On December 22 2008 17:53 IdrA wrote: On December 22 2008 17:48 kazokun wrote: On December 22 2008 17:22 IdrA wrote: On December 22 2008 17:20 kazokun wrote: On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote: The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. That is just plain wrong. how so Look, there's two pov's that you can take. There's the utilitarian pov, and the argument for that basically boils down to the US having to bomb Afghanistan because killing terrorists (even with some civilian casualties resulting from it) means less deaths in the future. This meets the utilitarian view of the least harm for the least amount of people. Then, there's the Kantian pov, and the argument for that is that the actions, not the consequences that result from those actions, are what is most important. In the mind of a deontologist/kantian-ethicist it does not matter that you are potentially saving lives by killing terrorists (and harming civies in the process), what matters is that you are nixing your morality and have decided to kill people. Once again, the end result is not important to a deontologist, only the means by which it is reached. I hold the second point of view, of the deontologist. I believe it is just plain wrong to kill, and that it must never be done because doing so means you are violating your own moral code, and that is much worse than not doing anything. well thats pretty stupid the end results are what actually affect the real world. if your inaction causes more deaths than your action would it doesnt matter if you have the moral high ground, you've done a disservice to the world. I do not see how using irrational (unethical) actions to quell irrational actions is doing a service to the world. But yeah, judging by the way you responded, I am going to guess you're a full-on utilitarian? I just wanna ask, to what morally vacant ends are you willing to see America reach to assure a victory in Afghanistan? Would you be willing to bomb a village, with ample warning beforehand of course, just to kill some terrorists? Man, it's on your head, not mine, bud. the actions are neither irrational or unethical. inaction that causes harm is just as bad as action that causes harm, therefore it would be unethical to not act in a situation where not acting causes more damage than acting. if there were terrorists setting the next 9/11 in motion hiding in the village, hell yes. are you saying you wouldnt? i take back what i said, i dont see how you can claim the moral high ground in this situation. obviously 9/11 is an extreme example, but yes if i believed allowing the terrorists to survive would cost more lives than the collateral damage of the bombing, i would. So you're saying I'm immoral for not supporting the death of innocents? How can you support actions that fuel the motives of the terrorists more? Come dusk, the Afghans know that the bombs dropped on their village were American. To whom are they to put the blame? How will you be able to tell them that their deaths were for their own benefit? These people see the United States as a threat, not an ally. Why are we allowed to impose on their lives when they cannot do the same to us? For every village that the government bombs there is going to be at least one child who looks at the burning pile of rubble and body parts, forever compelled to go to any lengths to destroy the entity who destroyed his or her home. Each bomb plants the seeds for dissent. The bigger the bomb, the more helpless they will feel and the more drastic measures they will take to retaliate. Why support violence when it only breeds more violence? Even from a Utilitarian point of view, this course of action seems rash and improvised. The true Utilitarian would not advocate these useless forms of violence, so it is assumed that those who support the American style of diplomacy are themselves rash. Then we must assume that the American course of action was not born out of calculated necessity but out of the anger and frustration stemming from the tragic loss of life on September 11th. It is out of this blind rage that nearly a decade of disastrous foreign policy was enacted. We have treaded onto an immense minefield that we now don't see ourselves getting safetly out of. We have done this to ourselves because we could not think beyond the cold hard statistics of "getting even". We have traded our morality for the insanity of attrition. "All is well as long as they're dead and we're not," one would say. "Kill them all." It's wrong, unjustifiable, and heinous. the only will we are imposing on them is that they are not allowed to impose their will on us, which seems perfectly fine to me. we arent telling them how to live their lives or who to pray to, just that they cant blow themselves up in our buildings if we make a comic about allah. bombing villages does indeed create potential terrorists, as does allowing those children to grow up in the islamic terrorist environment. you seem to miss the point that there is no good solution when dealing with an enemy like this. we cant simply pack up and go home and expect them to ignore us. it is a war of cultures that cannot coexist as they stand, we either beat them into submission and force them to become acceptable members of the world, or we live under the constant threat of another bin laden. i personally dont think thats acceptable, and i dont see them voluntarily changing any time soon. We aren't telling the civilians how to live their lives, sure, but we are telling them how they're going to die. We are also telling them that their tribal way of government, which had been their way of life for hundreds if not thousands of years, is wrong and that democracy is the only suitable way to govern in a land who's people have no clear understanding of what it even means to be partial to everyone. We perceive their hard way of life as undesirable and thus do not see them as equal to us. You seem to have missed the point that we have made them into the enemy through making revenge politics a reality. The American people are too proud and stubborn to even try to understand the plight of people who aren't them. they are already an enemy because of their ideology, in some cases the motive may be revenge ideology, that doesnt mean the action that results from it is necessarily wrong. look at iraq, blair and bush use scare tactics with the wmd's to support taking down saddam. it was wrong of them to do that, but still right to attack. We need to pack up and go home BECAUSE we came in and wrecked the place. I do not think that the Afghani people would hate us even more if we left. I believe that their animosity towards us would in fact cool down. Yeah, maybe in fifty years they might like us again if we leave them alone, so we must. ya sounds plausible when exactly did we drop bombs on the homes of the 9/11 hijackers? "It is a war of cultures that cannot coexist as they stand, we either beat them into submission and force them to become acceptable members of the world, or we live under the constant threat of another bin laden." -IdrA Do you know how mad that sounds? People are not like animals, you cannot beat a person into obedience, you cannot pummel little villages into the ground and have their people accept you as their rulers. They'll hate you every second of their lives for it, and rightfully so. If you want people to change, you have to let them change. Any other way just grounds their belief that you're imposing your will onto them. I don't know how that doesn't make sense to you. once again the only will we're imposing is that they arent allowed to impose theirs on us. theyre not going to change. they have no desire to change. unfortunately they do have the desire to either subjugate or destroy the rest of the world. i dont really see how that attitude can be allowed. I see you as a person of results. You want to hear at the end of the day that things got done and that's it. You don't really care how it's done, you just want it done. Fast and easy. You also prefer to shift the blame onto other people. Perhaps that is the reason why you can legitimize killing innocents, and perhaps you will forever be incapable of seeing that as wrong. If you have no qualms with that, then perhaps all is lost. I hate how you say there is no good solution when "dealing" with these people, as if they were some sort of pest that you need to exterminate. so its ok when innocents are killed by the terrorist attacks, but not in attempts to kill the terrorists? they are 'pests'. people who choose to blow themselves up in public places give up their humanity. they are scum who should be exterminated. its questionable to call those who harbor and support them innocent in the first place. | ||
| ||
![]() StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Sea Stormgate![]() Mini ![]() EffOrt ![]() Shuttle ![]() firebathero ![]() Soulkey ![]() Mong ![]() ggaemo ![]() TY ![]() scan(afreeca) ![]() ![]() [ Show more ] Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations
StarCraft 2 • davetesta46 StarCraft: Brood War• Hinosc ![]() • Reevou ![]() ![]() • intothetv ![]() • Kozan • sooper7s • Migwel ![]() • AfreecaTV YouTube • LaughNgamezSOOP • IndyKCrew ![]() • HerbMon Dota 2![]() • Azhi_Dahaki24 • 80smullet ![]() • blackmanpl ![]() • FirePhoenix1 • STPLYoutube • ZZZeroYoutube • BSLYoutube League of Legends Other Games |
PiGosaur Monday
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Stormgate Nexus
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] RSL Revival
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Cup
Sparkling Tuna Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Wardi Open
RotterdaM Event
RSL Revival
|
|