RE: by fredgiblet

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

RE:

POSTED BY: FREDGIBLET
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 04:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2405
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, August 18, 2006 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Neither. I wasn't refering to whatever position you take. It was that you were able to make an argument and stick to it without devolving into transparent "I never said that (exactly)" and ad hominem snit fits.

Oh may bad. I thought you had a point.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 1:01 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

No, just an observation. You got shunned before and seem to be headed back there.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 1:07 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
This conversation started out kind of glib and fun, then you got wound up tight with your “this crap” speech. It’s safe to say, I think, that I can’t say anything that you won’t take offense at.

Yeah I have this thing about people twisting my words and lying to attempt to make my out as a terrorist sympathiser and making a strawman of my argument for, well your reasons are your own I guess. Like I said, I'm not going to lie down and take you painting me as this or that like CTS did.

Hey if you find that stuff fun then, well, you're weird.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 1:18 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
You don’t spend a lot of time criticizing the Arab side of the argument, do you?

If you have a memory at all you'll remember I put in a lot of hours ranting about the evils of jihadists, the madness, bombing schools, cars, even the stupid cartoon jihad which appalled me. But really, it hasn't come up. I can't blame the arabs for defending their territory or themselves. Next time they do a big evil, you bet I'll be there to call them on it.

Quote:
What makes you think that Hamas could be talked out of their genocidal stance?

Do you even read the news? Just before the whole thing fell apart, Hamas was saying they would accept the roadmap's borders of Israel, and they were even entering talks about disarmament. My objective analysis is that there were hawks on both sides who didn't want to see a peace deal brokered, but it's hard to credit that the elected Hamas govt. itself was the problem here.

Quote:
The right circumstances just happened to have occurred right before Israel defended itself from Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s attacks.

(letting the spin slide)
Duh. Why else would someone seek to screw it up? Do you remember what was happening when Rabin was assassinated? He was finalizing the deal for a two state solution. That solution never happened as a result of that assassination. I'm not blaming a side, I think there are people on both sides who don't want peace.

Quote:
Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah want to kill a bunch of Jews, and the only criticism you have is that the Jews, by defending themselves, are to blame for their being killed? That’s brilliant.

This f^&king pi$$ed me off. Anyone who disagrees with the massive assault on the less fortunate is a Nazi. Thanks.
I don't know what to say, that whole schpeil just turns everything I said inside out to make it mean what you want it to.
What a manipulative assanine thing to do.
Hamas and co are pretty inexcusable, I don't think I said otherwise, but now they are the elected govt. of Palestine, and Israel must deal with them. The basic truth is Israel is not in any danger, and cannot stand the existance of a palestinian state. The rosey zionist picture that their opponents are nazis and they are helpless victims is absurd. This sort of cr@p is the same b^ll#$!+ that the Nazis used against the jews in WWII (they'll take over if we don't defend ourselves.) @#$%^&*() to that.

Quote:
The word itself isn’t unbalanced. It’s just your usage that concerns me.

Genocide is a negative term. That's unbalanced. In genocide both sides are not equal. You made the point, I accepted it. rejoice.

Quote:
How do you explain the March On Baghdad strategy as opposed to the carpet bombing we did in 1991? How do you explain our refusal to target military targets that might have been used by civilians, even when by not destroying those targets we put our own people in danger? In fact, the 2003 gulf war was probably the most civilian-friendly war in history.

You have my position wrong. Did I say we targeted bombing on civilians in the 2003 invasion? If I gave that impression, my apologies. I said effected civilian populations, ie, destroyed the infastructure, etc. I think Israel may target civilians, and I know their enemies whom I do not defend, do. I don't think either side there believes in the concept of civilians. Civilian casualties, as well as amount of explosives, exponentially exceed the 1991 war, btw. Not that I'm making a claim based on that, simply correcting your misstatement. I don't think they reach the levels of the Clinton campaigns.

Quote:
Your statement even flies in the face of the criticism of this war: too few soldiers, failure to secure Saddam’s force, too willing to negotiate with militant faction leaders. These criticisms are a direct result of the US/UK effort to conduct this war in a humanitarian a way as possible.

I barely touched on the Iraq situation at all. I think that it's true, to some extent, that this war has been limited in it's offensives, and I'm sure that with Kerry at the helm it would have been worse.

I think you're painting me as some sort of Hezbollah mole which I think is rediculous. Check out my Brave New World thread, and read some of the posts there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 1:47 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Do you even read the news? Just before the whole thing fell apart, Hamas was saying they would accept the roadmap's borders of Israel, and they were even entering talks about disarmament. My objective analysis is that there were hawks on both sides who didn't want to see a peace deal brokered, but it's hard to credit that the elected Hamas govt. itself was the problem here.

If the Hamas government hadn’t have been supporting and facilitation terrorist attacks against the Israel, the deal might have gone through. This is the same crap Arafat was doing. This is what terrorist organizations do; this is why it is so hard to negotiate with them. Arafat spent most of his life saying one thing and then later that day blowing up an Israeli coffee house, and there's no reason to beleive that Hamas will be any different.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Duh. Why else would someone seek to screw it up? Do you remember what was happening when Rabin was assassinated? He was finalizing the deal for a two state solution. That solution never happened as a result of that assassination. I'm not blaming a side, I think there are people on both sides who don't want peace.

No, dreamtrove, you are blaming a side. When you say that it’s hard to blame the Hamas government, but the Israelis were at fault, that’s blaming a side.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This f^&king pi$$ed me off. Anyone who disagrees with the massive assault on the less fortunate is a Nazi. Thanks.
I don't know what to say, that whole schpeil just turns everything I said inside out to make it mean what you want it to.
What a manipulative assanine thing to do.
Hamas and co are pretty inexcusable, I don't think I said otherwise, but now they are the elected govt. of Palestine, and Israel must deal with them. The basic truth is Israel is not in any danger, and cannot stand the existance of a palestinian state. The rosey zionist picture that their opponents are nazis and they are helpless victims is absurd. This sort of cr@p is the same b^ll#$!+ that the Nazis used against the jews in WWII (they'll take over if we don't defend ourselves.) @#$%^&*() to that.

Hamas has killed hundreds of Israelis citizens in scores of suicide bombings since 2000. This is an organization that has avowed the destruction of Israel and conducts routine suicide bombings against Israeli civilian targets. And you think that since they were elected into the government of the PA, which gives them more power then they’ve ever had before, that they have become nice and amenable. Isreal will not be able to deal with Hamas any better then they could have before.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think you're painting me as some sort of Hezbollah mole which I think is rediculous. Check out my Brave New World thread, and read some of the posts there.

No I don’t think you are a Hezbollah mole, but I do think some of your ideas, particularly concerning the Israelis, Hamas and Hezbollah, seem to lack perspective.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 18, 2006 1:54 PM

USBROWNCOAT

Finn, Every thing the Muslims(Hamas,Hezbollah,etc..) do is done to "destroy" Israel,
America, the West, etc.. Sounds like the definition of Genocide!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 1:00 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Double Post

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 1:57 PM

CITIZEN

That's a pretty impressive double post, nearly 48 hours between them.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 21, 2006 4:29 PM

DREAMTROVE

Finn,

Maybe I am, but I think don't think so. If Hamas weren't also guilty of containing members/factions who wanted conflict, it wouldn't have responded to the Israeli arrests the way it did. Instead, it might have appealed to the UN.

Objectively, the situation isn't balanced. Israel is more wrong, and I say that without any favoritism or bias.

If you ask me which society do I have more respect for?

Isreal. Easy. It's an industrial functioning economy, and education-minded system, and a society that cares about its own citizens.

The arab societies have a lot to work through, a lot of issues. I don't doubt that at all.

Are these arab militias a problem?

Sure, but as I said, we're a long way from that solution, we need an atmosphere of trust, not just of Israel (which has to be earned) but of other arabs within their own society, which also has to be earned and we are quite a ways from that. This isn't something that can be patched with a bomb and a bandaid.

But when you come to who initiated this current conflict?

Israel, without a doubt. I was there and so were you, we watched it happened. I watched the events unfold, I saw Israel commit acts of war, and I called them on it right away. Later there was a response and an escalation. Israel and the MSM can attempt to rewrite history for political purposes, but that doesn't change the facts, and trust me when I say the arab world analyzed the situation just the way I did.

And no, I'm not on 'their side.' I'm on the side of the United States. I do not think that the current course of action is in the best interests of the united states. In fact I'm certain that it is in direct opposition to those interests. Relative peace in the middle east, an alliance with lebanon, jordan etc., those were good times. They could have been better times. When arabs come to the US they should be opening up businesses, not blowing them up.

And this agenda, the neocon agenda, particularly under clinton, and now bush, but somewhat under the previous administrations through cheney rumsfeld wolfowitz and perle et al., has led us to where we are now.

And here's a golden rule of life. Almost alwaysb you can bet, nothing is someone else's fault. It's your own damn fault.

Israel is also the master of its own destiny, it's policies in the west bank and gaza have been barbaric for decades, and it has basically had an expansionist agenda from the get go. And yes, that's objective. I mean it when I say I support Israel, as a colony, the idea of Israel, the society of Israel. I do not support the actions of the govt. of Israel against the palestinians, and it's been a problem for quite some time.

It's like in the 19th century, many prominent republicans did not support US govt. policy towards blacks and indians. It's not that they hated America, they took issue with some policies. As I mentioned before, my grandmother's entire family was burned at auschwitz when she was a teenager. I get the need for there to be an Israel. But that need does not justify these actions.

And, it's not the fault of insane jihadists that terrorists want to destroy America. It's the fault of America, who made poor choices under this and previous administrations. The bear is a bear, don't blame the bear for being a bear, think about what you did that got you into the situation where you're being attacked by the bear, particularly in this case, did you kill its cubs? (This is not a defense of the ideology of the bear, it *is* the objective realistic look, yours, or the admin's, is the unrealistic idealistic one which, IMHO, should snap back to Earth)

The real solution is to select a better policy. Personally I think the GOP moderates have the best policy concept. I think the democrats probably have the worst two (bulk up the force, expand the conflict, or cut and run) But the moderate position of solidify you holdings and start negotiation is a lot better than Bush's stay the course. I think that Jack Murtha was actually trying to support this position (which McCain, Lugar, has voiced) and both sides misinterpretted him.

I have no shortage of perspective here, I see the whole thing and calls it as I sees it, I don't think I'm missing any piece of the puzzle. I know about the jihadists murdering families and babies, or the two gunmen who caught up with a single mother and her five daughters, stuck the gun into the car and shot them all full of holes and then proclaimed that this was a glorious day for islam. I know the whole story, I'm not missing a piece, but I've got the perspective. I think you're too close to it, and you're caught up in the "let's catch the bad guys." It doesn't work like that, it's not that simple. There's not a limited number of bad guys. There's a situation which is out of balance and a whole bunch of people out there with that same aggressive approach are making the problem.

I also a think a lot of folks on your side are under the illusion that "that's okay." That it's okay to upscale the conflict, because we'll win. No we won't, not only does our enemy outnumber us four to one, they have a vastly higher birth rate, and though we have a technological edge, and a monetary one, that will only carry us so far. And, the further we go, the closer we come to the day when they actually have more allies than we do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 4:27 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by USBrowncoat:

As far as your other point, Genocidal slaughter? Only in the minds of people who believe we are there to kill Muslims. It really is a ridiculous term to use, since it can be used to describe the killing in any war. But it's a wonderful rallying cry for progressives. Isn't it? Why use it?

Now there you go with your reasonable arguments and good sense. Clearly you don't belong here.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE