the dynamite politics thread
- Thread starter Malaclypse
- Start date
Villain
Doctor BenQuillity
plintus said:
Idiot.
Israel is not targeting merely the sites from which the rockets are fired, they are specifically targeting other civilian targets to cause terror among the Lebanese population. Look at the fucking map, they are bombing cities outside the effective range of most of Hizbollah's rockets!
In addition to killing Lebanese civilians, this far Israeli army has:
- attacked red cross ambulances evacuating the wounded.
- attacked the UN convoys taking aid to those too frightened to move.
- attacked unarmed UN observers (in a bunker, apparently detroyed by precision guided weapon, after repeated requests from the UN not to hit those coordinates).
- and then shelled the UN rescue effort for the observers.
The Israeli army is purposefully killing innocent civilians, mainly children, and have been doing this for decades. If you followed some objective media instead of the typical American propaganda, you'd know that already. Just for example, Ariel Sharon gained his political power and fame by ordering the murder of dozens of civilians back when he was a military commander. Killing arabs is the only way to stay on top of Israeli politics.
As for the "get laid" comment - especially on this forum, I found that truly amusing.
-Villain
Before I go any further - you started name calling.
Oh, you think Israel should use the same tactics with hostage taking and suicide bombers? Good boy. Oh, sure, less civilians would be dead, of course!!
How many terrorist attacks were there in Israel? How many of the same kind on the other side?
No, I don't follow your beloved American media, in fact, I follow Russian, and, allegedly, Russia, is selling weapons to Arabs. Oh, they should bash Israel, with full force (seems like). However, mainstream is trying to be objective, neutral at best, cuz no one needs that shit going any further (the point I share).
There will never be peace in Middle East. But all the motherfucking fucks being and growing suicide bombers should burn alive. Go cry at those dead babies - where were you when their fathers were blowing up shit in Tel Aviv with explosives tied to themselves?
Enough is enough.
Oh, you think Israel should use the same tactics with hostage taking and suicide bombers? Good boy. Oh, sure, less civilians would be dead, of course!!
How many terrorist attacks were there in Israel? How many of the same kind on the other side?
No, I don't follow your beloved American media, in fact, I follow Russian, and, allegedly, Russia, is selling weapons to Arabs. Oh, they should bash Israel, with full force (seems like). However, mainstream is trying to be objective, neutral at best, cuz no one needs that shit going any further (the point I share).
There will never be peace in Middle East. But all the motherfucking fucks being and growing suicide bombers should burn alive. Go cry at those dead babies - where were you when their fathers were blowing up shit in Tel Aviv with explosives tied to themselves?
Enough is enough.
Villain said:
Oh, thank you!
- preventive measures
- how do you know it's in the clear?
- it's war
- miscommunication
- how do you know everything was smooth? I heard about the observers, and that looks like a mistake. Which is possible, and that didn't happen every day.
Son, listen to me: a fucking guy in the street with AK-47 IS A CIVILIAN because he's not in the army. Having a gun in hand DOESN'T MAKE ANY ONE A SOLDIER. So, yes - they are killing civilians. Because those shoot at them. And give guns to kids. And hardly any army would take in soldiers capable of killing innocent babies. I mean - close contact, point blank.
God forbid, but if someone you love dies in a terrorist attack, and you have a chance to punish those - you wouldn't give that chance up, would you?
The UN observers called the israeli communication officer ten times in 5 hours and they still went on, that's not a miscommunication.plintus said:
Also, if Israel is just bombing what looks good on a pixeled satellite image, they are all the more guilty. Apparently, they didnt even bother to check what they were bombing, or if they knew more or less, they didnt bother to check where exactly the buildings stood they better shouldnt bomb.
On a sidenote, you do come across as very arrogant in this thread (and plain stupid in others). This is a discussion politics, people are gonna disagree with your point of view, only because you grew up in Belorus and got your head kicked in doesnt mean your opinion is any more worth than ours. Please stop this "Let me explain the world to you!" crusade so we can discuss this with everyone on the same level. Thank you
plintus said:
kofi annan called it an "obviously intentional bombing", and to be honest i see his point. according to the article i've read, they fired 21 missiles and more than 100 artillery grenades within a radius of 300m of the un base, four of them direct hits. that's a lot of mistakes...
also, according to a swedish un officer formerly in lebanon interviewed in the same article, he was during his time there subject to death threats, having his (un) jeep forced off the road and constant provocations and sabotages from the israeli army.
@Taliesin: I'll be speaking my mind as long as I want, arrogant or stupid - that is my point of view. Which I can back-up most of time, and not basing on some shit everyone is reading in newspapers. And if you were aware enough (or intelligent, or at least aware) - it's Belarus, and I wasn't exactly kicked in the head, but hit in the face, which hardly makes up to your theory of my mental inabilities.
Delirious: I'm trying hard to get ahold of some guys I know in Israel (one actually from military reserve), but that wasn't possible so far... I really want to know what's going on, and not from newspapers, but they don't respond any longer, so I have to rely on different media sources... which sucks.
So far, must admit, I can justify what's going on. Only so far.
Delirious: I'm trying hard to get ahold of some guys I know in Israel (one actually from military reserve), but that wasn't possible so far... I really want to know what's going on, and not from newspapers, but they don't respond any longer, so I have to rely on different media sources... which sucks.
So far, must admit, I can justify what's going on. Only so far.
Villain
Doctor BenQuillity
plintus said:
No, you started it with your idiotic "Son." I just replied in kind.
Obviously, you don't know jack shit about this current situation, so I'll try once again explain what's going on in Lebanon right now:
- Hizbollah is an Iranian-backed terrorist organization that operates in Lebanon.
- Lebanese civilians have lived in fear of Hizbollah for decades, unable to do anything against them and afraid of another civil war.
- A very large portion of Lebanese people (probably a majority) would want to get Hizbollah out of their country.
- Hizbollah wants to provoke a war between arab-states and Israel and fires rockets from Lebanese villages.
- Israel, unable to fight Hizbollah directly, attacks unarmed Lebanese civilians to drive them off southern Lebanon. Dozens of villages are completely destroyed.
- Israel also hits numerous civilian targets far away from where the rockets were fired, apparently for no other reason but to kill more Lebanese civilians and to cause terror among the remaining ones.
- Israel has always opposed UN peacekeepers in the region and apparently wants them all killed.
- Israeli army is full of people who shoot at unarmed children; Human Rights organisations have criticised Israel for not punishing them.
- If we compare the numbers of innocent civilians killed in conflicts between Israel and the terrorists, Israeli army is quilty of killing more than ten times as many unarmed, innocent people than all the Middle-Eastern terrorist organisations put together. Who are the real terrorists here?
To put all this in different perspective, here's a hypothetical example of how would a similar situation look inside Europe:
- Spanish ETA, a Basque terrorist organisation that wants to create an indepented Basque state from the Basgue region in Spain and France. Despite numerous attempts, Spain hasn't been able to completely defeat ETA (a bit like Hizbollah in Lebanon).
- Basques are represented in the Spanish politics (much like Hizbollah in Lebanon).
- Now, let's assume ETA makes a series of rocket-attacks into French territory, killing a few people and wounding a couple more. They also kidnap a few French soldiers.
- Who of you think that France has the right to completely destroy dozens of villages in Northern Spain? Who of you think France is justified to bombard Madrid just for the sake of it? Who of you think French soldiers should kill hundreds, if not thousands of unarmed Spanish civilians?
I agree that the political relationships between France and Spain are different from those between Israel and Lebanon - which leads to my whole point: this war is not about terrorists, it is about politics. This war is about Israeli military leaders wanting to prove their people that they are capable of going to war, and about Israeli population wanting to kill hundreds of innocent people just because they want revenge on Hizbollah and other terrorist organisations and can't find a way to punish those who are really attacking them.
Much like Germans wanted to get revenge on those who forced the conditions of Versailles' treaty on them, and chose to punish the Jews instead. Most of those Lebanese civilians are just as innocent as those who were killed at Auswich.
Plintus, you are all the time willing to justify the killings, but let me ask you this: If someone from, say, Ukraine, hated Lukashenka and wanted to attack him chose your family as his target and say killed your parents because they are Belarussian (just like Lukashenka, you know), would you find it justifiable? What if Ukrainian army decided to attack Belarus and chose to bombard dozens of villages on the border, destroy power-plants, civilian airports, schools, kindergartens, hospitals - killing hundreds of innocent people? Lukashenko is evil, after all, it doesn't matter if you kill some people who he is oppressing, right?
-Villain
rahvin
keeper of the flame
Not wanting to take sides in the diatribe, I find the examples along the lines of "how would you react if your entire family got killed?" totally unnecessary. Anyone who's involved to the point of being a victim of either faction is going to instinctively hate and stigmatize the people who are responsible. And with good reason: anyone who murders others should be ready to accept the blame and responsibility that come from his or her actions.
But this is not a political opinion, nor the "judgement" of history. It's not a valid point to anyone's argument that either side is right or wrong that someone affected personally by either side's action would suffer and therefore agree. Give it a rest. Yes, if terrorists bomb my house I turn pro-war right this instant; yes, if I'm killed, an innocent bystander, by soldiers sent to punish a bunch of terrorists who happen to share my nationality I turn anti-war in the blink of an eye. What are you all trying to prove?
But this is not a political opinion, nor the "judgement" of history. It's not a valid point to anyone's argument that either side is right or wrong that someone affected personally by either side's action would suffer and therefore agree. Give it a rest. Yes, if terrorists bomb my house I turn pro-war right this instant; yes, if I'm killed, an innocent bystander, by soldiers sent to punish a bunch of terrorists who happen to share my nationality I turn anti-war in the blink of an eye. What are you all trying to prove?
@rahvin: if you're killed you turn to dust, not to pacifism.
@villain: just for the sake of information - ETA formally renounced violence in March 2006 (read here). of course there's the age-old moral hazard problem, and maybe they will take up arms again, but maybe it's going to be a proper permanent ceasefire like the 1994 agreements between the IRA and the Brits.
@villain: just for the sake of information - ETA formally renounced violence in March 2006 (read here). of course there's the age-old moral hazard problem, and maybe they will take up arms again, but maybe it's going to be a proper permanent ceasefire like the 1994 agreements between the IRA and the Brits.
Well, it's "Weissrussland" in german and "Biélorussie" in french, so please forgive me the mistake. I wasnt implying mental inability either, but you seem to think that only because you're reading russian newspapers, took part in anti-Lukashenko demonstrations in Belarus and stuff, your opinion is worth more than ours, as if everyone else had been sitting on their asses at home, feeding on nothing but propaganda or stupid mainstream media.plintus said:
Villain said:
Villain, it's not totally right, I have to rush right now, more later. But being under "suppression" for "decades"... ugh, can't say they were complaining too much. Check out the changes Nasrallah made (rather radical for Islamic world).
Son, I wouldn't question your ultimate knowledge and understanding of current events - how dare eye?
@Taliesin: I'm not truly thinking my opinion is more worthy than anyone else's, the way of expressing it may be "arrogant and stupid" - that's the way I'm expressing it, nothing more. And I have alternative sources, other than your "propaganda".
plintus said:
if i got this right, you don't want to rely on "propaganda" and "different media sources", but you think asking someone biasedly involved in the conflict is a good way to find out what's going on. how does that make sense?
plintus said:
in this case, i don't see how you can. sure, we don't know the whole/true story, but from how it looks at the moment i feel it's beyond the benefit of doubt i'm ready to give them.
and i might add that most of the times i've got into this discussion or similar ones i've (hypothetically) "sided with" israel (trying to explain their situation to people who seem completely blind to it), so it's not about looking for reasons to blame israel or anything like that.
listen, all of you. arab imperialism is not news. i had more or less of a fight to the death (well, let's say to the last drink) with Yale's john e. roemer last week about whether muslims take to terrorism out of economic deprivation or not. well, i don't remember if i have mentioned this point on the forum in the past, but does Kosovo Polije mean anything to you? For fuck's sake, the Ottomans were the foremost and richest empire of their time, still they wanted to conquer the damn whole world. Also, terrorism is not anti-western per se: what about Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines or Lashkar-e-Tayyba in coastal South-East Asia? as wisely argued by both Leonard Weinberg, my late father (Italian only, sorry) and countless others, what OBL is trying to do amounts to reconstruction of the caliphate, i.e. a single kingdom encompassing all muslim states under one ruler. these folks do not (only) want money, or appeasement, or recognition. they're ultimately out for world domination and it's a kill-or-be-killed game, in which israel constitutes a crucial lookout/frontier post. like. it. or. not. by the way, if you don't like it you are sort of sympathizing with a system that would not allow me to vote because i'm a woman, so i cannot really agree with you. and no, secularization's not the issue. it never was.
Villain said:
Villain, this is like so sick: Hizballah is using Lebanese as human shield (roughly put), that's it (for instance), and Israeli military forces aren't that stupid to just carpet bomb everything. But as I said before: a civilian with AK-47 is still a civilian, and in a situation with kill-kid-with-a-gun-or-be-killed, I, as a soldier or in a matter of self-defense, would squeeze the trigger - takes alot, I know, but you know what I mean (I hope).
I have to get back this and the rest later. Almost missed my flight cuz of the last message I left here on Saturday morning
In the news Im reading the Israelis say the explosion that killed those 56 civilians took place 7h after their bombs hit the house, civilians say it was israeli bombs that killed the 56 people.plintus said:
A fact is that Israel always believed it had the right to retaliate and has repeatedly killed Hamas leaders in the middle of cities in bright daylight, causing up to 40 civilian deaths in the course of their attack.
I dont think Israel believes the rules and international laws apply to them when it comes to retaliation for terrorist attack and even though I dont know exactly who killed those 56 people in Kana, I believe Israel is capable of a lot when it comes to retaliation.
Why should Israel believe it has to apply to the same rules? Everything they do is Ok'd by the US.
Everything the UN has tried doing has been stopped by the US.
And well, I know what these topics usually turn into when I join in so don't get me started
Everything the UN has tried doing has been stopped by the US.
And well, I know what these topics usually turn into when I join in so don't get me started
Villain
Doctor BenQuillity
Plintus: You just keep repeating the same points so its pointless arguing with you. This is my last word to you: I can accept Israeli soldiers killing those arabs with AK-47s. What I cannot accept is Israeli army bombing hundreds, if not thousands of unarmed (you know without AK-47s) civilians. And that makes me anti-Israel.
The Americans are the foremost and richest empire of our time, still they want to conquer the damn whole world. The differences between the two are merely superficial.
Nevertheless, I agree with you: Radical Islamism is a cancer of mankind and finding a cure is of utmost importance right now. But what Israel and USA are doing is exactly the opposite: they try to fight the symptoms instead of the sickness and end up making it much worse. Their actions in the middle-east are helping those fundamentalist nutcases to gain followers; nothing converts people easier than desperation. Intelligent people with safe, meaningful lives can approach religion from a sane viewpoint (or, in the best case, ignore religion alltogether) - they don't become fundamentalists. There hasn't been this much support for radical Islamism in the world since the middle ages!
Also, what's the price we are willing to pay for this war? In the eighties it was Iraq that was in the forefront of the fight against Islamic Imperialism - CIA armed Hussein with the chemical weapons because stopping Iran was more important than a few thousand innocent Kurds. Iraq (the least Islamistic arab-country until now) didn't become the enemy of the west until it stopped taking orders from the USA. Look at Iraq now: radical Islamism is at its strongest there at the moment. And will be for decades to come, just like in those Palestinian areas Israel has struck the most.
If we really are going to get rid of radical Islamism, I can see only two rational options:
1. A full scale (nuclear) war against the whole Islamic world. The price will be paid by hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dead innocents.
2. A full scale cease-fire, end of all non-peacekeeping military operations in the middle-east. Concentration on educational and social programs in the arab regions. The way IRA and ETA were defeated. The way fundamentalist Christianity (the biggest threat to all mankind for nearly two millennia) was defeated - by educating people, by giving them the option of choosing whether or not they want to follow the words of some priest or such, by showing them that this life is worth too much to throw it away for some god.
The current "war of attrition" method of Israel has proved its complete ineffectiveness in the past 50 years - it only makes the situation much, much worse. If you are not willing to destroy Islam completely, the only way to defeat it is by refusing to fight.
-Villain
The Americans are the foremost and richest empire of our time, still they want to conquer the damn whole world. The differences between the two are merely superficial.
Nevertheless, I agree with you: Radical Islamism is a cancer of mankind and finding a cure is of utmost importance right now. But what Israel and USA are doing is exactly the opposite: they try to fight the symptoms instead of the sickness and end up making it much worse. Their actions in the middle-east are helping those fundamentalist nutcases to gain followers; nothing converts people easier than desperation. Intelligent people with safe, meaningful lives can approach religion from a sane viewpoint (or, in the best case, ignore religion alltogether) - they don't become fundamentalists. There hasn't been this much support for radical Islamism in the world since the middle ages!
Also, what's the price we are willing to pay for this war? In the eighties it was Iraq that was in the forefront of the fight against Islamic Imperialism - CIA armed Hussein with the chemical weapons because stopping Iran was more important than a few thousand innocent Kurds. Iraq (the least Islamistic arab-country until now) didn't become the enemy of the west until it stopped taking orders from the USA. Look at Iraq now: radical Islamism is at its strongest there at the moment. And will be for decades to come, just like in those Palestinian areas Israel has struck the most.
If we really are going to get rid of radical Islamism, I can see only two rational options:
1. A full scale (nuclear) war against the whole Islamic world. The price will be paid by hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dead innocents.
2. A full scale cease-fire, end of all non-peacekeeping military operations in the middle-east. Concentration on educational and social programs in the arab regions. The way IRA and ETA were defeated. The way fundamentalist Christianity (the biggest threat to all mankind for nearly two millennia) was defeated - by educating people, by giving them the option of choosing whether or not they want to follow the words of some priest or such, by showing them that this life is worth too much to throw it away for some god.
The current "war of attrition" method of Israel has proved its complete ineffectiveness in the past 50 years - it only makes the situation much, much worse. If you are not willing to destroy Islam completely, the only way to defeat it is by refusing to fight.
-Villain
Taliesin said:
It's an eye for an eye.
A terrorist attack took place, and those to blame are known - extremists, terrorists, whatever - the mastermind. What do international laws say about what should be done in this situation?
Do you really think those Hamas leaders play fair? Think for a moment - they could be surrounding them with children and unaware (but fanatical) civilians (without AK's, OK), so when the rocket strikes - Israel is to blame.
I'm not tracking who killed who and how many - it's known that islamic propaganda tends to "make" victims younger and multiplies the number of them. So can do Israel (which I don't know for sure about, but still can be true).
Villain (that was quick, btw) - I got your point, so it means continuing "argument" is useless then?
BTW, that family comment you made... I find it irrelevant at the certain point in time, since my family isn't any kind of extremist. But my uncle is a high-ranked military guy (one rank before general), so in case of any war he's the one who can actually be out there (hardly in the very field, but you know what I mean). It's war, he's in the special forces, shit happens, life goes on.
But if my relatives were some kind of radical lunatics... story would be different I think. So I'm partly with you on WTF jews are bombing Lebanon, but only partly since there's more to it than we can see.
Similar threads
