Interesting take on Israel's tantrum.

[The Question]

And remind me, again, why it is that we're supposed to hate the terrorists? Because they attack and kill innocent civilians, right? Well, Israel's been doing the same thing, haven't they?

So we're supposed to hate Lebanon, Iran and the Palestinians, but it's somehow eeevil to feel the same way about Israel, who's guilty of the same shit? Please.

Am I supposed to hate them because they want to wipe Israel off the map? Well, why should I give a shit if they want to wipe Israel off the map, one way or the other? Objectively, Americans have to fund Israel's very existence, and we're not given a choice about it.

And because we're essentially slave labor for Israel (we work to pay taxes, part of our taxes pay so that Israel can exist, if we don't pay taxes all sorts of nasty shit happens to us, sounds like slavery to me...) we enjoy the lovely side benefit of having our people bombed, which results in more nifty benefits like our government spying on us with no legal remedy available.

Yeah... that makes sense. :roll:

 

[HeroicFool]

LOL, I am all for revoking all foreign aid immediately...

What an uproar there would be the world over. Israel is hardly special.

As for Israel.. When is the last time that Israel sent out suicide bombers out with the intent of killing civilians?

Never...

In war civilians are sometimes hurt, that's called collateral damage, every war has it's innocent victims.

Those that aren't barbarians, however, don't target civilians intentionally. War is hell my friend.

 

[The Question]

Fucking libs...

Dude, I'm a conservative. Which means I'm not a liberal. But it also means I don't subscribe to the bullshit perversion of conservatism known as neoconservatism, either.

Anyone in the military threatens you don't they?

Yeah, my old man and all his squid and jarhead buddies were just too much to handle. :roll:

There's differences between military men of honor and thugs with foreign-supplied weapons and a government mandate to use them to slaughter civilians. We call them terrorists. We also call them the IDF, but we're expected to think well of them when we call them by that latter name.

[

The risk of capture or death is always a possibility for any soldier IN WAR!!!

Israel wasn't AT war when the tank gunner was captured in Gaza, which begs the question of what the fuck a tank was DOING in Gaza in the first place.

If this in fact a war then the Israelis are perfectly justified in fighting it.

It's a war THEY STARTED, and not justifiably.

BTW the Geneva convention bullshit doesn't apply to Israel for the same reason it doesn't apply to the US... (despite the crock of shit the Supreme Court dishes out)

Oh, but that's where you're wrong.

Uniformed combatants... They aren't... They are terrorists...

Yeah, I'm sure we could bomb pretty much anyone we want and then declare all the casualties to have been terrorists.

Sorry, not covered.

But civilians are -- even for Israel. I know it's fashionable to adopt the "they can do no wrong" mindset, but they done did them a mess of wrong.

 

[The Question]

LOL, I am all for revoking all foreign aid immediately...

What an uproar there would be the world over. Israel is hardly special.

Not only SHOULD we -- we'd damned well BETTER, because our own country is in a financial clusterfuck.

As for Israel.. When is the last time that Israel sent out suicide bombers out with the intent of killing civilians?

They don't have to use suicide bombers to do it, they've got all that fancy military hardware we give them. And bombing bridges, power plants, tv stations and BEACHES.... BEACHES... is INDISCRIMINATE. Just as indiscriminate as a suicide bombing. No more so, and no less.

In war civilians are sometimes hurt, that's called collateral damage, every war has it's innocent victims.

Yeah, collateral damage is one thing, TARGETING CIVILIAN SUBURBS AND INFRASTRUCTURE is NOT THE SAME THING.

Those that aren't barbarians, however, don't target civilians intentionally.

Which is what Israel is doing, and has done, repeatedly, for decades.

War is hell my friend.

Well. No shit.

 

[Rafterman]

The Question wrote:

Now, then. Was the tug on your sleeve the provocation, or was it that he pissed you off with that poster?

That tug on the sleeve is an Israeli soldier being kidnapped off to certain torture, certain death. Do not respond eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. Instead, return it a thousand-fold. Make it plain to the terrorist enemy that even one innocent soldier's life is worth more than their thousands of lives put together!

-Ogami

Innocent soldier?

What's that?

I've never met one of those.

 

[Ogami]

Well Rafterman, when the enemy bothers wearing a uniform (whether in Lebanon or Iraq), then we can quibble over which side has the moral edge. Until then, it's no contest.

You take up with the islamic fundamentalist terrorists, and I'll support anyone fighting them. I'm comfortable with my choice, how 'bout you?

-Ogami

 

[HeroicFool]

^ditto

 

[The Question]

You take up with the islamic fundamentalist terrorists, and I'll support anyone fighting them.

Oh, so will I. But I will not -- under any circumstances -- support those who will proceed from the flimsiest of excuses to slaughter innocent people, which is what Israel is doing -- and I certainly won't pretend to approve of Americans being forced to fund a democide, which we are when American taxes fund Israel's war machine. If Israel had to pay full price for the military hardware they get from us, and if they were a self-sustaining nation, then fine. But we're the ones footing the bill for their terrorism -- in the name of combating terrorism -- and I won't pretend to approve of that.

 

[Donovan]

Question said it better than I was going to, but I just don't waste time arguing with fools. There is a world of difference between those who simply do not see and those who will not see.

 

[Ogami]

Donovan wrote:

Question said it better than I was going to, but I just don't waste time arguing with fools. There is a world of difference between those who simply do not see and those who will not see.

I understand the critics of the Bush Administration claim that there are many shades of gray, and that patriotic people are dolts who see things as black and white.

If that's the case, if there are so many shades of gray in your moral relativism, then why is it that you always blame America and Israel 100% of the time?

Gotcha.

-Ogami

 

[The Question]

Because on the spectrum of human rights violation, Israel keeps pegging even moral relativists' meters all the way into the red?

 

[Donovan]

In response to Ogami:

You've got that somewhat backward. First, you assume that all people who disagree with what is currently our role in foreign despotism as liberal or lefty, and you label all such people as unpatriotic. You also assume that we think in shades of gray, when the criminality and failures of our current regime could not be more black and white. Meanwhile, "your" president and the people you're defending are taking nuances in all sorts of areas, and using those loopholes to wage illegal war against relatively helpless opponents.

I do not blame America for all the ills of the Middle east. However, the Mea Culpa in THIS particular crisis is undeniably ours to share. We not only gave Israel the blueprint for how to wage war on the flimsiest of pretexts, we neutered our own ability to intervene on behalf of peace due to our own aggressive acts overseas.

Finally, you make the mistake of assuming all educated and reasoned persons who see the travesty of this are treehugging liberals. I have my own political leanings, and I have strongly disagreed with Question on a number of issues. There are times when I've wondered how intelligence could lead a person to his posted conclusions.

But I have always assumed that Question, as a reasoned and thinking man, could be approached and debated on a given subject; and that his conclusions are always based on some sort of logic, even if that logic doesn't match mine. The man does his homework.

I make no such assumptions about your input here. Your assertions rarely go beyond parroted "rah rah" politics, and I doubt you've spent much time contemplating the facts at all. Therefore, I choose not to indulge your "might makes right" fantasy version of the world and disregard your further comments as the ramblings of a sadly mistaken common individual.

 

[Donovan]

PS I just made out with the hot neighbor next door, and I am in a very good mood. Otherwise, I might have insulted you a little.

 

[Ogami]

Donovan wrote:

Meanwhile, "your" president and the people you're defending are taking nuances in all sorts of areas, and using those loopholes to wage illegal war against relatively helpless opponents.

Bush's critics say we should leave Iraq because of the endless violence. How could that be, if the opponents are helpless?

I do not blame America for all the ills of the Middle east. However, the Mea Culpa in THIS particular crisis is undeniably ours to share. We not only gave Israel the blueprint for how to wage war on the flimsiest of pretexts, we neutered our own ability to intervene on behalf of peace due to our own aggressive acts overseas.

UN Ambassador John Bolton was asked by the press yesterday why didn't we sign onto a cease fire. His answer suits you perfectly:

ALLEGED JOURNALIST: Mr. Ambassador, a lot of Arab diplomats in the hallway here at the UN accuse you of blocking any movement toward a ceasefire, a ceasefire, ceasefire immediately in Lebanon. What would you answer to that?

BOLTON: The notion that you just declare a ceasefire and act as if that's going to solve the problem, I think, is simplistic. Among other things, I want somebody to address the problem of how you get a cease-fire with a terrorist organization. I'd like to know when there's been an effective ceasefire between a terrorist organization and a state in the past. This is a different kind of situation, and I'm not sure that that sort of old thinking, conventional thinking works in a case like this.

Finally, you make the mistake of assuming all educated and reasoned persons who see the travesty of this are treehugging liberals.

It is true that liberals do nothing but complain and have no alternative plans. Since you are not a liberal as you state, then you must have a concrete alternative to what the Bush Administration's plan regarding Iraq (or even Israel). (Since you state that only fools disagree with you, that must be some amazing secret plan you got there!)

Your assertions rarely go beyond parroted "rah rah" politics, and I doubt you've spent much time contemplating the facts at all.

And since you've offered zero input on what you think Israel (and the U.S.) should do, where does that place your intellect? Isn't it knee-jerk to just say "I disagree with Bush/Israel"? Where's your alternative for peace, hmmm?

Therefore, I choose not to indulge your "might makes right" fantasy version of the world and disregard your further comments as the ramblings of a sadly mistaken common individual.

What's common is to whine about the U.S. position and not offer a single viable alternative. People like that are a dime a dozen, no wonder Bush ignores criticism when it's all the same.

-Ogami

 

[Donovan]

Therefore, I choose not to indulge your "might makes right" fantasy version of the world and disregard your further comments as the ramblings of a sadly mistaken common individual.

.

 

[The Question]

It is true that liberals do nothing but complain and have no alternative plans. Since you are not a liberal as you state, then you must have a concrete alternative to what the Bush Administration's plan regarding Iraq (or even Israel). (Since you state that only fools disagree with you, that must be some amazing secret plan you got there!)

Yeah, here's one -- Israel makes the prisoner exchange Hamas wanted for that one soldier, just as they've made prisoner exchanges so often in the past. Then they learn from their mistake and stop sending tanks into Gaza when there's no reason for there to be Israeli tanks in Gaza in the first place.

 

[bad dog]

No matter what , I will never feel sorry for any of the Palestinian trash getting killed. fuck em!

 

[The Question]

^^Anti-Semite! :lol:

 

[HeroicFool]

Yeah, here's one -- Israel makes the prisoner exchange Hamas wanted for that one soldier, just as they've made prisoner exchanges so often in the past. Then they learn from their mistake and stop sending tanks into Gaza when there's no reason for there to be Israeli tanks in Gaza in the first place.

In other words...

Capitulate and let the terrorists call the shots from now on.

Do you think the US should do that as a policy as well?

 

[The Question]

In other words...

Capitulate and let the terrorists call the shots from now on.

Or they could deal with them as if they were dealing with a legitimate government (which in the case of Hamas would be absolutely appropriate, since the Hamas government was legitimately named as the government by the Palestinians) instead of Israel acting like the Nazis. Besides, isn't capitulation to terrorist attack what Israel wants Lebanon to do? Oh, I think it is!

Do you think the US should do that as a policy as well?

No, I think the US should provoke wars with all its neighbors so it'll have an excuse to slaughter their civilian populations and seize new land once all the residents are corpses.