OT: UN Appalled by Beirut Devastation
BillB
William Coleman
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:7eSwg.222908$Mn5.78569@pd7tw3no...
For those who do not like to click on tinyurls, here are the actual URLs in
question --
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5207478.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_beirut_destruction/html/1.stm
For anyone who doubts Israel is committing the war crime of collective
punishment, take a look at the pictures, folks.
Remember, this is all over two kidnapped Israeli soldiers whom Hizbollah
offered and continues to offer to trade for three Hizbollah prisoners.
This has absolutely nothing to do with legitimate self defense by Israel.
This has everything to do with blatant war crimes.
Israel has crossed the line. We will likely see war crimes trials, unless
the USA blocks such trials.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
BillB
"William Coleman" <rama...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:LoSwg.8860$vO....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> This has absolutely nothing to do with legitimate self defense by Israel.
> This has everything to do with blatant war crimes.
>
> Israel has crossed the line. We will likely see war crimes trials, unless
> the USA blocks such trials.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
All I know is that anyone who thinks this plan of action leads to Israel's
long-term security and a reduction in terrorism needs their head examined.
This blunder is decidedly Bush-like in its magnitude. Make's me suspicious
the neo-cons are calling the shots in Jerusalem too.
jj_...@yahoo.com
these Israeli monsters are doing to innocent civilians, click here:
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=24885
Keep in mind these war crimes have the support of the US President and
and about 90% of the boot licking US Congress.
William Coleman
Well, the alternative suggestion is that the warmongers running the Israeli
government are calling the shots in Washington. I have long discounted this
possibility as a conspiracy theory along the lines of the 9/11 conspiracy
theory.
But I am beginning to wonder. No one questions that we are close with
Israel and that Israelis have a lot of influence in Washington.
Could the Jewish lobby actually be calling the shots in Washington with
respect to Middle Eastern foreign policy?
You have to wonder, especially since Condi Rice waited 12 days to even
bother to go to the region for diplomacy. Naturally no Arab country, not
even "friendly" ones like Jordan and Saudi Arabia want anything to do with
her before a ceasefire is declared.
Meanwhile, Rice has said that she won't even call for a ceasefire until all
of Israel's demands are met -- the most important ones being the return of
the kidnapped soldiers and the disarming of Hizbollah!
LMFAO! If Rice is not taking orders from Tel Aviv, it sure does look like
it. I don't see how this can continue much longer. Despite the fact that
Bush and Rice have given the Israelis the green light to kill as many Arabs
as possible, while the killing is good, the horrific images being broadcast
all over the world and the ratcheting up of diplomatic pressure on the USA,
will surely force Bush to make that phone call I have previously discussed
and tell Olmert to stop the bombing and killing.
Of course rabid Nazis like FL Turbo claim all the calls for ceasefire are
motivated by the fact that Hizbollah is getting its butt kicked.
No, the calls for ceasefire are motivated by the killing of innocent
civilians.
The idea that Israel is kicking Hizbollah's butt is ridiculous. Israel
claims to have killed 100 members of Hizbollah. LMAO! That's less than ten
per day. Yeah, that is a severe asskicking for an extremely well trained
militia with thousands of members.
I will never get where all this glorification of the Israeli war machine as
invincible supermen comes from. In twelve days, the total damage inflicted
on Hizbollah amounts to a pinprick.
But Israel will destroy Hizbollah. Yeah, right, sure.
Tell me about your other fantasies.
And I have a clue for all you warmongering Nazis who support Israel's war
crimes and genocide. Before this shit started, almost all liberals were
pro-Israel. Notice on RGP, not a single liberal is speaking up in defense
of Israel.
Of course war crimes apologists like FL Turbo say we are all turncoats and
fair weather friends. Not so.
But we are liberals. We did not sign on for war crimes and genocide. That
does not make us turncoats.
Right now, it looks like the only support left for Israel in this country is
the Bush Crime Family and the political right wing. That does not bode well
for Israel. If only the American right supports Israel, there is no way the
unqualified American support for Israel continues.
Israel needs to stop embarrassing its liberal supporters in the USA.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Howard Beale
> Pictures > http://tinyurl.com/k2qkh
>
> Story > http://tinyurl.com/oz98q
Those pictures, and the article, mention SOUTHERN Beirut only. SOUTHERN
Beirut, the capital city of Hizballahstan. And it's not flat enough. Go
on and mention the other targets designed to destroy Hizballah, I don't
care. Israel is doing the world's heavy lifting here. If they lose I
hope I live long enough to see Hizballah come for you for it is not
Israel's destruction they seek but world domination. Do you think you can
do any business with a group called 'The Party of God'? How anybody with
Western values, liberal values especially, can oppose a war against Nazis
is beyond me. They are deadly serious in their resolve and those who
don't want to live under their thumb had better be even more so.
And what is all this talk of 'disproportionate response'? All my adult
life I've heard the 'cycle of violence' decried. It looks like this time
Israel wants to end the cycle.
Howard Beale
____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
BillB
"Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:elbdp3x...@recgroups.com...
>.... they seek but world domination. Do you think you can
> do any business with a group called 'The Party of God'?
Who said anything about Republicans?
William Coleman
<jj_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153694192.8...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Why the links to such sanitized photos? If you really want to see what
> these Israeli monsters are doing to innocent civilians, click here:
>
> http://www.uruknet.info/?p=24885
>
> Keep in mind these war crimes have the support of the US President and
> and about 90% of the boot licking US Congress.
Yeah. Where are all the Nazi assholes who wailed and moaned about the
burned desecrated American mercenaries in Fallujah?
Why aren't they wailing and moaning over pictures of incinerated innocent
civilians in Beruit? I would really like an explanation of the silence of
the right wing trolls. Here are the two situations --
In Fallujah, the USA had invaded and occupied Iraq. The USA decided to use
mercenary soldiers. Four of these arrogant mercenaries had the balls to
drive down the main street of Fallujah in their SUV, wearing their designer
sunglasses, the barrels of their automatic weapons stuck out the windows
like they owned the place. They didn't own the place. They were foolishly
on someone else's turf. Predictably, they were ambushed. Their bodies were
burned and mutilated.
The hue and outcry from American Nazis was deafening. "They were American
boys," screams Paul G. They were not "American boys". That refers to young
adult American soldiers and Marines. These mercenaries were grizzled
retired military aged 40+.
On the other hand, the pictures on the above link are pictures of dead
innocent civilians killed by the indiscriminate bombing of Beirut by Israel.
Obviously, the innocent civilians did nothing to deserve their fate.
Yet the right-wing trolls are silent. They see nothing objectionable here
about these pictures?
Isn't it obvious that the Israel supporters on RGP are hypocritical Nazi
racists?
It certainly is to me.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
jj_...@yahoo.com
> On Jul 23 2006 3:54 PM, BillB wrote:
>
Do you think you can
> do any business with a group called 'The Party of God'?
As opposed to supremicists who call themselves "God's Chosen People"?
Go to Hell you filthy bigot.
Howard Beale
That's it? I finally make statements in a political thread that are
decidedly NOT middle of the road because the topic is so serious and
important to me. I expect to get flamed and am sort of hoping that it
will happen. And THIS? Too tepid. I'm going to go play some 8-16 now
and I expect better by the time I get back, in about 10 hours.
Btw, the other day there was a player on my right with a foreign accent.
Apparently he and the dealer and some of the other players had been
talking about the World Cup for the past few weeks and they started up
again. After a while someone asked him where he was from. It turns out
he is a Lebanese Christian, now American and they started talking about
the war. ZOMG!!!!! It reminded me of the time I asked an Iraqi Christian
a few years back what he thought of the Iraq situation. There was nothing
I could do to stop either of them although the Lebanese fellow was more
temperate. Suffice to say (and this is a gross understatement) that the
Lebanese man cared little for Hizballah. I thought, at the time, that the
Iraqi guy would explode with hatred for the Iraqi people, Saddam and the
land they lived on. 2 hours of it. That did it, I never ask political
questions in person anymore unless I have an escape route laid out.
HB
-----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
William Coleman
"Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:elbdp3x...@recgroups.com...
>
>> Pictures > http://tinyurl.com/k2qkh
>>
>> Story > http://tinyurl.com/oz98q
>
>
> Those pictures, and the article, mention SOUTHERN Beirut only. SOUTHERN
> Beirut, the capital city of Hizballahstan.
So fucking what??? Do you think no innocent civilians live there? You
still do not understand the concept of the war crime of collective
punishment. You cannot drop bombs to kill terrorists if it is predictable
that innocent civilians will be killed. That is a war crime.
One of the builtin advantages of an asymettrical force like Hizbollah is
that they can hide behind civilians. That is why is is so hard to defeat
them.
> And it's not flat enough. Go
> on and mention the other targets designed to destroy Hizballah,
It doesn't matter if the intention was to destroy Hizbollah. Your intention
is not what's important. If you could reasonably expect innocent civilians
to be killed, you cannot drop the bomb. To do so is a war crime.
Please read the Geneva Conventions and get back to me.
> I don't care.
This is obvious. Do you really think you are a decent human being when you
rationalize war crimes?
> Israel is doing the world's heavy lifting here.
Oh bullshit. Hizbollah is a threat to no one but Israel. Don't try to
scare us with the terrorist boogeyman of Islamofascism.
> If they lose I
> hope I live long enough to see Hizballah come for you
Hizbollah is not going to come for me, asshole. Stop trying to scare the
shit out of everyone.
> for it is not
> Israel's destruction they seek but world domination.
You are clinically insane Howard. Hizbollah wants Israel to give their land
back, nothing more. "World domination"??? LMFAO!.
> Do you think you can do any business with a group called 'The Party of
> God'?
How can you expect to do any business with Jews who think they are God's
chosen people and they think this justifies genocide and war crimes in the
name of national defense?
> How anybody with
> Western values, liberal values especially, can oppose a war against Nazis
> is beyond me.
Then you understand nothing. Israel has become a national security police
state committing genocide and war crimes. The Jews have become Nazis
themselves. Don't tell me any different. They are no better than the
Islamofascists they are fighting.
Most liberals in this country used to be strong supporters of Israel. Not
anymore. We didn't sign on for genocide and war crimes. Have you seen a
single liberal poster speak up in defense of Israel? You need to think
about what this means. Do not tell me we are all turncoats or terrorist
sycophants or Jew Haters. That seems to be the criticism of the Nazi
assholes on RGP who blindly support Israeli genocide and war crimes.
> They are deadly serious in their resolve and those who
> don't want to live under their thumb had better be even more so.
They are deadly serious in their determination to get their land back from
Israel. Don't make us laugh with this world domination bullshit. Do you
seriously think the Islamofascists now or ever will represent a threat to
the security of the USA, beyond the obvious terrorist threat?
> And what is all this talk of 'disproportionate response'?
It is a disproportionate response to kill hundreds of innocent civilians in
response to two of your soldiers being kidnapped.
> All my adult
> life I've heard the 'cycle of violence' decried. It looks like this time
> Israel wants to end the cycle.
If you think Israel's actions will do anything but greatly escalate the
level of violence, you are clueless.
And you are even more clueless if you think Israel will ever destroy
Hizbollah. See my post "OT: The limits of military force" for more
details.
Right now, you have gullibly swallowed a bunch of nonsense from the
right-wing in America and Israel about the Islamofascists wanting to
dominate the world. They may want to, but it ain't gonna happen.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Irish Mike
attacks on Israel. Israel built a wall around the area to keep muslims out.
Muslims tunneled under that wall into Israel, attacked and murdered Israeli
soldiers and took one prisoner. They have repeatedly sworn that their
objective is the complete and total destruction of Israel.
Israel pulled out of Lebanon and muslims used the ground to launch missile
attacks on Israeli cities. Muslims entered Israel, attacked and murdered
Israeli soldiers and took two prisoner. They have repeatedly sworn that
their objective is the complete and total destruction of Israel.
The current violence in Lebanon was initiated by muslims living there. They
are funded by two of the biggest muslim terrorists regimes on the planet.
They have fired hundreds of long range rockets into Israel. The Lebanese
knew exactly what they were risking when they chose to harbor, support and
protect armed Hezbollah muslim terrorists in their country. What ever
happens to them is their own fault.
Irish Mike
<jj_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153694192.8...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
jj_...@yahoo.com
the actions of a small group of terrorists? Israel's assault on
Lebanon is not directed at terrorists, it is a deliberate campaign of
terror against the entire population of Lebanon.
Mike, your bigoted insistence on holding all Muslims accountable for
the actions of a few is sick. Here's a few things I'm sure you thought
were just swell about the 20th century:
-The US government interning thousands of American civilans of Japanese
ancestry because the government of Japan attacked the US.
-Blacks in the US south being randomly lynched because a white woman
was raped by a black man
-German Jews being herded into concentration camps by Hitler because
the leadership of the Communist party was primarily Jewish
There's hundreds more examples of atrocities one could site caused or
abetted by this kind of small minded bigotry.
Mike, I used to think some of the criticisms of you by that cranky old
bitch Barbara Gallamore were unwarranted. However, this subject
exposes you for the true creep you are.
JJ
Old Wolf
>
> So fucking what??? Do you think no innocent civilians live there? You
> still do not understand the concept of the war crime of collective
> punishment. You cannot drop bombs to kill terrorists if it is predictable
> that innocent civilians will be killed. That is a war crime.
>
> One of the builtin advantages of an asymettrical force like Hizbollah is
> that they can hide behind civilians. That is why is is so hard to defeat
> them.
The civilians willingly shelter Hezballah. That makes them complicit
in the military effort. They are free to reject Hezballah. Do they? No.
In fact, the Muslim population of Lebanon, who are mostly displaced
Palestinians, support Hezballah's cause. These civilians cheer
every time an Israeli dies.
Further, the Lebanese government does nothing to oppose Hezballah.
They choose the current situation. At any point they could ally with
Israel and the USA to drive Hezballah out and reclaim some control
over the Hezballah-controlled areas. But they choose not to.
I don't see any words from your mouth on the thousands of
Hezballah rockets that have been fired from Lebanese territory
into Israel with the explicit intention of killing civilians.
Rich Shipley
>
> And what is all this talk of 'disproportionate response'? All my adult
> life I've heard the 'cycle of violence' decried. It looks like this time
> Israel wants to end the cycle.
That isn't what is happening. Hizballah is getting more popular on the
ground as Israeli bombs are falling. They are providing assistance to
civilians better then FEMA (OK, not much of a comparison these days).
Rich
bjgka...@aol.com
jj_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> So all Muslims (and Christians who "get in the way") should suffer for
> the actions of a small group of terrorists? Israel's assault on
> Lebanon is not directed at terrorists, it is a deliberate campaign of
> terror against the entire population of Lebanon.
>
> Mike, your bigoted insistence on holding all Muslims accountable for
> the actions of a few is sick. Here's a few things I'm sure you thought
> were just swell about the 20th century:
>
> -The US government interning thousands of American civilans of Japanese
> ancestry because the government of Japan attacked the US.
> -Blacks in the US south being randomly lynched because a white woman
> was raped by a black man
> -German Jews being herded into concentration camps by Hitler because
> the leadership of the Communist party was primarily Jewish
>
> There's hundreds more examples of atrocities one could site caused or
> abetted by this kind of small minded bigotry.
>
> Mike, I used to think some of the criticisms of you by that cranky old
> bitch Barbara Gallamore were unwarranted. However, this subject
> exposes you for the true creep you are.
>
> JJ
Thanks for dragging my name into this discussion. By the way, its Ms.
Cranky Old Bitch to you, Mr. JJ Wanker.
Barbara Gallamore
BillB
"Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> That's it? I finally make statements in a political thread that are
> decidedly NOT middle of the road because the topic is so serious and
> important to me. I expect to get flamed and am sort of hoping that it
> will happen. And THIS? Too tepid. I'm going to go play some 8-16 now
> and I expect better by the time I get back, in about 10 hours.
What am I supposed to say? You think Israel can bomb and kill its way to
peace and security. I don't.
FL Turbo
>
>All I know is that anyone who thinks this plan of action leads to Israel's
>long-term security and a reduction in terrorism needs their head examined.
>This blunder is decidedly Bush-like in its magnitude. Make's me suspicious
>the neo-cons are calling the shots in Jerusalem too.
>
Karl Rove made them do it.
Alan Dershowitz has an article that would make the start for a fine
little book.
"Understanding Terrorism for Dummies"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Predictable Condemners
The Hizbullah and Hamas provocations against Israel once again
demonstrate how terrorists exploit human rights and the media in their
attacks on democracies.
By hiding behind their own civilians the Islamic radicals issue a
challenge to democracies:
Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably
killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave
us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians.
This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose
option, and the terrorists with a win-win option.
There is one variable that could change this dynamic and present
democracies with a viable option that could make terrorism less
attractive as a tactic:
The international community, the anti-Israel segment of the media and
the so called "human rights" organizations could stop falling for this
terrorist gambit and acknowledge that they are being used to promote
the terrorist agenda.
Whenever a democracy is presented with the lose-lose option and
chooses to defend its citizens by going after the terrorists who are
hiding among civilians, this trio of predictable condemners can be
counted on by the terrorists to accuse the democracy of
"overreaction," "disproportionality" and "violations of human rights."
In doing so they play right into the hands of the terrorists, causing
more terrorism and more civilian casualties on both sides. If instead
this trio could, for once, be counted on to blame the terrorists for
the civilian deaths on both sides, this tactic would no longer be a
win-win situation for the terrorists.
IT SHOULD BE obvious by now that Hizbullah and Hamas actually want the
Israeli military to kill as many Lebanese and Palestinian civilians as
possible. That is why they store their rockets underneath the beds of
civilians; why they launch their missiles from crowded civilian
neighborhoods and hide among civilians. They are seeking to induce
Israel to defend its civilians by going after them among their
civilian "shields." They know that every civilian they induce Israel
to kill hurts Israel in the media and the international and human
rights communities.
They regard these human shields as shahids - martyrs - even if they
did not volunteer for this lethal job. Under the law, criminals who
use human shields are responsible for the deaths of the shields, even
if the bullet that kills them came from the gun of a policeman.
Israel has every self-interest in minimizing civilian casualties,
whereas the terrorists have every self-interest in maximizing them -
on both sides. Israel should not be condemned for doing what every
democracy would and should do: taking every reasonable military step
to stop the terrorists from killing their innocent civilians.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a few paragraphs from a longer article.
Mr. Dershowitz nails it.
BillB
"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:naa8c2132hktuc29i...@4ax.com...
> Mr. Dershowitz nails it.
haha...ya that will go over real well in the ICC. I can hear Dersh now, "You
don't understand....those apartment buildings were levelled to *save* lives"
William Coleman
"Old Wolf" <old...@inspire.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1153703047.4...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> William Coleman wrote:
>>
>> So fucking what??? Do you think no innocent civilians live there? You
>> still do not understand the concept of the war crime of collective
>> punishment. You cannot drop bombs to kill terrorists if it is
>> predictable
>> that innocent civilians will be killed. That is a war crime.
>>
>> One of the builtin advantages of an asymettrical force like Hizbollah is
>> that they can hide behind civilians. That is why is is so hard to defeat
>> them.
>
> The civilians willingly shelter Hezballah.
Please explain how you know that. It couldn't possibly be that they must
either cooperate with Hizbollah or be killed? Are you willing to even
acknowledge that as a possibility?
> That makes them complicit in the military effort.
How does it make them complicit if they must either cooperate with Hizbollah
or die?
> They are free to reject Hezballah.
How can you assert that when their choices may be to cooperate with
Hizbollah or die?
> Do they? No.
Maybe they have no choice.
> In fact, the Muslim population of Lebanon, who are mostly displaced
> Palestinians, support Hezballah's cause.
And why wouldn't they? You admit they are Palestinians. You think they
should support the Israelis, who drove from their ancestral lands?
> These civilians cheer every time an Israeli dies.
Why shouldn't they? The Israelis are killing their fellow Arabs.
> Further, the Lebanese government does nothing to oppose Hezballah.
Apparently you do not understand that the central government is not strong
enough to oppose Hizbollah militarily. If they tried, the result would be a
civil war or a Hizbollah victory. You think either of those alternatives
would be better?
> They choose the current situation.
I showed you the other two alternatives are even worse, at least from their
perspective.
> At any point they could ally with Israel
Are you insane? Ally themselves with Israel?
> and the USA
You really are insane. Apparently you do not understand that the USA has
invaded and occupied another Arab country, Iraq.
> to drive Hezballah out and reclaim some control
> over the Hezballah-controlled areas.
That will never happen. You are obviously totally ignorant of history.
Israel occupied southern Lebanon for 18 years and could not defeat
Hizbollah. What makes you think any combination of military force can do so
now?
> But they choose not to.
They did not such thing. They were presented with three bad alternatives
and chose the least bad from their perspective.
> I don't see any words from your mouth on the thousands of
> Hezballah rockets that have been fired from Lebanese territory
> into Israel with the explicit intention of killing civilians.
Then you are a fucking idiot. I have already condemned the Hizbollah rocket
attacks on Israel. Do I have to keep repeating that condemnation? That the
Hizbollah rocket attacks are wrong and should stop goes without saying,
doesn't it? The fact that you would suggest that I approve of these attacks
shows just what a blind Israeli partisan you are.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Irish Mike
to speak out and act against these terrorists contribute to the death and
destruction they cause - absolutely.
I suggest you read a book called "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Islam"
by Robert Spencer. The book provides a glimpse into the real beliefs of
muslims. Not the sugar coated, politically correct bull shit that Americans
have been spoon fed. Islam is not, and never has been, a religion of peace.
Islam is a brutal, repressive intolerant religion. They make no distinction
between women, children, and military targets. The only distinction they
make is between muslim and non-muslim. Any one that does not accept islam
as their dominant religion is an infidel. The Qur'an gives infidels two
choices; conversion or death.
It is also why they go on murderous rampages of death and destruction over
things like: a country wanting to run a beauty pageant. Another country
publishing a cartoon. A man wanting to convert from islam to Christianity.
It's also how muslims justified taking over a non-muslim elementary school
and murdering more than 150 school children. They were just infidels.
Sorry to disappoint you bucko, but you'll have to peddle that "oh these poor
misunderstood peace-loving muslims are just innocent victims of Israel" bull
shit to some one else.
Irish Mike
<jj_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153702656.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
William Coleman
That essay is one of the most appalling examples of Nazi thinking I have
ever read. Not surprising that FL Turbo loves it.
Isn't this the same guy who wrote a learned essay justifying torture? I
think it is. Mr. Dershowitz is a Jew. Clearly a Jewish Nazi.
As I said Mr. Dershwitz is a Jew, and his ethnicity is clearly clouding his
objectivity.
His essay is nothing less than a justification of war crimes as an expedient
necessity. Unfuckingbelievable!!!
He is basically arguing for the repeal of the Geneva Conventions.
As I have repeatedly explained, using civilians as shields is a builtin
tactical advantage of asymmetrical actors like Hizbollah. This is why these
asymmetrical forces cannot be defeated by conventional military force,
unless you commit war crimes.
So, are we going to commit war crimes, or are we going to concede that we
cannot defeat actors like Hizbollah with military force?
There is no third alternative I am aware of. This is the genius of Chairman
Mao's rules for guerrilla warfare. Four simple rules hamstring the most
powerful military in the world.
Suck it up. International capitalist imperialism can no longer invade and
occupy countries without expecting a serious guerrilla insurgency which
cannot be defeated with military force.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
"Irish Mike" <mjo...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:vSWwg.71690$fb2....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> Are all muslims terrorists - certainly not. But do all muslims that
> refuse to speak out and act against these terrorists contribute to the
> death and destruction they cause - absolutely.
>
> I suggest you read a book called "The Politically Incorrect Guide To
> Islam" by Robert Spencer.
I suggest you ram this vile Islamophobic propaganda up your bigoted Irish
ass.
> The book provides a glimpse into the real beliefs of muslims.
No it doesnt. It provides a glimpse into the Islamophobic lies believed by
bigoted Nazis like you and Mr. Spencer. Spencer is not a Muslim. He has no
academic training in Islamic or Middle Eastern studies.
The publisher is Regnery, founded by a white supremacist. Regnery is the
biggest publisher of extreme right-wing propaganda in the world. Authors
include hatemongers like Ann Coulter and David Horowitz as well as John
O'Neill and Jerome Corsi, authors of the book version of the lies of the
Swift Boat Liars for Bush.
> Not the sugar coated, politically correct bull shit that Americans have
> been spoon fed. Islam is not, and never has been, a religion of peace.
Of course it is, stop lying.
> Islam is a brutal, repressive intolerant religion.
This is the key Islamophobic lie. You are characterizing an entire religion
of over one billion people by its most extreme elements. This is like
characterizing all Christians as abortion clinic bombers.
> They make no distinction between women, children, and military targets.
Are the Jews making that distinction in Lebanon?
> The only distinction they make is between muslim and non-muslim.
This is a pure fabrication. Ever hear of "people of the book"? That
includes not only Muslims, but Christians and Jews.
> Any one that does not accept islam as their dominant religion is an
> infidel.
That's right. Christians define the term infidel as any non-Christian.
> The Qur'an gives infidels two choices; conversion or death.
Wow. Are you going to make one true statement before the end of the post?
Please explain why Christians and Jews live at peace in many Muslim
countries.
> It is also why they go on murderous rampages of death and destruction over
> things like: a country wanting to run a beauty pageant. Another country
> publishing a cartoon. A man wanting to convert from islam to
> Christianity. It's also how muslims justified taking over a non-muslim
> elementary school and murdering more than 150 school children. They were
> just infidels.
No one is arguing that there are not Muslim extremists and nutcases. What
is your point?
> Sorry to disappoint you bucko, but you'll have to peddle that "oh these
> poor misunderstood peace-loving muslims are just innocent victims of
> Israel" bull shit to some one else.
Sorry to disappoint you, bucko, but every statement you have made in this
post is a lie. Go peddle your hateful Islamophobic bigotry somewhere else.
Notice Irish Mike uses the top posting technique. This allows him to ignore
all points to which he is replying, while spewing his Nazi hate.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
>Could the Jewish lobby actually be calling the shots in Washington with
>respect to Middle Eastern foreign policy?
It's a simple fact.
"The Israel Lobby," John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
London Review of Books
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
Howard Beale
> "Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:elbdp3x...@recgroups.com...
> > On Jul 23 2006 3:54 PM, BillB wrote:
> >
> >> Pictures > http://tinyurl.com/k2qkh
> >>
> >> Story > http://tinyurl.com/oz98q
> >
> >
> > Those pictures, and the article, mention SOUTHERN Beirut only. SOUTHERN
> > Beirut, the capital city of Hizballahstan.
>
> So fucking what??? Do you think no innocent civilians live there? You
> still do not understand the concept of the war crime of collective
> punishment. You cannot drop bombs to kill terrorists if it is predictable
> that innocent civilians will be killed.
Drop them, I say. I'm not going to play by the terrorist's rules.
That is a war crime.
So sayeth the Hon. W. Coleman, now presiding.
>
> One of the builtin advantages of an asymettrical force like Hizbollah is
> that they can hide behind civilians. That is why is is so hard to defeat
> them.
I wouldn't let them get away with hiding. They must be rooted out and
killed.
>
> > And it's not flat enough. Go
> > on and mention the other targets designed to destroy Hizballah,
>
> It doesn't matter if the intention was to destroy Hizbollah. Your intention
> is not what's important. If you could reasonably expect innocent civilians
> to be killed, you cannot drop the bomb. To do so is a war crime.
How naive can a person be? I'm not playing by their rules. They want to
shoot at me while hiding amongst civilians and I can't shoot back? Are
you so simple?
>
> Please read the Geneva Conventions and get back to me.
>
> > I don't care.
>
> This is obvious. Do you really think you are a decent human being when you
> rationalize war crimes?
A lot more decent than most.
>
> > Israel is doing the world's heavy lifting here.
>
> Oh bullshit. Hizbollah is a threat to no one but Israel. Don't try to
> scare us with the terrorist boogeyman of Islamofascism.
How big is your head? I ask because I want to know the size of the hole
you had to dig in the sand.
>
> > If they lose I
> > hope I live long enough to see Hizballah come for you
>
> Hizbollah is not going to come for me, asshole. Stop trying to scare the
> shit out of everyone.
>
> > for it is not
> > Israel's destruction they seek but world domination.
>
> You are clinically insane Howard.
Thank you, Dr. Coleman, that explains many things.
Hizbollah wants Israel to give their land
> back, nothing more.
What land? The UN certified the border as accurate. Shaaba Farms is
'contested' just as an excuse. That's the UN, Secretary Coleman. You are
pretty deluded to think they just want their land back. And who are they
to demand anything? They are not the government.
"World domination"??? LMFAO!.
>
> > Do you think you can do any business with a group called 'The Party of
> > God'?
>
> How can you expect to do any business with Jews who think they are God's
> chosen people and they think this justifies genocide and war crimes in the
> name of national defense?
Go live with Hizballah. I'll pay your airfare. Go on and live by their
rules. See how far you get.
>
> > How anybody with
> > Western values, liberal values especially, can oppose a war against Nazis
> > is beyond me.
>
> Then you understand nothing. Israel has become a national security police
> state committing genocide and war crimes. The Jews have become Nazis
> themselves. Don't tell me any different. They are no better than the
> Islamofascists they are fighting.
The Islamofascists are the most illiberal people I know. They are
horrible. How you can support them in any way whatsover amazes me.
>
> Most liberals in this country used to be strong supporters of Israel. Not
> anymore. We didn't sign on for genocide and war crimes. Have you seen a
> single liberal poster speak up in defense of Israel? You need to think
> about what this means. Do not tell me we are all turncoats or terrorist
> sycophants or Jew Haters. That seems to be the criticism of the Nazi
> assholes on RGP who blindly support Israeli genocide and war crimes.
>
> > They are deadly serious in their resolve and those who
> > don't want to live under their thumb had better be even more so.
>
> They are deadly serious in their determination to get their land back from
> Israel. Don't make us laugh with this world domination bullshit. Do you
> seriously think the Islamofascists now or ever will represent a threat to
> the security of the USA, beyond the obvious terrorist threat?
You are deluded. Again.
>
> > And what is all this talk of 'disproportionate response'?
>
> It is a disproportionate response to kill hundreds of innocent civilians in
> response to two of your soldiers being kidnapped.
>
> > All my adult
> > life I've heard the 'cycle of violence' decried. It looks like this time
> > Israel wants to end the cycle.
>
> If you think Israel's actions will do anything but greatly escalate the
> level of violence, you are clueless.
Good. ONWARD TO DAMASCUS!!!!
>
> And you are even more clueless if you think Israel will ever destroy
> Hizbollah. See my post "OT: The limits of military force" for more
> details.
>
> Right now, you have gullibly swallowed a bunch of nonsense from the
> right-wing in America and Israel about the Islamofascists wanting to
> dominate the world. They may want to, but it ain't gonna happen.
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
Thank you for the response. It was most satisfactory. I knew I could
count on you.
HB
_____________________________________________________________________
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
>On Jul 23 2006 5:43 PM, William Coleman wrote:
>> "Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:elbdp3x...@recgroups.com...
>> > On Jul 23 2006 3:54 PM, BillB wrote:
>> >> Pictures > http://tinyurl.com/k2qkh
>> >> Story > http://tinyurl.com/oz98q
>> > Those pictures, and the article, mention SOUTHERN Beirut only. SOUTHERN
>> > Beirut, the capital city of Hizballahstan.
>> So fucking what??? Do you think no innocent civilians live there? You
>> still do not understand the concept of the war crime of collective
>> punishment. You cannot drop bombs to kill terrorists if it is predictable
>> that innocent civilians will be killed.
>Drop them, I say. I'm not going to play by the terrorist's rules.
Those ARE a terrorist's rules.
By the way, what about the two million Christians who live in Lebanon? I guess
killing them is fine too?
Howard Beale
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:42:18 -0700, "Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 23 2006 5:43 PM, William Coleman wrote:
>
> >> "Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:elbdp3x...@recgroups.com...
> >> > On Jul 23 2006 3:54 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> >> >> Pictures > http://tinyurl.com/k2qkh
>
> >> >> Story > http://tinyurl.com/oz98q
>
> >> > Those pictures, and the article, mention SOUTHERN Beirut only. SOUTHERN
> >> > Beirut, the capital city of Hizballahstan.
>
> >> So fucking what??? Do you think no innocent civilians live there? You
> >> still do not understand the concept of the war crime of collective
> >> punishment. You cannot drop bombs to kill terrorists if it is
predictable
> >> that innocent civilians will be killed.
>
> >Drop them, I say. I'm not going to play by the terrorist's rules.
>
> Those ARE a terrorist's rules.
Suggest another way to destroy them.
>
> By the way, what about the two million Christians who live in Lebanon? I
guess
> killing them is fine too?
I didn't say anything about killing anybody except the terrorist members
of Hizballah. If the target is in a civilian neighborhood I advocate
destroying it. Israel has done their best to forewarn the populace, by
way of radio and leaflets, to get out of the way. They also allowed the
networks to see their troops and armor massing on the border. What kind
of military does that? They tell the enemy what's coming for them and
where it is. Or, it could be, they want to warn the civilians about what's
about to happen. At any rate, I'm not about to quaver and wring my
hands because the target is where it is. What do you want to do? Give
the terrorists a freeroll from now to eternity? They must be confronted
and destroyed before they destroy us.
You'll notice that Hizballah is located in Shia neighborhoods, not
Christian neighborhoods. Why is that?
HB
pokerchimp
you you would tell them it is impossible to evaluate sanity over the
internet. Hypocrite
-----
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
>On Jul 24 2006 2:14 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:42:18 -0700, "Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid>
>> wrote:
>> >On Jul 23 2006 5:43 PM, William Coleman wrote:
>> >> "Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> >> news:elbdp3x...@recgroups.com...
>> >> > On Jul 23 2006 3:54 PM, BillB wrote:
>> >> >> Pictures > http://tinyurl.com/k2qkh
>> >> >> Story > http://tinyurl.com/oz98q
>> >> > Those pictures, and the article, mention SOUTHERN Beirut only. SOUTHERN
>> >> > Beirut, the capital city of Hizballahstan.
>> >> So fucking what??? Do you think no innocent civilians live there? You
>> >> still do not understand the concept of the war crime of collective
>> >> punishment. You cannot drop bombs to kill terrorists if it is
>predictable
>> >> that innocent civilians will be killed.
>> >Drop them, I say. I'm not going to play by the terrorist's rules.
>> Those ARE a terrorist's rules.
>Suggest another way to destroy them.
Destroy whom? Everyone who might possibly become Hezbollah in response
to Israel's crazed responses? I suppose you could kill all Arabs. That seems
to be a fashionable opinion these days.
If you kill one terrorist and two more spring up to replace him, what have you
accomplished?
>> By the way, what about the two million Christians who live in Lebanon? I
>guess
>> killing them is fine too?
>I didn't say anything about killing anybody except the terrorist members
>of Hizballah. If the target is in a civilian neighborhood I advocate
>destroying it. Israel has done their best to forewarn the populace, by
Okay, so once you've destroyed that civilian neighborhood, what next?
>way of radio and leaflets, to get out of the way. They also allowed the
>networks to see their troops and armor massing on the border. What kind
>of military does that? They tell the enemy what's coming for them and
What is their other option? Make their troops invisible so nobody can see
them massing at the border?
Seeing troops massing at borders is trivial. There is nothing amazing about it.
>where it is. Or, it could be, they want to warn the civilians about what's
>about to happen. At any rate, I'm not about to quaver and wring my
Even the Nazis dropped leaflets on future targets telling them of their plans to
blow up their cities. I don't see anyone suggesting we should give them
posthumous medals for having done so.
The purpose is as much psychological warfare and propaganda, and pointing
out the helplessness of the target to protect themselves. It is not
altruistic.
>hands because the target is where it is. What do you want to do? Give
>the terrorists a freeroll from now to eternity? They must be confronted
>and destroyed before they destroy us.
The question is if your intention is to actually end the root causes of
terrorism or throw a tantrum to show them what big balls you have.
Israel appears to have chosen the latter, and either doesn't care whether
their actions have a positive result, or else Likud is actually cynically
provoking terrorism deliberately in order to have a platform to run
for reelection on.
>You'll notice that Hizballah is located in Shia neighborhoods, not
>Christian neighborhoods. Why is that?
Possibly because it's a Shia group?
But if you blow up the only radio and
television stations, water pumps, electrical power plants, and other
civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, you are not merely harming Shias
or Hezbollah members. In fact, you are moving people from
Hezbollah sympathizers to joiners. They are no less safe as members
of Hezbollah than just as civilians.
If you view a 'freeroll' as an option of first order stochastic dominance
over another option, then joining Hezbollah is itself a freeroll.
You can not belong to Hezbollah, and have bombs dropped on you
and your country destroyed, and have no response whatsoever to
this except to sit there helplessly, or you can be a member of Hezbollah
and have the same thing happen, except as a member, you are able
to retaliate. So it is no surprise that people will join in the wake of
this. It's not like they're getting any brownie points for not joining.
Hezbollah has provided hospitals, schools, agricultural assistance,
social programs, news services, and other basic infrastructure projects
that the central government is either unwilling, or too corrupt and
incompetent to perform.
So you expect people to hate those who provide them services, and
love people who drop bombs on them. No human beings will ever
act like that. They'd have to be fools to.
They will hate and attack Israel as long as they have reason to.
Expecting them not to is insane, that is, doing the same thing again
and again and expecting different results. It is as insane as
Osama bin Laden thinking that destroying the World Trade Center
would make Americans give in to his demands.
When people are attacked, they fight back, sometimes rationally
and sometimes irrationally. Destroying an entire country because
two people were kidnapped is irrationally. Suicide bombing is
irrationally.
Incidentally, Israel kidnapped two people in the days
before the Hezbollah kidnapping, but this is completely unmentioned
in the media, probably because it interferes with the fantasy of a
holy, snow-white Israel being beset by evil unprovoked attacks.
But after all, the Lebanese aren't even human, so it's all okay.
Israel's kidnappings are the work of God while Hezbollah's are
terrorism.
But regardless of these facts, a rational actor, faced with a situation,
chooses actions which are likely to lead to a desired result. What
desired result is achieved by destroying Lebanon without even appreciably
harming Hezbollah?
It has more the look of an angry tantrum by a nation in an insane rage,
randomly killing people because it can't get to the people it is actually
angry at, than a rational action taken to end a threat.
Do you think that people without water and electricity are more or less
likely to join a resistance group opposed to the people who destroyed their
electricity and water? Who do you think is going to be right there
helping rebuild the infrastructure when the Israeli frenzy is over? It
is going to be Hezbollah again. And do you think people are going to be
more or less likely to join a resistance group which is right there helping
them rebuild their homes and farms and businesses?
The fact is that Hezbollah is an extremist group which engages in terrorism.
But they've been given an awful lot to be extreme about, and they enjoy
broad popular support because of it. They rally around the destruction of
Israel as a cause, because it is a popular cause. If there were less reason
for it to be popular, they'd find a different slogan.
A resistance movement given less to resist becomes less extreme. For
example, you don't see Sinn Fein calling for physical attacks on the
British any more, because they have achieved a lot of their goals.
Economic prosperity clears up a lot of the reasons that people fight.
By comparison, keeping people in helpless, dire poverty, destroying their
property, killing their families, and obliterating their countries creates
people with nothing to lose who will do anything to get revenge.
Howard Beale
On Jul 24 2006 3:42 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:08:21 -0700, "Howard Beale"
> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 24 2006 2:14 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:42:18 -0700, "Howard Beale"
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jul 23 2006 5:43 PM, William Coleman wrote:
>
> >> >> "Howard Beale" wrote in message
> >> >> news:elbdp3x...@recgroups.com...
> >> >> > On Jul 23 2006 3:54 PM, BillB wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Pictures > http://tinyurl.com/k2qkh
>
> >> >> >> Story > http://tinyurl.com/oz98q
>
> >> >> > Those pictures, and the article, mention SOUTHERN Beirut only.
> >> >> > SOUTHERN
> >> >> > Beirut, the capital city of Hizballahstan.
>
> >> >> So fucking what??? Do you think no innocent civilians live there? You
> >> >> still do not understand the concept of the war crime of collective
> >> >> punishment. You cannot drop bombs to kill terrorists if it is
> >predictable
> >> >> that innocent civilians will be killed.
>
> >> >Drop them, I say. I'm not going to play by the terrorist's rules.
>
> >> Those ARE a terrorist's rules.
>
> >Suggest another way to destroy them.
>
> Destroy whom?
The people who want to kill me.
Everyone who might possibly become Hezbollah in response
> to Israel's crazed responses? I suppose you could kill all Arabs.
Suppose all you like, I didn't say it and I would never say it.
That seems
> to be a fashionable opinion these days.
You may be upset with what I have to say but this part is silly.
>
> If you kill one terrorist and two more spring up to replace him, what have you
> accomplished?
>
> >> By the way, what about the two million Christians who live in Lebanon? I
> >guess
> >> killing them is fine too?
>
> >I didn't say anything about killing anybody except the terrorist members
> >of Hizballah. If the target is in a civilian neighborhood I advocate
> >destroying it. Israel has done their best to forewarn the populace, by
>
> Okay, so once you've destroyed that civilian neighborhood, what next?
I meant the target, not the neighborhood. I can see where you might have
mistaken my meaning though.
>
> >way of radio and leaflets, to get out of the way. They also allowed the
> >networks to see their troops and armor massing on the border. What kind
> >of military does that? They tell the enemy what's coming for them and
>
> What is their other option? Make their troops invisible so nobody can see
> them massing at the border?
>
> Seeing troops massing at borders is trivial. There is nothing amazing about
> it.
>
> >where it is. Or, it could be, they want to warn the civilians about what's
> >about to happen. At any rate, I'm not about to quaver and wring my
>
> Even the Nazis dropped leaflets on future targets telling them of their plans
> to
> blow up their cities. I don't see anyone suggesting we should give them
> posthumous medals for having done so.
>
> The purpose is as much psychological warfare and propaganda, and pointing
> out the helplessness of the target to protect themselves. It is not
> altruistic.
Ok, my point was weak.
>
> >hands because the target is where it is. What do you want to do? Give
> >the terrorists a freeroll from now to eternity? They must be confronted
> >and destroyed before they destroy us.
>
> The question is if your intention is to actually end the root causes of
> terrorism or throw a tantrum to show them what big balls you have.
Here is our basic disagreement, I think. I think Israel has little to do with
the root causes of terrorism. It certainly wasn't the primary focus of OBL.
Israel left Lebanon and the UN certified the border but Hizballah claims there
is still Shaaba Farms in dispute. This is just an excuse. I think that the
root causes of terrorism is that the militant Muslims want to rule the world.
Yes, rule the world, starting with the re-establishment of their Caliphate.
There is no negotiating with them. They have declared war and I think it must
be fought like a war. Those who try to 'understand' them, who try to reason
with them are doomed to failure. They are willing to use any means necessary.
The response needn't be savage as I suppose you think it is at this time but it
must be effective. I say that in order to be effective we can't let them have
safe haven because we refuse to accept any civilian casualties.
I know your heart's in the right place and you think I'm cold and callous but I
assure you that the only reason I talk this way is because I am convinced that
if the Muslim fascists aren't stopped soon the calamity to follow will be beyond
measure.
> Israel appears to have chosen the latter, and either doesn't care whether
> their actions have a positive result, or else Likud is actually cynically
> provoking terrorism deliberately in order to have a platform to run
> for reelection on.
Likud is not in power. It's Kadima now:
http://kadimasharon.co.il/11-en/index.aspx
By it's completely unprovoked attack Hizballah in effect asked Israel if it
wanted to get crazy. Israel gave them their answer.
>
> >You'll notice that Hizballah is located in Shia neighborhoods, not
> >Christian neighborhoods. Why is that?
>
> Possibly because it's a Shia group?
And nobody not Shia would have anything to do with them even though they are all
Lebanese and only Hizballah was effective if forcing Israel out of Lebanon
because they don't want to live under Muslim fundamentalist's thumb.
>
> But if you blow up the only radio and
> television stations, water pumps, electrical power plants, and other
> civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, you are not merely harming Shias
> or Hezbollah members.
Of course. So what? What are you going to do if attacked? Not retaliate
because you are harming other people when it can't be avoided?
In fact, you are moving people from
> Hezbollah sympathizers to joiners. They are no less safe as members
> of Hezbollah than just as civilians.
>
> If you view a 'freeroll' as an option of first order stochastic dominance
> over another option, then joining Hezbollah is itself a freeroll.
> You can not belong to Hezbollah, and have bombs dropped on you
> and your country destroyed, and have no response whatsoever to
> this except to sit there helplessly, or you can be a member of Hezbollah
> and have the same thing happen, except as a member, you are able
> to retaliate. So it is no surprise that people will join in the wake of
> this. It's not like they're getting any brownie points for not joining.
>
You are far over-stating your argument. Civilians are not the primary target of
Israel's attacks. It is certainly more dangerous to a person's life to be a
member of Hizballah. You may it sound like Israel has rained down fire and
destruction without any regard to the targets they hit and I'm sure you know the
truth is otherwise.
> Hezbollah has provided hospitals, schools, agricultural assistance,
> social programs, news services, and other basic infrastructure projects
> that the central government is either unwilling, or too corrupt and
> incompetent to perform.
>
> So you expect people to hate those who provide them services, and
> love people who drop bombs on them. No human beings will ever
> act like that. They'd have to be fools to.
I didn't say anything of the sort. I want to destroy the people who want to
kill me. I don't care if they don't like me I just want to live my life in
peace the way I want to without having to worry about terrorists trying to kill
me.
>
> They will hate and attack Israel as long as they have reason to.
> Expecting them not to is insane, that is, doing the same thing again
> and again and expecting different results. It is as insane as
> Osama bin Laden thinking that destroying the World Trade Center
> would make Americans give in to his demands.
The Lebanese Christians and Druze didn't attack Israel. Why not? Why the
Shia's? What is the reason that they attacked Israel a couple of weeks ago?
Israel is out of Lebanon. Hizballah was victorious. What is the cause of their
hate and what is the reason they attacked at this time? There was no
provocation by Israel at all against Lebanon or Hizballah. The border had been
very quiet for years. Why did Hizballah attack?
Does this mean Israel must just sit there and take it?
>
> The fact is that Hezbollah is an extremist group which engages in terrorism.
> But they've been given an awful lot to be extreme about,
What, in the past 6 years?
and they enjoy
> broad popular support because of it.
Amongst the Shia, almost exclusively.
They rally around the destruction of
> Israel as a cause, because it is a popular cause.
Why? What has Israel got to do with Lebanon in the past 6 years?
If there were less reason
> for it to be popular, they'd find a different slogan.
>
> A resistance movement given less to resist becomes less extreme.
For crying out loud, WHAT is there to resist? ISRAEL IS GONE FROM LEBANON.
HIZBALLAH WON THAT BATTLE. WHAT ARE THEY RESISTING NOW?
For
> example, you don't see Sinn Fein calling for physical attacks on the
> British any more, because they have achieved a lot of their goals.
> Economic prosperity clears up a lot of the reasons that people fight.
>
> By comparison, keeping people in helpless, dire poverty, destroying their
> property, killing their families, and obliterating their countries creates
> people with nothing to lose who will do anything to get revenge.
The Israelis were not keeping the Lebanese in any condition at all. How can
you make the incredible insinuation that the Israelis had anything to do with
whatever condition the Lebanese were living in before the Lebanese attacked
Israel?
HB
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
FL Turbo
<rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
----------------------------------------
>
>That essay is one of the most appalling examples of Nazi thinking I have
>ever read. Not surprising that FL Turbo loves it.
>
Hey, dipshit.
When does your "hiatus" from posting start?
Dumb ole me thought it would start right after you declared it.
I'm glad you explained that it was going to start Real Soon Now.
It looks like you have enlisted your friend NEAL to take up the Jihad
in your absence.
Evidently that moronic Antisemitic Useful Fool thinks this is some
kind of binary group that will display pictures.
>Isn't this the same guy who wrote a learned essay justifying torture? I
>think it is. Mr. Dershowitz is a Jew. Clearly a Jewish Nazi.
>
>As I said Mr. Dershwitz is a Jew, and his ethnicity is clearly clouding his
>objectivity.
>
>His essay is nothing less than a justification of war crimes as an expedient
>necessity. Unfuckingbelievable!!!
>
>He is basically arguing for the repeal of the Geneva Conventions.
>
He is arguing that Terrorists have no claim to protection under the
Geneva Conventions.
>As I have repeatedly explained, using civilians as shields is a builtin
>tactical advantage of asymmetrical actors like Hizbollah. This is why these
>asymmetrical forces cannot be defeated by conventional military force,
>unless you commit war crimes.
>
The Geneva Conventions were established in great part to protect
civilians during a war.
The combatants were required to wear uniforms so as to identify them
as separate from innocent civilians.
Combatants who were captured on the battlefield without uniforms were
treated as spies, and were subject to being executed right on the
spot, no questions asked.
"Asymmetrical actors" have declared their contempt for any standards
at all, much less the Geneva Conventions.
They deserve no protection by Geneva Convention rules.
>So, are we going to commit war crimes, or are we going to concede that we
>cannot defeat actors like Hizbollah with military force?
>
It is quite the display of hypocrisy here, the Terrorists and their
Enablers jump up and quote the Geneva Conventions, demanding that
democracies like Israel follow them, with no such standards for the
Terrorists attacking them.
Your sentence above demonstrates exactly what Dershowitz was talking
about.
You are one of the many, "The Predictable Condemners".
>There is no third alternative I am aware of. This is the genius of Chairman
>Mao's rules for guerrilla warfare. Four simple rules hamstring the most
>powerful military in the world.
>
Yes, your Hero the Mass Murderer Mao.
I forget whether Mao is #1 or #2 on the Mass Murderer's List along
with Joseph Stalin.
In any event, Adolph Schikelgrubber was an also-ran compared to that
pair.
>Suck it up. International capitalist imperialism can no longer invade and
>occupy countries without expecting a serious guerrilla insurgency which
>cannot be defeated with military force.
>
Just like a bottle blond that gets betrayed when her dark roots start
showing, you betray your Communist self with material right out of
your little Red Book.
What a Hypocritical Fraud you are.
FL Turbo
The ICC?
Is that the group I'm thinking of?
Their trial of Slobbo Milosivic was going into its third (4th?) year,
when the inconsiderate bastard went and died.
I think that's the one.
Presumably that trial would still be going on today if the guy hadn't
expressed his contempt for that court by dying.
Presumably, the ICC would explain very carefully to Mr. Dershowitz
about how Israel was expected to follow the Geneva Conventions, but
Hezbollah, being "asymmetric actors", should not be expected to do so.
International Clown Court is a better name for that batch of frauds.
William Coleman
"pokerchimp" <mixt...@se.rr.com> wrote in message
news:19iep3x...@recgroups.com...
> What gives you the right to call someone insane?
It's called free speech. Shall I quote the first amendment to you?
> If someone did this to
> you you would tell them it is impossible to evaluate sanity over the
> internet.
Yes, I would. But I would not tell them they have no right to express that
opinion. Nor, when I express the opinion that some one is insane, do I
claim that I am qualified to make that diagnosis based on their internet
writings. You, on the other hand, have explicitly told me that you are
qualified to evaluate my sanity based on my internet writings. See the
difference?
> Hypocrite
There is nothing hypocritical about what I have said on this subject. You
obviously do not understand the meaning of the word.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
BillB
> The ICC?
> Is that the group I'm thinking of?
>
> Their trial of Slobbo Milosivic was going into its third (4th?) year,
> when the inconsiderate bastard went and died.
> I think that's the one.
No you are thinking of the ICTY, but I'm sure you'd hate the ICC too if you
knew what it was. It also involves international cooperation.
BillB
> They deserve no protection by Geneva Convention rules.
ummm..you realize the Fourth Geneva Convention protects *civilians*, right?
Surely you aren't saying civilians deserve no protection?
William Coleman
"Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On Jul 23 2006 5:43 PM, William Coleman wrote:
>
>> "Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:elbdp3x...@recgroups.com...
>> > On Jul 23 2006 3:54 PM, BillB wrote:
>> >
>> >> Pictures > http://tinyurl.com/k2qkh
>> >>
>> >> Story > http://tinyurl.com/oz98q
>> >
>> >
>> > Those pictures, and the article, mention SOUTHERN Beirut only.
>> > SOUTHERN
>> > Beirut, the capital city of Hizballahstan.
>>
>> So fucking what??? Do you think no innocent civilians live there? You
>> still do not understand the concept of the war crime of collective
>> punishment. You cannot drop bombs to kill terrorists if it is
>> predictable
>> that innocent civilians will be killed.
>
> Drop them, I say.
Yes, that is because you are a warmonger who supports war crimes.
> I'm not going to play by the terrorist's rules.
No one is asking you to play by terrorist rules. We are asking you to play
by the rules of international law, as codified in the Geneva Conventions.
Did I mention that the Geneva Conventions are the supreme law of the land of
the United States of America? Why don't you read the Constitution sometime?
> That is a war crime.
>
>
> So sayeth the Hon. W. Coleman, now presiding.
So sayeth the Secretary General of the United Nations, who I am quite sure
knows more about international law than you do.
Quite telling that you offer no argument whatsoever as to why the Israelis
actions in Lebanon do not constitute war crimes.
>> One of the builtin advantages of an asymettrical force like Hizbollah is
>> that they can hide behind civilians. That is why is is so hard to defeat
>> them.
>
> I wouldn't let them get away with hiding.
Then you are a war criminal.
> They must be rooted out and killed.
First of all, I have demonstrated with logical precision that Israel cannot
destroy Hizbollah. Second of all, I see no reason whatsoever why Hizbollah
must be rooted out and killed. That may be on Israel's agenda, but it is
not on mine.
>> > And it's not flat enough. Go
>> > on and mention the other targets designed to destroy Hizballah,
>>
>> It doesn't matter if the intention was to destroy Hizbollah. Your
>> intention
>> is not what's important. If you could reasonably expect innocent
>> civilians
>> to be killed, you cannot drop the bomb. To do so is a war crime.
>
> How naive can a person be? I'm not playing by their rules.
I didn't ask you to play by their rules. I asked you to play by the rules
of the Geneva Conventions, which are the supreme law of the land of the
United States of America.
> They want to
> shoot at me while hiding amongst civilians and I can't shoot back?
That is a strawman argument. If someone is actually shooting at you, of
course you can shoot back. If innocent civilians are killed as a result,
you have committed no war crime.
The situation in Lebanon is quite different. When you drop a bomb on a
house because you think terrorists are there, no one is actually shooting at
you. Therefore you must be reasonably certain that no innocent civilians
will be killed.
> Are you so simple?
No, but you are.
>> Please read the Geneva Conventions and get back to me.
>>
>> > I don't care.
>>
>> This is obvious. Do you really think you are a decent human being when
>> you
>> rationalize war crimes?
>
> A lot more decent than most.
Do you think decent human beings support and condone war crimes?
>> > Israel is doing the world's heavy lifting here.
>>
>> Oh bullshit. Hizbollah is a threat to no one but Israel. Don't try to
>> scare us with the terrorist boogeyman of Islamofascism.
>
> How big is your head? I ask because I want to know the size of the hole
> you had to dig in the sand.
Look, you and other Islamophobes are trying to scare the shit out of
everyone by claiming that the Islamofascists want to take over the world and
kill everyone. I am not buying it. Nor is any rational person. That may
be what some of the most crazed Islamofascists want, but the idea that they
have now or ever will have the capacity to achieve these grandiose goals is
laughable.
>> > If they lose I
>> > hope I live long enough to see Hizballah come for you
>>
>> Hizbollah is not going to come for me, asshole. Stop trying to scare the
>> shit out of everyone.
>
>
>>
>> > for it is not
>> > Israel's destruction they seek but world domination.
>>
>> You are clinically insane Howard.
>
> Thank you, Dr. Coleman, that explains many things.
>
>
> Hizbollah wants Israel to give their land
>> back, nothing more.
>
> What land? The UN certified the border as accurate. Shaaba Farms is
> 'contested' just as an excuse.
I am not talking about a specific territorial dispute. I am talking about
the land which Israel is still occupying as a result of the 1967 War
> That's the UN, Secretary Coleman. You are
> pretty deluded to think they just want their land back. And who are they
> to demand anything?
They are human beings. Every human being has the right to make demands.
> They are not the government.
They have been the effective government of southern Lebanon for a long time.
> "World domination"??? LMFAO!.
>>
>> > Do you think you can do any business with a group called 'The Party of
>> > God'?
>>
>> How can you expect to do any business with Jews who think they are God's
>> chosen people and they think this justifies genocide and war crimes in
>> the
>> name of national defense?
>
> Go live with Hizballah. I'll pay your airfare. Go on and live by their
> rules. See how far you get.
I would be welcomed as a Christian brother, no question.
>> > How anybody with
>> > Western values, liberal values especially, can oppose a war against
>> > Nazis
>> > is beyond me.
>>
>> Then you understand nothing. Israel has become a national security
>> police
>> state committing genocide and war crimes. The Jews have become Nazis
>> themselves. Don't tell me any different. They are no better than the
>> Islamofascists they are fighting.
>
> The Islamofascists are the most illiberal people I know.
I agree.
> They are horrible.
I agree.
> How you can support them in any way whatsover amazes me.
I do not support them in any way. I object to Israeli war crimes in
Lebanon. Apparently you think that objection to Israeli war crimes
constitutes support for Hizbollah.
>> Most liberals in this country used to be strong supporters of Israel.
>> Not
>> anymore. We didn't sign on for genocide and war crimes. Have you seen a
>> single liberal poster speak up in defense of Israel? You need to think
>> about what this means. Do not tell me we are all turncoats or terrorist
>> sycophants or Jew Haters. That seems to be the criticism of the Nazi
>> assholes on RGP who blindly support Israeli genocide and war crimes.
>>
>> > They are deadly serious in their resolve and those who
>> > don't want to live under their thumb had better be even more so.
>>
>> They are deadly serious in their determination to get their land back
>> from
>> Israel. Don't make us laugh with this world domination bullshit. Do you
>> seriously think the Islamofascists now or ever will represent a threat to
>> the security of the USA, beyond the obvious terrorist threat?
>
> You are deluded. Again.
I make a logical factual argument. Your response is that I am deluded. Who
is delusional here?
>> > And what is all this talk of 'disproportionate response'?
>>
>> It is a disproportionate response to kill hundreds of innocent civilians
>> in
>> response to two of your soldiers being kidnapped.
>>
>> > All my adult
>> > life I've heard the 'cycle of violence' decried. It looks like this
>> > time
>> > Israel wants to end the cycle.
>>
>> If you think Israel's actions will do anything but greatly escalate the
>> level of violence, you are clueless.
>
> Good. ONWARD TO DAMASCUS!!!!
As I have previously indicated, any serious attempt by Israel to destroy
Syria will inevitably result in the total destruction of Israel.
>> And you are even more clueless if you think Israel will ever destroy
>> Hizbollah. See my post "OT: The limits of military force" for more
>> details.
>>
>> Right now, you have gullibly swallowed a bunch of nonsense from the
>> right-wing in America and Israel about the Islamofascists wanting to
>> dominate the world. They may want to, but it ain't gonna happen.
I see you have no response at all to the above two paragraphs.
>>
>>
>> William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
>
> Thank you for the response. It was most satisfactory. I knew I could
> count on you.
Howard, you can always count on me to be logical and objective, qualities
which you lack.
You have previously told me you are a moderate. I told you then that, in my
experience, people who claim to be moderates invariably turn out to be
right-wing nutcases.
You have now shown yourself to be a right-wing nutcase. You are a
warmongering Islamophobic supporter of Israeli genocide and war crimes.
The only RGP posters who are agreeing with you are all well known to be
right-wing nutcases. Do I need to name them? Mo Ron Charles, Irish Mike,
Paul G, FL Turbo, etc.
Not a single liberal poster agrees with you, Howard. When all the
right-wing nutcases agree with you, and none of the liberals do, how can you
tell me with a straight face that you are a moderate?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
"Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On Jul 24 2006 2:14 AM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:42:18 -0700, "Howard Beale"
>> <a1...@webnntp.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Jul 23 2006 5:43 PM, William Coleman wrote:
>>
>> >> "Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> >> news:elbdp3x...@recgroups.com...
>> >> > On Jul 23 2006 3:54 PM, BillB wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Pictures > http://tinyurl.com/k2qkh
>>
>> >> >> Story > http://tinyurl.com/oz98q
>>
>> >> > Those pictures, and the article, mention SOUTHERN Beirut only.
>> >> > SOUTHERN
>> >> > Beirut, the capital city of Hizballahstan.
>>
>> >> So fucking what??? Do you think no innocent civilians live there?
>> >> You
>> >> still do not understand the concept of the war crime of collective
>> >> punishment. You cannot drop bombs to kill terrorists if it is
> predictable
>> >> that innocent civilians will be killed.
>>
>> >Drop them, I say. I'm not going to play by the terrorist's rules.
>>
>> Those ARE a terrorist's rules.
>
> Suggest another way to destroy them.
Why should he suggest another way to destroy them? That is your goal. It
is not mine.
>
>> By the way, what about the two million Christians who live in Lebanon? I
> guess
>> killing them is fine too?
>
> I didn't say anything about killing anybody except the terrorist members
> of Hizballah.
Actually you did. You said it was OK to bomb civilian neighborhoods if the
goal was to kill members of Hizbollah. When you know innocent civilians
will be killed as a result, you are condoning the killing of innocent
civilians.
Your argument boils down to the assertion that the ends justifies the means.
That is an evil and pernicious doctrine. It comes straight from Satan.
> If the target is in a civilian neighborhood I advocate destroying it.
Like I said, you advocate killing innocent civilians.
> Israel has done their best to forewarn the populace, by
> way of radio and leaflets, to get out of the way.
Warning that you are going to bomb an area does not absolve you of the crime
of killing innocent civilians. What is your argument? It's there own
fault? They should have listened to the warnings?
> They also allowed the
> networks to see their troops and armor massing on the border.
Are you suggesting there should be no news coverage of the war? Why? So no
one can see the war crimes the Israelis are committing? The whole world is
watching, Howard. Israel must play by the rules, even if Hizbollah doesn't.
Otherwise, Israel is no better than Hizbollah.
> What kind of military does that?
Other than using military force to silence news coverage, the Israelis are
powerless to prevent coverage of the war by the major news organizations of
the world.
> They tell the enemy what's coming for them and where it is.
No, they are not telling the enemy anything. They are broadcasting the
news. The media have no control over who watches the news.
> Or, it could be, they want to warn the civilians about what's about to
> happen.
The media have one purpose -- to report news stories that are newsworthy.
Are you suggesting the current Israel/Lebanon War is not newsworthy?
> At any rate, I'm not about to quaver and wring my
> hands because the target is where it is.
Then you support war crimes.
> What do you want to do?
I want Israel to reach a comprehensive peace settlement with all Palestinian
groups, including Hamas and Hizbollah.
> Give the terrorists a freeroll from now to eternity?
No one is giving the terrorists a freeroll. Israel can kill as many
terrorists as they want, as long as they follow the rules of war.
> They must be confronted and destroyed
Why must they be confronted and destroyed? That is your agenda, not mine.
> before they destroy us.
I assure you, Howard, Hizbollah is no threat to destroy us. Warmongering
Islamophobes like you are much more likely to cause my personal destruction.
See my post "OT: Bush and Rice will get us all killed" for more details.
> You'll notice that Hizballah is located in Shia neighborhoods, not
> Christian neighborhoods. Why is that?
Because Hizbollah effectively represents all the Shia in Lebanon, that's
why.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Daniel
of gifts the children of Israel are sending to the children of Lebanon.
And tell me who are the real terrorists.
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2006/07/17/photo-of-the-day-israeli-kids-s
ends-gifts-of-love-to-arab-kids/
--
$10k Freeroll Tournament - No Deposit Needed
Play Now: http://www.pokerTVstar.com/freeroll
--
Read post and reply to RGP at http://www.MyWayPoker.com
pokerchimp
you are a hypocrite. If I wanted to 20 hours a day of my life on this
newsgroup I would go through all your posts and point out all your
hypocritical statements. I know that you think you are my intellectual
superior, but you are far from it. I am done bantering with you, you are
a waste of my time.
I am the Jewess pig lesbian pricess on earth and I approve this message
----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
William Coleman
"Howard Beale" <4307...@recpoker.com> wrote in message
news:1153741465$836...@recpoker.com...
Hizbollah does not want to kill you, Howard. Why are you so paranoid?
> Everyone who might possibly become Hezbollah in response
>> to Israel's crazed responses? I suppose you could kill all Arabs.
>
> Suppose all you like, I didn't say it and I would never say it.
You are strongly suggesting it.
> That seems
>> to be a fashionable opinion these days.
>
>
> You may be upset with what I have to say but this part is silly.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> If you kill one terrorist and two more spring up to replace him, what
>> have you
>> accomplished?
Why didn't you answer this question, Howard?
>> >> By the way, what about the two million Christians who live in Lebanon?
>> >> I
>> >guess
>> >> killing them is fine too?
>>
>> >I didn't say anything about killing anybody except the terrorist members
>> >of Hizballah. If the target is in a civilian neighborhood I advocate
>> >destroying it. Israel has done their best to forewarn the populace, by
>>
>> Okay, so once you've destroyed that civilian neighborhood, what next?
>
>
> I meant the target, not the neighborhood.
Howard, you have already said that you advocated destroying an entire
neighborhood if Hizbollah were known to be there. Please to not try to deny
what you have already said.
> I can see where you might have
> mistaken my meaning though.
He didn't mistake your meaning. Your meaning was quite clear.
>> >way of radio and leaflets, to get out of the way. They also allowed the
>> >networks to see their troops and armor massing on the border. What kind
>> >of military does that? They tell the enemy what's coming for them and
>>
>> What is their other option? Make their troops invisible so nobody can
>> see
>> them massing at the border?
>>
>> Seeing troops massing at borders is trivial. There is nothing amazing
>> about
>> it.
>>
>> >where it is. Or, it could be, they want to warn the civilians about
>> >what's
>> >about to happen. At any rate, I'm not about to quaver and wring my
>>
>> Even the Nazis dropped leaflets on future targets telling them of their
>> plans
>> to
>> blow up their cities. I don't see anyone suggesting we should give them
>> posthumous medals for having done so.
>>
>> The purpose is as much psychological warfare and propaganda, and pointing
>> out the helplessness of the target to protect themselves. It is not
>> altruistic.
>
> Ok, my point was weak.
That is the understatement of the year.
>> >hands because the target is where it is. What do you want to do? Give
>> >the terrorists a freeroll from now to eternity? They must be confronted
>> >and destroyed before they destroy us.
>>
>> The question is if your intention is to actually end the root causes of
>> terrorism or throw a tantrum to show them what big balls you have.
>
> Here is our basic disagreement, I think. I think Israel has little to do
> with
> the root causes of terrorism.
Then you are a blind Israeli partisan.
> It certainly wasn't the primary focus of OBL.
It was one of the three major complaints of Sheikh Osama bin Laden, may
Allah preserve and protect him. The other two were the presence of U.S.
troops in Saudi Arabia and the sanctions against Iraq.
> Israel left Lebanon and the UN certified the border but Hizballah claims
> there
> is still Shaaba Farms in dispute.
Howard, the dispute between Hizbollah is about much more than Shaaba Farms.
Please do not try to justify the Israeli position based on them being right
on one of many disputes.
> This is just an excuse. I think that the
> root causes of terrorism is that the militant Muslims want to rule the
> world.
Then you are a deluded fool. The root causes of terrorism are primarily the
presence of U.S. troops in Muslim countries and U.S. support for Israel.
> Yes, rule the world, starting with the re-establishment of their
> Caliphate.
Look, the fact that some deluded Islamofascists want to rule the world is no
reason to take them seriously.
> There is no negotiating with them.
Of course there is. Hizbollah has already offered to exchange the kidnapped
Israeli soldiers for three Hizbollah prisoners held by Israel. On the other
hand, Condi Rice has stated she will not call for a ceasefire before all of
Israel's demands are met -- release the kidnapped Israeli soldiers and
disarm Hizbollah. Who is being unreasonable here? Hizbollah, who is ready
to declare a ceasefire now and negotiate a prisoner swap, or Israel and
Condi Rice, who insist that all Israeli demands must be met BEFORE a
ceasefire?
> They have declared war and I think it must
> be fought like a war.
Yes, and wars must be fought by the rules of war.
> Those who try to 'understand' them,
What is wrong with trying to understand your enemy?
> who try to reason with them are doomed to failure.
Well, if you have that attitude, of course you are doomed to failure. In
the real world, both Hamas and Hizbollah are both pragmatic organizations
with which you can reason and negotiate.
> They are willing to use any means necessary.
They use any means necessary because they are terrorists. Terrorists are
people who have no other means than violence to achieve their objectives.
> The response needn't be savage as I suppose you think it is at this time
> but it
> must be effective. I say that in order to be effective we can't let them
> have
> safe haven because we refuse to accept any civilian casualties.
Yes, you have to let them use civilian populations as shields, otherwise you
are committing war crimes. This is the builtin advantage of asymmetrical
organizations such as Hizbollah and guerrilla insurgencies. This is why
conventional military forces cannot defeat asymmetrical actors. This is why
it is preposterous to suggest that Israel will ever destroy Hizbollah, or
that the USA will ever defeat the Iraq insurgency by military force.
> I know your heart's in the right place and you think I'm cold and callous
> but I
> assure you that the only reason I talk this way is because I am convinced
> that
> if the Muslim fascists aren't stopped soon the calamity to follow will be
> beyond
> measure.
The reason you are convinced of this is because your head is filled with
Islamophobic propaganda and lies.
>> Israel appears to have chosen the latter, and either doesn't care whether
>> their actions have a positive result, or else Likud is actually cynically
>> provoking terrorism deliberately in order to have a platform to run
>> for reelection on.
>
> Likud is not in power. It's Kadima now:
> http://kadimasharon.co.il/11-en/index.aspx
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
> By it's completely unprovoked attack Hizballah in effect asked Israel if
> it
> wanted to get crazy. Israel gave them their answer.
You think that's a rational response? Responding to provocation by going
fucking nuts??? Apparently you do not understand that Hizbollah chose the
time and place of this confrontation. By responding the way the Israelis
have, they are playing right into Hizbollah's hands. The rational response
would have been to declare a ceasefire and negotiate a prisoner swap, which
Hizbollah was ready to do.
>> >You'll notice that Hizballah is located in Shia neighborhoods, not
>> >Christian neighborhoods. Why is that?
>>
>> Possibly because it's a Shia group?
>
> And nobody not Shia would have anything to do with them even though they
> are all
> Lebanese and only Hizballah was effective if forcing Israel out of Lebanon
> because they don't want to live under Muslim fundamentalist's thumb.
Israel's response is only making Hizbollah more popular in Lebanon. Do you
not understand that?
>> But if you blow up the only radio and
>> television stations, water pumps, electrical power plants, and other
>> civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, you are not merely harming Shias
>> or Hezbollah members.
>
> Of course. So what? What are you going to do if attacked?
Retaliate, but not against innocent civilians. And you cannot destroy the
infrastructure of an entire country, the way Israel is doing.
> Not retaliate because you are harming other people when it can't be
> avoided?
You can retaliate, but you cannot commit war crimes.
> In fact, you are moving people from
>> Hezbollah sympathizers to joiners. They are no less safe as members
>> of Hezbollah than just as civilians.
>>
>> If you view a 'freeroll' as an option of first order stochastic dominance
>> over another option, then joining Hezbollah is itself a freeroll.
>> You can not belong to Hezbollah, and have bombs dropped on you
>> and your country destroyed, and have no response whatsoever to
>> this except to sit there helplessly, or you can be a member of Hezbollah
>> and have the same thing happen, except as a member, you are able
>> to retaliate. So it is no surprise that people will join in the wake of
>> this. It's not like they're getting any brownie points for not joining.
>>
>
> You are far over-stating your argument.
No he is not. His argument is precise and logical.
> Civilians are not the primary target of Israel's attacks.
Who said they were?
> It is certainly more dangerous to a person's life to be a
> member of Hizballah.
Not by much, when Israel is willing to bomb the fuck out of an entire
neighborhood because they think Hizbollah is there.
> You may it sound like Israel has rained down fire and
> destruction without any regard to the targets they hit and I'm sure you
> know the
> truth is otherwise.
Why do you continue to justify the war crime of collective punishment?
>> Hezbollah has provided hospitals, schools, agricultural assistance,
>> social programs, news services, and other basic infrastructure projects
>> that the central government is either unwilling, or too corrupt and
>> incompetent to perform.
>>
>> So you expect people to hate those who provide them services, and
>> love people who drop bombs on them. No human beings will ever
>> act like that. They'd have to be fools to.
>
> I didn't say anything of the sort. I want to destroy the people who want
> to
> kill me.
Then why do you want to destroy Hizbollah, Howard? Hizbollah does not want
to kill you. Why are you so paranoid?
> I don't care if they don't like me I just want to live my life in
> peace the way I want to without having to worry about terrorists trying to
> kill
> me.
You can sleep well at night knowing that Hizbollah does not want to kill
you. On the other hand, terrorists like Al Qaeda will want to kill you
until the USA withdraws all troops from Muslim countries and Israel reaches
a comprehensive peace settlement with the Palestinians.
>> They will hate and attack Israel as long as they have reason to.
>> Expecting them not to is insane, that is, doing the same thing again
>> and again and expecting different results. It is as insane as
>> Osama bin Laden thinking that destroying the World Trade Center
>> would make Americans give in to his demands.
>
> The Lebanese Christians and Druze didn't attack Israel. Why not? Why the
> Shia's?
Because they perceive that Israel is occupying their land.
> What is the reason that they attacked Israel a couple of weeks ago?
Good question. You should think about the fact that Hizbollah chose the
time and place for this confrontation. Responding as Israel has only plays
into Hizbollah's hands.
> Israel is out of Lebanon. Hizballah was victorious. What is the cause of
> their
> hate and what is the reason they attacked at this time?
Because their perception is that Israel is occupying their land and that
Israel would respond like a taunted mad dog. Their former perception may
not be correct, but their latter perception most certainly is.
> There was no
> provocation by Israel at all against Lebanon or Hizballah.
No immediate provocation.
> The border had been very quiet for years.
Well, gee, some of your fellow right-wing nutcases claim that Hizbollah has
been launching rockets for years across the border. Which is it?
> Why did Hizballah attack?
Good question. You should think about the fact that Hizbollah chose the
time and place for this confrontation. Responding as Israel has only plays
into Hizbollah's hands.
Not at all. Israel has every right to respond. But their response should
be proportionate, and the response should follow the rules of war. Israel's
response has met neither of these criteria.
>> The fact is that Hezbollah is an extremist group which engages in
>> terrorism.
>> But they've been given an awful lot to be extreme about,
>
> What, in the past 6 years?
No, the events since 1948. You think the people in the Middle East have
short memories?
> and they enjoy
>> broad popular support because of it.
>
> Amongst the Shia, almost exclusively.
They don't claim to represent anyone else.
> They rally around the destruction of
>> Israel as a cause, because it is a popular cause.
>
> Why? What has Israel got to do with Lebanon in the past 6 years?
Nothing, until Israel went completely fucking nuts.
> If there were less reason
>> for it to be popular, they'd find a different slogan.
>>
>> A resistance movement given less to resist becomes less extreme.
>
> For crying out loud, WHAT is there to resist? ISRAEL IS GONE FROM LEBANON.
> HIZBALLAH WON THAT BATTLE. WHAT ARE THEY RESISTING NOW?
The continued occupation of their lands. I am not interested in debating
whether their perception is correct.
> For
>> example, you don't see Sinn Fein calling for physical attacks on the
>> British any more, because they have achieved a lot of their goals.
>> Economic prosperity clears up a lot of the reasons that people fight.
>>
>> By comparison, keeping people in helpless, dire poverty, destroying their
>> property, killing their families, and obliterating their countries
>> creates
>> people with nothing to lose who will do anything to get revenge.
>
> The Israelis were not keeping the Lebanese in any condition at all.
What about the Palestinians?
> How can
> you make the incredible insinuation that the Israelis had anything to do
> with
> whatever condition the Lebanese were living in before the Lebanese
> attacked
> Israel?
He wasn't making that insinuation at all. Please do not try to obfuscate
the issues by introducing strawman arguments.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
>I understand that you are insane.
You understand no such thing.
> I understand what a hypocrite is and you are a hypocrite.
You don't understand that either. You already accused me of hypocrisy once,
and I clearly demonstrated that my actions were not at all hypocritical.
Please refer to my post to which you are replying.
> If I wanted to 20 hours a day of my life on this
> newsgroup I would go through all your posts and point out all your
> hypocritical statements.
No you couldn't because you are none. Apparently you do not understand that
actions are hypocritical, not statements.
> I know that you think you are my intellectual
> superior, but you are far from it.
There is no question that I am. That is transparently obvious.
> I am done bantering with you, you are a waste of my time.
Good. Does that mean you will stop pestering me with your illogical
arguments and weak flames?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
KRJ
true believer of the great new relgion. I give you the world's most
prolific cut and paster and part time jew hater...William Coleman
William Coleman wrote:
> "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
> news:7eSwg.222908$Mn5.78569@pd7tw3no...
>
>>Pictures > http://tinyurl.com/k2qkh
>>
>>Story > http://tinyurl.com/oz98q
>
>
> For those who do not like to click on tinyurls, here are the actual URLs in
> question --
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5207478.stm
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_beirut_destruction/html/1.stm
>
> For anyone who doubts Israel is committing the war crime of collective
Howard Beale
<snip the whole lame response>
I'm disappointed. A mere re-hash of Muslim and anti-war propaganda. I
could have written that response for you. Try to be more insightful next
time.
HB
______________________________________________________________________
William Coleman
"Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On Jul 24 2006 9:01 AM, William Coleman wrote:
>
>
> <snip the whole lame response>
>
> I'm disappointed. A mere re-hash of Muslim and anti-war propaganda. I
> could have written that response for you. Try to be more insightful next
> time.
I am disappointed that you do not offer a point by point refutation, just as
I have done to your post. Nothing I have said is Muslim propaganda. I
assure you I am not a Dhimmi. I assure you, I have not been brainwashed by
any Muslim source.
Yes, I am antiwar, but I have logical reasons for being so.
When you snip my whole response and characterize it as lame, you show two
things --
You have absolutely no answer for my arguments. I have completely
deconstructed every assertion and argument you have made.
You are completely closeminded and have your mind made up. You simply will
not seriously consider alternative views, which you requested.
People who think they already know everything never learn anything. You
should know that.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
WuzYoungOnceToo2
If you quote him in context it's immediately apparent how ridiculous
your question is:
"Combatants who were captured on the battlefield without uniforms were
treated as spies, and were subject to being executed right on the
spot, no questions asked.
"Asymmetrical actors" have declared their contempt for any standards
at all, much less the Geneva Conventions.
They deserve no protection by Geneva Convention rules."
Clearly he's referring to non-uniform-wearing combatants here, not
civilians.
Howard Beale
> Howard, you can always count on me to be logical and objective, qualities
> which you lack.
>
> You have previously told me you are a moderate. I told you then that, in my
> experience, people who claim to be moderates invariably turn out to be
> right-wing nutcases.
>
>
> You have now shown yourself to be a right-wing nutcase. You are a
> warmongering Islamophobic supporter of Israeli genocide and war crimes.
>
> The only RGP posters who are agreeing with you are all well known to be
> right-wing nutcases. Do I need to name them? Mo Ron Charles, Irish Mike,
> Paul G, FL Turbo, etc.
>
> Not a single liberal poster agrees with you, Howard. When all the
> right-wing nutcases agree with you, and none of the liberals do, how can you
> tell me with a straight face that you are a moderate?
>
>
> William Coleman (ramashiva)
I happen to be quite liberal. Which is why I support total war against
Nazis. Thomas Friedman (NYT) wrote a column sometime back wherein he
wondered why the liberals didn't support the war in Iraq. He pointed out
that, as a war of national liberation against Nazis, it should have been
the province of the liberals. I agree with him. If, as a liberal, you
can't bring yourself to confront with force those who would strip you of
your human rights and your free will then you are weak and must be placed
on the sidelines while serious people go on about the business of
defeating the evil.
Lastly, if you think that the fact that destruction and death must be
rained down upon the innocent caught up in the line of fire as necessary
in the clash of good v. evil doesn't anguish the Jews then you don't know
them at all. I don't advocate my position out of glee or hatred but as
something so necessary, so absolutely necessary to be done that it must be
done.
HB
WuzYoungOnceToo2
>
> What am I supposed to say?
Maybe something substantive, rather than a half-witted parody of "I
know you are, but what am I?"
William Coleman
"Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On Jul 24 2006 8:19 AM, William Coleman wrote:
>
>
>
>> Howard, you can always count on me to be logical and objective, qualities
>> which you lack.
>>
>> You have previously told me you are a moderate. I told you then that, in
>> my
>> experience, people who claim to be moderates invariably turn out to be
>> right-wing nutcases.
>>
>>
>> You have now shown yourself to be a right-wing nutcase. You are a
>> warmongering Islamophobic supporter of Israeli genocide and war crimes.
>>
>> The only RGP posters who are agreeing with you are all well known to be
>> right-wing nutcases. Do I need to name them? Mo Ron Charles, Irish
>> Mike,
>> Paul G, FL Turbo, etc.
>>
>> Not a single liberal poster agrees with you, Howard. When all the
>> right-wing nutcases agree with you, and none of the liberals do, how can
>> you
>> tell me with a straight face that you are a moderate?
>>
>>
>> William Coleman (ramashiva)
>
>
> I happen to be quite liberal.
Please Howard. Don't bullshit me. You are not a liberal by any stretch of
the imagination.
> Which is why I support total war against
> Nazis. Thomas Friedman (NYT)
Thomas Friedman is an opinionated idiot who knows nothing. If you give his
opinions any credence at all, you really are clueless. And he most
definitely is not a liberal.
> wrote a column sometime back wherein he
> wondered why the liberals didn't support the war in Iraq. He pointed out
> that, as a war of national liberation against Nazis, it should have been
> the province of the liberals.
All liberals supported the idea of getting rid of Saddam, but not the means
Bush chose. It was entirely foreseeable by all but the most obtuse that the
invasion and occupation of Iraq would create a vicious insurgency which
could not be defeated by military power. It was quite obvious to me BEFORE
the war started that a continued occupation would only exacerbate the
situation and fuel the insurgency.
This was all crystal clear to me BEFORE the war started. I have been 100%
correct about everything I have said about Iraq, and events continue to
prove me correct.
Why won't you listen to people like me who have been proven correct by
events, and stop listening to idiots like Tom Friedman, George Bush, Dick
Cheney, and Condi Rice.
Welcomed as liberators.
Mission accomplished.
Just a few foreign terrorists and Saddam deadenders.
None of the good news is being reported.
Insurgency is in its last throes.
Give me a fucking break. The Bush Crime Family has been 100% wrong about
everything they have said about Iraq. I have been 100% correct. Why won't
you listen to me?
> I agree with him.
Then you are a fool. Friedman doesn't even have an idea of where a clue
might be.
> If, as a liberal, you
> can't bring yourself to confront with force those who would strip you of
> your human rights and your free will
I am perfectly willing to confront such threats if they are at all credible.
Sorry, I do not consider Islamofascism to be a serious threat to my rights
and my free will.
> then you are weak and must be placed
> on the sidelines while serious people go on about the business of
> defeating the evil.
You are seriously nuts. Please stop the nonsense about defeating evil.
Under the Bush Crime Family, the USA is by far the most dangerous and evil
nation on the planet. Of course, you cannot see this because you think you
are on a mission from God to defeat Islamofascism.
I assure you, the Bush Crime Family is a much greater threat to my rights
and freedom than Sheikh Osama bin Laden, may Allah preserve and protect him.
> Lastly, if you think that the fact that destruction and death must be
> rained down upon the innocent caught up in the line of fire as necessary
> in the clash of good v. evil doesn't anguish the Jews then you don't know
> them at all. I don't advocate my position out of glee or hatred but as
> something so necessary, so absolutely necessary to be done that it must be
> done.
Howard, this is just more rationalization of war crimes. I already told
you, if someone is actually shooting at you, then of course you can shoot
back. If innocent civilians are killed, then you have committed no war
crime.
No one is actually shooting at you when you drop bombs on residential
neighborhoods, so the Geneva Conventions apply.
You will never defeat terrorism by trying to kill all the terrorists. You
can defeat terrorism by removing the root causes of terrorism.
Here is what needs to be done to greatly reduce -- greatly reduce, not
eliminate -- Islamofascist terrorism.
Israel needs to reach a comprehensive peace settlement with the
Palestinians, including Hamas and Hizbollah.
The USA needs to withdraw all military forces from all Muslim countries.
This is an obvious solution to all students of history.
You do not understand history, Howard. You have been brainwashed by
Islamophobic propaganda and clueless idiots like Tom Friedman.
Tom Friedman, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condi Rice do not understand
history.
It really is as simple as that.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Iceman
> > still do not understand the concept of the war crime of collective
> > punishment. You cannot drop bombs to kill terrorists if it is predictable
> >
> > One of the builtin advantages of an asymettrical force like Hizbollah is
> > that they can hide behind civilians. That is why is is so hard to defeat
> > them.
>
> in the military effort. They are free to reject Hezballah. Do they? No.
> In fact, the Muslim population of Lebanon, who are mostly displaced
> Palestinians, support Hezballah's cause.
It's Jordan, not Lebanon, that has a population of mostly displaced
Palestinians.
> Further, the Lebanese government does nothing to oppose Hezballah.
> They choose the current situation. At any point they could ally with
> Israel and the USA to drive Hezballah out and reclaim some control
> over the Hezballah-controlled areas. But they choose not to.
The Lebanese central government is weak, and no Lebanese of any
religion want a repeat of that nation's civil war, which is what it
would take for them to stop Hizbollah.
> I don't see any words from your mouth on the thousands of
> Hezballah rockets that have been fired from Lebanese territory
> into Israel with the explicit intention of killing civilians.
I think the Hizbollah rockets against Israeli civilians were horrible,
but I think Israel's attacks on Lebanon's civilian infrastructure are
also horrible. Israel would be fully justified in attacking Hizbollah
positions, but not in destroying the lives and homes and livelihoods of
thousands of innocent people.
A Man Beaten by Jacks
[I'm going to skip a number of things including things that were just
misunderstandings and things we aren't likely to agree about any time
soon in order to focus on this one.]
>You are far over-stating your argument. Civilians are not the primary target of
>Israel's attacks. It is certainly more dangerous to a person's life to be a
>member of Hizballah. You may it sound like Israel has rained down fire and
>destruction without any regard to the targets they hit and I'm sure you know the
>truth is otherwise.
Well, they've not limited their attacks to Shia neighborhoods. In fact, they've
bombed a Christian town and a Christian TV station. Their purpose is the
utter destruction of the civilian infrastructure without regard for who it is.
Specifically, the town of Hadath has been bombed, which is largely Christian,
as well as any television station they can find, even including one owned
by Christians. Obviously, they desperately hope to avoid any coverage of
what they are really doing, preferring the bullshit and propaganda of a
poor, innocent Israel merely defending itself.
It is certainly not only Shias who are disgusted and terrorized by Israel's
totally out of line violence. Christians are, too. They're opening their
homes to refugees.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/23/MNG98K42651.DTL
Of course, these are actual Christians, not the murderous phonies of
America, who don't care if their own fellow Christians, innocent Arabs,
tourists from Canada, or whoever get slaughtered by the thousands
by Israel, so long as they get their gleeful dreams of Armageddon
fulfilled.
---
Lebanese Christians aid Muslim countrymen
War with Israel helps to bridge sectarian divide
Christopher Allbritton, Chronicle Foreign Service
Sunday, July 23, 2006
(07-23) 04:00 PDT Broummana, Lebanon -- Just 6 miles beyond Beirut, up twisty
mountain roads, stores are open and banks are functioning. Open-air restaurants
are doing a thriving business. Young people flirt. People walk their pets.
It's a jarring contrast to the capital in the haze-shrouded valley below, where
rubble-filled Shiite neighborhoods in southern Beirut show the effects of
Israel's bombing campaign against Hezbollah strongholds.
"We thought our country had gotten out of war," said George Abisamra, an
engineer. "It is very sad to see Lebanon going backwards."
Abisamra, a Christian who supports Christian Maronite politician Michel Aoun and
his Free Patriotic Movement, is volunteering at a Broummana public school that
is sheltering about 400 Shiite refugees from the war-ravaged areas of Lebanon.
Aoun achieved national renown in Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war by stressing
national unity and fighting a "war of liberation" after Syria sent in troops to
end the war. He then stayed on as de facto ruler of Lebanon and enjoys broad
appeal across sectarian lines. More recently, he has formed a political alliance
with Hezbollah in parliament and has called for national unity in the face of
Israel's attack.
Aoun has made no secret of his desire to be president of Lebanon, a spot
reserved for Maronite Christians like himself under the 1990 Taif Accord that
provided the framework for ending the civil war.
In the elections of May 2005, which were held after a popular uprising set off
by the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on Feb. 14 succeeded
in ousting Syrian troops, his Free Patriotic Movement ran on a platform of
anti-corruption and nationalism -- two themes that made it a natural fit with
Hezbollah.
Although the so-called March 14 coalition -- Saad Hariri, son of the slain
former premier; Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, and rival Christian leader Samir
Geagea -- won a majority in parliament and thus was able to form the current
government, Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement and Hezbollah are the two main blocs
in the opposition and succeeded in preventing the National Reconciliation
Dialogue, a forum for the various political leaders to iron out their
differences, from removing the current Maronite president, pro-Syrian Emile
Lahoud.
A number of political observers said at the time that Aoun blocked the removal
of Lahoud because he wanted the March 14 government to fall, which would require
new elections. He would likely win, they speculated, if he could expand his base
beyond the Christians, who are split between his movement and Geagea's Lebanese
Forces.
In a small classroom he is using as an office, Abisamra said the displaced
Shiites started showing up on July 15, but the trickle became a stream two days
later. In the face of government paralysis, he and other Aoun supporters took it
upon themselves to organize the schools into makeshift shelters, offering them
water, food and bedding.
"We have to help them," Abisamra said. "They are Lebanese."
Najah Tarheini, 28, a Shiite refugee from the southern town of Nabatiyeh, said
the people of Broummana had treated her with great kindness: "They are helping
me with everything."
She said she fled the Israeli assault on southern Lebanon on Monday, when her
house was bombed and collapsed on her family of 15. They had taken shelter in a
basement when the bombs started falling and survived the house's collapse,
although it took a number of people to help dig them out, she said. After that,
they came north and found shelter in Broummana.
Abisamra said he has heard similar stories in the last week.
He expressed hope that Lebanon will emerge from this war with its population
united, despite the nation's complicated sectarian divisions. But not even the
Christians are united, he admitted. While Aoun's supporters make up one of the
more popular political blocs, Christian militias such as Geagea's Lebanese
Forces have been spoiling for a fight with Hezbollah and have been largely
supportive of Israeli air strikes. They tend to be concentrated in the mountains
north of Broummana and in the upscale Christian neighborhoods of Beirut.
"These people, though," said Abisamra, referring to the Lebanese Forces militia,
"they are small in number. They are not popular."
Outside the office, members of a Shiite family have just found out that two of
their relatives had been killed in an Israeli air strike. But even through his
grief, Majid Hammadi, from Tyre, expressed allegiance to Hezbollah -- and to its
Christian ally.
"The only leaders Lebanon has are Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah," he said, naming the
leader of Hezbollah, "and Michel Aoun."
WuzYoungOnceToo2
>
> bombed a Christian town and a Christian TV station. Their purpose is the
> utter destruction of the civilian infrastructure without regard for who it is.
Yes, I'm sure that for decades now the Israelis have been shrugging off
the non-stop terrorist attacks and thinking to themselves, "What we
really need to do something about is that pesky Lebanese
infrastructure."
> Obviously, they desperately hope to avoid any coverage of
> what they are really doing
With the country crawling with reporters from all over the globe that
doesn't seem like an even remotely likely goal.
> Of course, these are actual Christians, not the murderous phonies of
> America
Your capacity for mindless generalizations never cease to amaze me.
BillB
"WuzYoungOnceToo2" <WuzYoung...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153767106.4...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > They deserve no protection by Geneva Convention rules.
>>
>> ummm..you realize the Fourth Geneva Convention protects *civilians*,
>> right?
>> Surely you aren't saying civilians deserve no protection?
>
> If you quote him in context it's immediately apparent how ridiculous
> your question is:
Are you really, truly this stupid? Do I have to dumb down every point I make
just for your benefit? The entire discussion in this thread was about the
rights of *civilians*. Turbo tried to change the subject by raising a red
herring about the rights of the fighters.
BillB
>> What am I supposed to say?
>
> Maybe something substantive, rather than a half-witted parody of "I
> know you are, but what am I?"
I did say something substantive. I just didn't dumb it down enough for you
to understand the point. I'm not going to do that for you any more, so you
may as well stop reading my posts.
Howard Beale
Thank you for saving me the time.
I would like to say that I am sympathetic to 'A Man Beaten By Jacks'
viewpoint. It is not without merit whatsover. It is not a pleasant
business that Israel is about just now. Nobody likes to see what is going
on. I think that he has an under-appreciation for the extent to which
Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties and target only what might aid
their enemies and that if he considered what Hizballah would do to Israel
if the roles were reversed he would see my point more clearly.
HB
--------
FL Turbo
I see.
I sit corrected.
I tend to have a reaction to any group with the word "International"
in the title being as useless as the UN.
FL Turbo
The IslamoNazi Terrorists like Hamas, for example, have made it
abundantly clear over the years how they consider every Israeli,
whether Arab, Christian, Atheist, man, woman, or child as legitimate
targets.
It has been open season on anyone sitting in a pizza parlor.
Palestinian mothers are on record how proud they would be if their
children would become a martyr by blowing himself/herself into tiny
little pieces along with any living thing within distance.
Is there any way that Hezbollah would be any different in their
treatment of civilians?
I don't think so.
A civilian is nothing more than a human shield to them.
I don't think they have any more regard for civilians, whether they be
in Israel, Lebanon, USA, or even Canada for that matter.
Talking about Geneva Convention rules is a sad, sick joke.
The Terrorists are "asymmetric actors", ya know.
A Double Standard.
A massive hypocrisy.
Whatever.
You need to go back and read the Dershowitz article entitled
"The Predictable Condemners"
He said it far better than I ever could.
Those Predictable Condemners are badly in need of a Cluebat.
BillB
You really don't get it. It doesn't matter how "evil" your opponents are.
You don't have the right to indiscriminately kill civilians who happen to be
in their vicinity.
Howard Beale
> "Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:nvgfp3x...@recgroups.com...
> > On Jul 24 2006 8:19 AM, William Coleman wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> Howard, you can always count on me to be logical and objective, qualities
> >> which you lack.
> >>
> >> You have previously told me you are a moderate. I told you then that, in
> >> my
> >> experience, people who claim to be moderates invariably turn out to be
> >> right-wing nutcases.
> >>
> >>
> >> You have now shown yourself to be a right-wing nutcase. You are a
> >> warmongering Islamophobic supporter of Israeli genocide and war crimes.
> >>
> >> The only RGP posters who are agreeing with you are all well known to be
> >> right-wing nutcases. Do I need to name them? Mo Ron Charles, Irish
> >> Mike,
> >> Paul G, FL Turbo, etc.
> >>
> >> Not a single liberal poster agrees with you, Howard. When all the
> >> right-wing nutcases agree with you, and none of the liberals do, how can
> >> you
> >> tell me with a straight face that you are a moderate?
> >>
> >>
> >> William Coleman (ramashiva)
> >
> >
> > I happen to be quite liberal.
>
> Please Howard. Don't bullshit me. You are not a liberal by any stretch of
> the imagination.
You know nothing of me at all.
>
> > Which is why I support total war against
> > Nazis. Thomas Friedman (NYT)
>
> Thomas Friedman is an opinionated idiot who knows nothing. If you give his
> opinions any credence at all, you really are clueless. And he most
> definitely is not a liberal.
This is just plain stupid.
>
> > wrote a column sometime back wherein he
> > wondered why the liberals didn't support the war in Iraq. He pointed out
> > that, as a war of national liberation against Nazis, it should have been
> > the province of the liberals.
>
> All liberals supported the idea of getting rid of Saddam, but not the means
> Bush chose. It was entirely foreseeable by all but the most obtuse that the
> invasion and occupation of Iraq would create a vicious insurgency which
> could not be defeated by military power. It was quite obvious to me BEFORE
> the war started that a continued occupation would only exacerbate the
> situation and fuel the insurgency.
Yes, liberals may have supported getting rid of Saddam. How did they
propose to do it? Gather around and sing 'Kumbaya'? I do agree with you
about the insurgency. The people are vipers and it was entirely
forseeable.
>
> This was all crystal clear to me BEFORE the war started. I have been 100%
> correct about everything I have said about Iraq, and events continue to
> prove me correct.
>
> Why won't you listen to people like me who have been proven correct by
> events, and stop listening to idiots like Tom Friedman, George Bush, Dick
> Cheney, and Condi Rice.
>
> Welcomed as liberators.
>
> Mission accomplished.
>
> Just a few foreign terrorists and Saddam deadenders.
>
> None of the good news is being reported.
>
> Insurgency is in its last throes.
>
> Give me a fucking break. The Bush Crime Family has been 100% wrong about
> everything they have said about Iraq. I have been 100% correct. Why won't
> you listen to me?
I do listen to you. I even like you. Sometimes you are right and I tell
you so. But you are wrong in this case.
>
> > I agree with him.
>
> Then you are a fool. Friedman doesn't even have an idea of where a clue
> might be.
>
> > If, as a liberal, you
> > can't bring yourself to confront with force those who would strip you of
> > your human rights and your free will
>
> I am perfectly willing to confront such threats if they are at all credible.
> Sorry, I do not consider Islamofascism to be a serious threat to my rights
> and my free will.
What could possibly be more credible than the Islamofascist threat? They
tell you regulary that they will kill you and fly planes into buildings.
How plain can they make it?
>
> > then you are weak and must be placed
> > on the sidelines while serious people go on about the business of
> > defeating the evil.
>
> You are seriously nuts. Please stop the nonsense about defeating evil.
> Under the Bush Crime Family, the USA is by far the most dangerous and evil
> nation on the planet. Of course, you cannot see this because you think you
> are on a mission from God to defeat Islamofascism.
>
> I assure you, the Bush Crime Family is a much greater threat to my rights
> and freedom than Sheikh Osama bin Laden, may Allah preserve and protect him.
This last sentence is a meritorious statement. Much has happened on the
domestic political front that is very worrisome. I am hoping for a
better administration in the future while still being resolved to fight
the terrorists tooth and nail.
>
> > Lastly, if you think that the fact that destruction and death must be
> > rained down upon the innocent caught up in the line of fire as necessary
> > in the clash of good v. evil doesn't anguish the Jews then you don't know
> > them at all. I don't advocate my position out of glee or hatred but as
> > something so necessary, so absolutely necessary to be done that it must be
> > done.
>
> Howard, this is just more rationalization of war crimes. I already told
> you, if someone is actually shooting at you, then of course you can shoot
> back. If innocent civilians are killed, then you have committed no war
> crime.
Does 'actually shooting at you' mean the moment they pull the trigger?
The moment they pick up the gun? The moment they load the gun? The
moment they transport themselves to the place where they are going to
point the gun at you? The moment they conspire to purchase the gun? When?
>
> No one is actually shooting at you when you drop bombs on residential
> neighborhoods, so the Geneva Conventions apply.
>
> You will never defeat terrorism by trying to kill all the terrorists. You
> can defeat terrorism by removing the root causes of terrorism.
>
> Here is what needs to be done to greatly reduce -- greatly reduce, not
> eliminate -- Islamofascist terrorism.
>
> Israel needs to reach a comprehensive peace settlement with the
> Palestinians, including Hamas and Hizbollah.
How are they to do that when the other parties mentioned have zero
interest in a peace agreement?
>
> The USA needs to withdraw all military forces from all Muslim countries.
I would like to see that also. Let the Arabs (traditional enemies of the
Persians) carry their own water.
>
> This is an obvious solution to all students of history.
>
> You do not understand history, Howard. You have been brainwashed by
> Islamophobic propaganda and clueless idiots like Tom Friedman.
I understand people and have a low regard for too many of them. People
have proven me right over the course of my life. To quote Lex Luthor:
'People are no damn good'. There are those who want to subjugate me and I
won't stand for it.
> Tom Friedman, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condi Rice do not understand
> history.
>
> It really is as simple as that.
Would that it were so simple.
HB
---
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
FL Turbo
So we must accept the Terrorist's challenge.
No harm must come to civilians.
A win-win option for the Terrorists.
A lose-lose option for the democracies.
We are truly screwed.
BillB
> So we must accept the Terrorist's challenge.
> No harm must come to civilians.
>
> A win-win option for the Terrorists.
> A lose-lose option for the democracies.
>
> We are truly screwed.
I don't think so. You just have to fight smarter, not harder.
Old Wolf
> That is a strawman argument. If someone is actually shooting at you, of
> course you can shoot back. If innocent civilians are killed as a result,
> you have committed no war crime.
Hezballah is actually shooting at Israel. Israel are shooting back and
innocent civilians are being killed as a result. So you now agree
that no war crime is being committed, it seems.
> The situation in Lebanon is quite different. When you drop a bomb on a
> house because you think terrorists are there, no one is actually shooting at
> you. Therefore you must be reasonably certain that no innocent civilians
> will be killed.
Presumably the houses being bombed are the ones that are
believed to contain the people who masterminded the shooting
-- or supplies of weapons or ammunition.
> First of all, I have demonstrated with logical precision that Israel
> cannot destroy Hizbollah.
Howcome Israel (and the US)'s strategists all pale into
insignificance next to your towering intellect? You'd think
they would have hired someone with brains.
> Second of all, I see no reason whatsoever why Hizbollah
> must be rooted out and killed.
So it's okay by you for an organization to be attempting
to commit genocide?
William Coleman
"Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
Actually, I know quite a lot, Howard. I am a very astute student of human
nature.
>> > Which is why I support total war against
>> > Nazis. Thomas Friedman (NYT)
>>
>> Thomas Friedman is an opinionated idiot who knows nothing. If you give
>> his
>> opinions any credence at all, you really are clueless. And he most
>> definitely is not a liberal.
>
> This is just plain stupid.
No it isn't. If you want to give any credence to this know-it-all New York
Jew, that is your perogative. I give him none. The only columnists worth
reading in the NYT are Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman.
You should start reading the liberal blogs. Everytime Tom posts a column,
the column is ripped to shreds line by line. If you read the liberal blogs,
you would know that no self-respecting liberal considers Tom Friedman a
liberal, any more than we consider Joe Lieberman a liberal.
Tom and Joe are two peas in a pod. The are both "liberal" Jews who support
the illegal war of aggression in Iraq. Sorry, Howard, no true liberal
supports illegal wars of aggression.
>> > wrote a column sometime back wherein he
>> > wondered why the liberals didn't support the war in Iraq. He pointed
>> > out
>> > that, as a war of national liberation against Nazis, it should have
>> > been
>> > the province of the liberals.
>>
>> All liberals supported the idea of getting rid of Saddam, but not the
>> means
>> Bush chose. It was entirely foreseeable by all but the most obtuse that
>> the
>> invasion and occupation of Iraq would create a vicious insurgency which
>> could not be defeated by military power. It was quite obvious to me
>> BEFORE
>> the war started that a continued occupation would only exacerbate the
>> situation and fuel the insurgency.
>
> Yes, liberals may have supported getting rid of Saddam. How did they
> propose to do it? Gather around and sing 'Kumbaya'? I do agree with you
> about the insurgency. The people are vipers and it was entirely
> forseeable.
Did you ever hear of CIA black ops? Supported by Delta Force, etc.? It
would have been a piece of cake to take out Saddam. But Bush wanted to get
his war on. He wanted far more than to take out
Saddam. He wanted military control of Iraqi oil fields. You are a fool if
you think otherwise.
>> This was all crystal clear to me BEFORE the war started. I have been
>> 100%
>> correct about everything I have said about Iraq, and events continue to
>> prove me correct.
>>
>> Why won't you listen to people like me who have been proven correct by
>> events, and stop listening to idiots like Tom Friedman, George Bush, Dick
>> Cheney, and Condi Rice.
>>
>> Welcomed as liberators.
>>
>> Mission accomplished.
>>
>> Just a few foreign terrorists and Saddam deadenders.
>>
>> None of the good news is being reported.
>>
>> Insurgency is in its last throes.
>>
>> Give me a fucking break. The Bush Crime Family has been 100% wrong about
>> everything they have said about Iraq. I have been 100% correct. Why
>> won't
>> you listen to me?
>
> I do listen to you. I even like you. Sometimes you are right and I tell
> you so. But you are wrong in this case.
Then we will have to agree to disagree. I certainly have not been wrong
about anything I ever said about Iraq.
>> > I agree with him.
>>
>> Then you are a fool. Friedman doesn't even have an idea of where a clue
>> might be.
>>
>> > If, as a liberal, you
>> > can't bring yourself to confront with force those who would strip you
>> > of
>> > your human rights and your free will
>>
>> I am perfectly willing to confront such threats if they are at all
>> credible.
>> Sorry, I do not consider Islamofascism to be a serious threat to my
>> rights
>> and my free will.
>
> What could possibly be more credible than the Islamofascist threat? They
> tell you regulary that they will kill you and fly planes into buildings.
> How plain can they make it?
It's a threat, but not one to be taken seriously as a serious threat to our
national security. Not a big enough threat to completely freak out and
start using the Constitution as toilet paper and justify such usage as
necessary to fight the terrorist bogeyman.
>> > then you are weak and must be placed
>> > on the sidelines while serious people go on about the business of
>> > defeating the evil.
>>
>> You are seriously nuts. Please stop the nonsense about defeating evil.
>> Under the Bush Crime Family, the USA is by far the most dangerous and
>> evil
>> nation on the planet. Of course, you cannot see this because you think
>> you
>> are on a mission from God to defeat Islamofascism.
>>
>> I assure you, the Bush Crime Family is a much greater threat to my rights
>> and freedom than Sheikh Osama bin Laden, may Allah preserve and protect
>> him.
>
> This last sentence is a meritorious statement. Much has happened on the
> domestic political front that is very worrisome. I am hoping for a
> better administration in the future while still being resolved to fight
> the terrorists tooth and nail.
Thanks for being a realist for once.
>> > Lastly, if you think that the fact that destruction and death must be
>> > rained down upon the innocent caught up in the line of fire as
>> > necessary
>> > in the clash of good v. evil doesn't anguish the Jews then you don't
>> > know
>> > them at all. I don't advocate my position out of glee or hatred but as
>> > something so necessary, so absolutely necessary to be done that it must
>> > be
>> > done.
>>
>> Howard, this is just more rationalization of war crimes. I already told
>> you, if someone is actually shooting at you, then of course you can shoot
>> back. If innocent civilians are killed, then you have committed no war
>> crime.
>
> Does 'actually shooting at you' mean the moment they pull the trigger?
It means if you are under fire. Very simple concept.
> The moment they pick up the gun?
No.
> The moment they load the gun?
No.
> The moment they transport themselves to the place where they are going to
> point the gun at you?
No.
> The moment they conspire to purchase the gun?
No.
> When?
When they actually open fire. If you are reasonably certain they are
terrorists, then you can take them out before then, but then the Geneva
Conventions apply, because you are not actually under fire.
>> No one is actually shooting at you when you drop bombs on residential
>> neighborhoods, so the Geneva Conventions apply.
>>
>> You will never defeat terrorism by trying to kill all the terrorists.
>> You
>> can defeat terrorism by removing the root causes of terrorism.
>>
>> Here is what needs to be done to greatly reduce -- greatly reduce, not
>> eliminate -- Islamofascist terrorism.
>>
>> Israel needs to reach a comprehensive peace settlement with the
>> Palestinians, including Hamas and Hizbollah.
>
> How are they to do that when the other parties mentioned have zero
> interest in a peace agreement?
That is an Islamophobic lie. Hamas and Hizbollah are both pragmatic
organizations, believe it or not. But you have to be willing to negotiate
and compromise so they feel that most of their objectives are being met, and
that they are unlikely to ever be offered a better deal.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
William Coleman
"Old Wolf" <old...@inspire.net.nz> wrote in message
news:1153797935....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> William Coleman wrote:
>> That is a strawman argument. If someone is actually shooting at you, of
>> course you can shoot back. If innocent civilians are killed as a result,
>> you have committed no war crime.
>
> Hezballah is actually shooting at Israel. Israel are shooting back and
> innocent civilians are being killed as a result. So you now agree
> that no war crime is being committed, it seems.
Uhh, no. Can you read English? If they are actually shooting at you
personally at that exact moment, then you can return fire without regard for
civilian casualties.
When a pilot drops a bomb in a civilian neighborhood, he is not being fired
on at that moment, so the Geneva Conventions apply.
It is a very simple concept. Don't try to obfuscate the issue.
>> The situation in Lebanon is quite different. When you drop a bomb on a
>> house because you think terrorists are there, no one is actually shooting
>> at
>> you. Therefore you must be reasonably certain that no innocent civilians
>> will be killed.
>
> Presumably the houses being bombed are the ones that are
> believed to contain the people who masterminded the shooting
> -- or supplies of weapons or ammunition.
It doesn't matter what is believed. If it can be seen with foreseeable
certainty that innocent civilians will be killed, then the Geneva
Conventions apply.
Apparently you do not understand the Geneva Conventions were established to
prevent the slaughter of innocent civilians which occurred in World War II.
>> First of all, I have demonstrated with logical precision that Israel
>> cannot destroy Hizbollah.
>
> Howcome Israel (and the US)'s strategists all pale into
> insignificance next to your towering intellect? You'd think
> they would have hired someone with brains.
I assure you, none of them have an IQ even close to mine.
>> Second of all, I see no reason whatsoever why Hizbollah
>> must be rooted out and killed.
>
> So it's okay by you for an organization to be attempting
> to commit genocide?
No, it's not OK at all. Stop constructing strawman arguments. Stop trying
to paint me as a defender of Hizbollah. They are evil Islamofascist
terrorists.
Israel can never destroy Hizbollah, as I have repeatedly explained. The
correct way for Israel to deal with Hizbollah is to reach a comprehensive
peace settlement with the Palestinians, including Hamas and Hizbollah.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
A Man Beaten by Jacks
wrote:
>Thank you for saving me the time.
>I would like to say that I am sympathetic to 'A Man Beaten By Jacks'
>viewpoint. It is not without merit whatsover. It is not a pleasant
>business that Israel is about just now. Nobody likes to see what is going
>on. I think that he has an under-appreciation for the extent to which
>Israel tries to avoid civilian casualties and target only what might aid
>their enemies and that if he considered what Hizballah would do to Israel
>if the roles were reversed he would see my point more clearly.
Dropping cluster bombs on villages does not impress me with its supposed
surgical precision. In fact, just the opposite. If someone promises to destroy
ten (unrelated) buildings for every nearly totally ineffective rocket attack,
I'm similarly completely unimpressed with the alleged avoidance of civilian
casualties.
Destroying water and power infrastructure is also guaranteed to result in
massive civilian deaths over months and years to come if not addressed.
And yes, it is quite possible that Hezbollah would do as bad or worse if the
situations were reversed. But they aren't. We are not dealing with fantasy
scenarios, but reality. Israel is an insuperable military force while Hezbollah
is a poorly armed guerilla militia.
And again, what has Israel accomplished if for every terrorist they kill,
two more spring up in his place? The sons and friends of innocents killed in
this rain of terror are going to want revenge, and take it the only way they
know how. And I can hardly blame them.
Cluster bombing villages
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/24/isrlpa13798.htm
Collective punishment
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153291987290&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
(Note, the factor of ten cited by the Israeli general is the same ratio of
collective punishment used by the Nazis in occupied territories such as Italy.)
Howard Beale
> That is an Islamophobic lie. Hamas and Hizbollah are both pragmatic
> organizations, believe it or not. But you have to be willing to negotiate
> and compromise so they feel that most of their objectives are being met, and
> that they are unlikely to ever be offered a better deal.
This is wrong. I've enjoyed the exchange. Thank you for being civil. :)
HB
________________________________________________________________________
William Coleman
"Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On Jul 24 2006 10:18 PM, William Coleman wrote:
>
>> That is an Islamophobic lie. Hamas and Hizbollah are both pragmatic
>> organizations, believe it or not. But you have to be willing to
>> negotiate
>> and compromise so they feel that most of their objectives are being met,
>> and
>> that they are unlikely to ever be offered a better deal.
>
>
> This is wrong.
Uhh, no, Howard. Everything I am saying is 100% correct.
Please learn some humility when talking to your intellectual superiors.
Learn to say "I disagree with you".
When you say "This is wrong", that implies that you can present some facts
or arguments to prove me wrong. The fact that you disagree with me does not
equate to my being wrong.
> I've enjoyed the exchange.
I certainly haven't. You are as pigheaded as they come. You think you
already know everything about this subject, yet everything you believe about
this subject is a lie. The first step in learning is to admit your
ignorance. You will not admit that you are at all ignorant on the subject,
therefore you will remain totally ignorant on the subject. I have given you
a chance to learn, but you refuse to listen to your clear intellectual
superiors who know vastly more about history than you do. This remark also
applies to Tom Friedman, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condi Rice.
As Santayana said --
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
The Israelis cannot learn from history or their mistakes, so they will keep
repeating the same mistakes over and over.
Same remark applies to you, Friedman, Bush, Rice, and Cheney. You are all
fools who cannot learn from history.
Thank you for being civil. :)
Well, I will fix that right now. Go fuck yourself you jackoff Jew. I would
seriously prefer that you never ever reply to another one of my posts,
because trying to get you to understand the obvious is a waste of time. I
don't mind explaining the obvious to the obtuse, but you are beyond obtuse.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Minor Glitch
> "Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:iltgp3x...@recgroups.com...
> > On Jul 24 2006 10:18 PM, William Coleman wrote:
> >
> >> That is an Islamophobic lie. Hamas and Hizbollah are both pragmatic
> >> organizations, believe it or not. But you have to be willing to
> >> negotiate
> >> and compromise so they feel that most of their objectives are being met,
> >> and
> >> that they are unlikely to ever be offered a better deal.
> >
> >
> > This is wrong.
>
> Uhh, no, Howard. Everything I am saying is 100% correct.
Yeah, I am not Howard, but I know you enjoy our exchanges, so I am adding
my 2 cents.
> Please learn some humility when talking to your intellectual superiors.
Yes, Willie. Bow your head and be humble while responding to me.
> Learn to say "I disagree with you".
I disagree with you because you have a complete disregard for the truth
and have no sense of logic.
Sending young men on suicide missions is not something a "pragmatic
organization" does. Bringing pain and suffering onto their own people by
kidnapping and terrorism is not "pragmatic"
-------
William Coleman
"Minor Glitch" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:lg0hp3x...@recgroups.com...
> On Jul 25 2006 3:57 AM, William Coleman wrote:
>
>> "Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:iltgp3x...@recgroups.com...
>> > On Jul 24 2006 10:18 PM, William Coleman wrote:
>> >
>> >> That is an Islamophobic lie. Hamas and Hizbollah are both pragmatic
>> >> organizations, believe it or not. But you have to be willing to
>> >> negotiate
>> >> and compromise so they feel that most of their objectives are being
>> >> met,
>> >> and
>> >> that they are unlikely to ever be offered a better deal.
>> >
>> >
>> > This is wrong.
>>
>> Uhh, no, Howard. Everything I am saying is 100% correct.
>
> Yeah, I am not Howard, but I know you enjoy our exchanges, so I am adding
> my 2 cents.
I enjoy our exchanges??? You are delusional. You are an irritating gnat
and a complete waste of time.
>> Please learn some humility when talking to your intellectual superiors.
>
> Yes, Willie. Bow your head and be humble while responding to me.
>
>> Learn to say "I disagree with you".
>
> I disagree with you because you have a complete disregard for the truth
> and have no sense of logic.
OK. I told you I would killfile you if you made one more idiotic "You are
wrong because I say you are wrong" post. You have now done so. You
obviously want me to killfile you so you can brag that you kicked my ass in
a debate, then I killfiled you.
I believe in giving people what they ask for.
Welcome to my killfile.
> Sending young men on suicide missions is not something a "pragmatic
> organization" does. Bringing pain and suffering onto their own people by
> kidnapping and terrorism is not "pragmatic"
My final comment to you. You clearly do not understand the meaning of
"pragmatic", yet you are better educated than me??? You couldn't possibly
be more wrong. Pragmatic people do what works. Suicide bombing works and
achieves the desired objective. Like I said, you couldn't possibly be more
wrong.
I will never respond to another one of your posts again. Will you have the
decency to reciprocate? Of course not. You are obviously totally obsessed
with me and think you prove me wrong by telling me that I am wrong.
As I said, you are beyond pathetic.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Howard Beale
> Thank you for being civil. :)
>
> Well, I will fix that right now. Go fuck yourself you jackoff Jew.
Thank you. May I have another?
I would
> seriously prefer that you never ever reply to another one of my posts,
> because trying to get you to understand the obvious is a waste of time.
You are incapable of debating me, you lack the intellect and the tools. I
understand your fear of me. I debunk your nonsense and you have no
defense. I will partially grant your request and will never respond
directly to you again. I will post in your threads if I feel like it.
I
> don't mind explaining the obvious to the obtuse, but you are beyond obtuse.
A quote for you to consider:
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the
spoil with the proud.
-- Proverbs 16: 18-19 (KJV)
Good bye to you.
HB
_____________________________________________________________________
William Coleman
"Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On Jul 25 2006 1:57 AM, William Coleman wrote:
>
>
>> Thank you for being civil. :)
>>
>> Well, I will fix that right now. Go fuck yourself you jackoff Jew.
>
> Thank you. May I have another?
>
>
> I would
>> seriously prefer that you never ever reply to another one of my posts,
>> because trying to get you to understand the obvious is a waste of time.
>
> You are incapable of debating me, you lack the intellect and the tools.
You are seriously funny, Howard. You should be a standup comedian.
> I
> understand your fear of me. I debunk your nonsense and you have no
> defense.
Your concept of debunking me is to tell me I am wrong. That does not equate
to debunking.
> I will partially grant your request and will never respond
> directly to you again.
Thank you very much.
> I will post in your threads if I feel like it.
Feel free to do so.
> I
>> don't mind explaining the obvious to the obtuse, but you are beyond
>> obtuse.
>
>
> A quote for you to consider:
>
>
> Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
> Better it is to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the
> spoil with the proud.
> -- Proverbs 16: 18-19 (KJV)
Yes, and I suggest King Solomon's wisdom applies to you, not me. You are
one of the most arrogant, ignorant posters on RGP. You think you know
everything when you actually know nothing. You are incorrigible and
uneducable.
> Good bye to you.
Good bye to you too, Howard. You are the fifth poster I have killfiled in
less than an hour. When I get on a posting roll, it really brings out the
trolls whose only interest is to harass and irritate me. I don't need to
waste my time replying to irritating gnats.
It is now quite apparent that is your only purpose, Howard.
Welcome to my killfile.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
FL Turbo
<rama...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> So it's okay by you for an organization to be attempting
>> to commit genocide?
>
>No, it's not OK at all. Stop constructing strawman arguments. Stop trying
>to paint me as a defender of Hizbollah. They are evil Islamofascist
>terrorists.
>
>Israel can never destroy Hizbollah, as I have repeatedly explained. The
>correct way for Israel to deal with Hizbollah is to reach a comprehensive
>peace settlement with the Palestinians, including Hamas and Hizbollah.
>
Expecting the Israelis to negotiate with Terrorists is insanity.
Insanity in this case being Einstein's definition of insanity as doing
the same thing over and over and over again, and expecting a different
conclusion THIS time.
A "comprehensive peace settlement" THIS time will bring the same
results as every other time it has been tried.
The Terrorists will violate any terms to which they have agreed, any
old time they want to.
Ground Hog Day all over again.
da pickle
>
> "Howard Beale" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>
>> That's it? I finally make statements in a political thread that are
>> decidedly NOT middle of the road because the topic is so serious and
>> important to me. I expect to get flamed and am sort of hoping that it
>> will happen. And THIS? Too tepid. I'm going to go play some 8-16 now
>> and I expect better by the time I get back, in about 10 hours.
>
> What am I supposed to say? You think Israel can bomb and kill its way to
> peace and security. I don't.
BillB, what do you think Israel can do to stop the rockets? (That is what
you are "supposed to say.")
(I do not think that HB, or anyone else, thinks that Israel can bomb and
kill its way to peace and security. Apparently, you do not think that
either.)
Israel may want to take over the world and steal Lebanon and Syria and Egypt
and move on to Iran and Iraq ... or they may not. It is possible that they
want to live in peace with their neighbors or they may not. It is possible
that in this instance, they want the rocket attacks to stop ... I really
suspect that is an accurate statement. You may disagree, but that is your
right.
It is possible that you do not believe that Israel has a right to exist, or
that is not what you believe. We just do not know what you believe because
you do not know what to say.
Befunge Sudoku
> A "comprehensive peace settlement" THIS time will bring the same
> results as every other time it has been tried.
> The Terrorists will violate any terms to which they have agreed, any
> old time they want to.
Perhaps if Israel actually fulfilled their end of the deal for a change? You know, just
once would be nice?
--
The first rule of optimisation: "Don't do it yet"
The second rule of optimisation: "I told you, don't do it yet"
da pickle
> You are incapable of debating me, you lack the intellect and the tools. I
> understand your fear of me. I debunk your nonsense and you have no
> defense. I will partially grant your request and will never respond
> directly to you again. I will post in your threads if I feel like it.
It drives him crazy for you to cut him off. You'll be included on the roll
call for a few weeks and then you will be dropped because you provide him
with sustenance. He is indeed uber troll. Every now and then he gets back
on his medicine and stops posting for a while, but he falls back again and
again and again. Are you going to be at BARGE, HB (not your real initials)?
I would like to buy you a drink.
BillB
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ef2dnR8jLMN...@giganews.com...
> BillB, what do you think Israel can do to stop the rockets? (That is what
> you are "supposed to say.")
uhhhh..agree to a ceasefire?
> (I do not think that HB, or anyone else, thinks that Israel can bomb and
> kill its way to peace and security.
I guess you didn't read what he wrote them....something about first Lebanon
and then on to Syria?
> Israel may want to take over the world and steal Lebanon and Syria and
> Egypt and move on to Iran and Iraq ... or they may not. It is possible
> that they want to live in peace with their neighbors or they may not. It
> is possible that in this instance, they want the rocket attacks to stop
> ... I really suspect that is an accurate statement. You may disagree, but
> that is your right.
>
> It is possible that you do not believe that Israel has a right to exist,
> or that is not what you believe. We just do not know what you believe
> because you do not know what to say.
Stop blathering.
FL Turbo
<davidd...@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <kb0cc29sqdeopc3v3...@4ax.com>, noe...@notime.com says...
>> A "comprehensive peace settlement" THIS time will bring the same
>> results as every other time it has been tried.
>> The Terrorists will violate any terms to which they have agreed, any
>> old time they want to.
>
>Perhaps if Israel actually fulfilled their end of the deal for a change? You know, just
>once would be nice?
Israel pulled out of Gaza, lock, stock and barrel.
They uprooted Israel settlers who had lived in Gaza all their lives.
No more "occupation" in Gaza.
It made not a damn bit of difference to the Hamas Terrorists running
things.
They built a tunnel into Israeli territory and used it to kidnap an
Israeli soldier.
Do you think Hamas could keep the peace JUST ONCE?
Hamas lobbed rockets into Israel all along.
Do you think Hamas could keep the peace JUST ONCE?
Ha
Silly questions.
The well choreographed Cycle of Violence Dance was performed once
again.
da pickle
>> BillB, what do you think Israel can do to stop the rockets? (That is
>> what you are "supposed to say.")
>
> uhhhh..agree to a ceasefire?
So, if Israel just stops right now, there will be no more rockets sent into
Israel? No more terrorist attacks during the discussion of the situation
and the peaceful agreement to come? Is that what you believe, Bill?
>> Israel may want to take over the world and steal Lebanon and Syria and
>> Egypt and move on to Iran and Iraq ... or they may not. It is possible
>> that they want to live in peace with their neighbors or they may not. It
>> is possible that in this instance, they want the rocket attacks to stop
>> ... I really suspect that is an accurate statement. You may disagree,
>> but that is your right.
>>
>> It is possible that you do not believe that Israel has a right to exist,
>> or that is not what you believe. We just do not know what you believe
>> because you do not know what to say.
>
> Stop blathering.
Start making sense.
Befunge Sudoku
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:56:25 +0100, Befunge Sudoku
> <davidd...@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <kb0cc29sqdeopc3v3...@4ax.com>, noe...@notime.com says...
> >> A "comprehensive peace settlement" THIS time will bring the same
> >> results as every other time it has been tried.
> >> The Terrorists will violate any terms to which they have agreed, any
> >> old time they want to.
> >
> >Perhaps if Israel actually fulfilled their end of the deal for a change? You know, just
> >once would be nice?
>
> Israel pulled out of Gaza, lock, stock and barrel.
But moved into other areas at the same time.
> They uprooted Israel settlers who had lived in Gaza all their lives.
Well, that land had been farmed by Palestinians for over a 1000 years before the
Israelis arrived...
>
>
> They built a tunnel into Israeli territory and used it to kidnap an
> Israeli soldier.
Having had a couple of Hamas guys kidnapped the day before
I think it's been too late to fix things over there for a while now anyway. Even when
the Israelis have killed all the Palestinians (shouldn't take too long at the current
rate), I don't think it'll end: they've pissed off too many of their neighbours,
there'll always be a supply of idealistic young men (and women) prepared to carry a
suicide bomb or fire a rocket. So, the USA will have to go into Lebanon, Syria, and
maybe a couple of other places to enforce 'democracy', and put up with a bit of
retaliatory terrorism. The tirck is to have a good enough pretext for going in that the
other Muslim states let you get away with it.
The western powers should never have set up Israel at the end of WW2, they should've
just given the German and East European jews help with relocation to wherever, without
actually setting up a state on land that some other people were already living in. Too
late now. I suspect there was enough anti-semitism in the UK corridors of power that
very few would've got into Britain - we fought that war largely to defend our own
borders, not becuase we knew about the holocaust, as far as I can tell - just as the
USa got involved mainly to prevent the emergence of a European superpower rather than
because they had anything against Germany itself.
BillB
> "BillB"
>
>>> BillB, what do you think Israel can do to stop the rockets? (That is
>>> what you are "supposed to say.")
>>
>> uhhhh..agree to a ceasefire?
>
> So, if Israel just stops right now, there will be no more rockets sent
> into Israel? No more terrorist attacks during the discussion of the
> situation and the peaceful agreement to come? Is that what you believe,
> Bill?
You asked what Israel could do stop the rockets. I assume you mean the
rockets that are landing in Israel as we speak? I said "agree to a
ceasefire". What part of that exactly don't you understand? Why do you eel
the need to constantly put words in my mouth? Is that you are incapable of
arguing against what I actually said? You don't think people notice you are
trying to attribute statements and ideas to me that I never wrote or
implied? You are as big a fool as ever Pickle.
>>> Israel may want to take over the world and steal Lebanon and Syria and
>>> Egypt and move on to Iran and Iraq ... or they may not. It is possible
>>> that they want to live in peace with their neighbors or they may not.
>>> It is possible that in this instance, they want the rocket attacks to
>>> stop ... I really suspect that is an accurate statement. You may
>>> disagree, but that is your right.
>>>
>>> It is possible that you do not believe that Israel has a right to exist,
>>> or that is not what you believe. We just do not know what you believe
>>> because you do not know what to say.
>>
>> Stop blathering.
>
> Start making sense.
What have I said specifically that does not make sense (to you)? All I have
said basically is Israel doesn't have the right to indiscriminately
slaughter civilians by levelling multi-story apartment buildings in
residential neighbourhoods. Are we to take it you disagree with that?
da pickle
>
> "da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5K2dnUb9nItRiFvZ...@giganews.com...
>> "BillB"
>>
>>>> BillB, what do you think Israel can do to stop the rockets? (That is
>>>> what you are "supposed to say.")
>>>
>>> uhhhh..agree to a ceasefire?
>
>>
>> So, if Israel just stops right now, there will be no more rockets sent
>> into Israel? No more terrorist attacks during the discussion of the
>> situation and the peaceful agreement to come? Is that what you believe,
>> Bill?
>
> You asked what Israel could do stop the rockets. I assume you mean the
> rockets that are landing in Israel as we speak? I said "agree to a
> ceasefire". What part of that exactly don't you understand?
I do not understand why you think that "agreeing to a ceasefire" will stop
the rockets? I thought that is what you were saying ... what are you
saying?
> Why do you eel the need to constantly put words in my mouth? Is that you
> are incapable of arguing against what I actually said? You don't think
> people notice you are trying to attribute statements and ideas to me that
> I never wrote or implied? You are as big a fool as ever Pickle.
What words am I constantly putting in your mouth? You said "agree to a
ceasefire" ... I did try and decide what you meant by it. If you did not
mean what I thought, please tell us (me) what you meant. You seem to think
that by speaking riddles, you are being clever or clear but you are neither.
You continue to just make silly little quips instead of joining into a real
conversation. That is your right, but it does not help with the discussion.
The discussion here is what can Israel do if it wants to stop the rockets.
You seem to believe that "agree to a cease fire" is a solution. Could you
expand on what you mean and what you think would happen ... with whom
exactly should Israel "agree"? Do you believe that the rockets will stop if
a cease fire is offered and agreed upon? For how long?
>>>> Israel may want to take over the world and steal Lebanon and Syria and
>>>> Egypt and move on to Iran and Iraq ... or they may not. It is possible
>>>> that they want to live in peace with their neighbors or they may not.
>>>> It is possible that in this instance, they want the rocket attacks to
>>>> stop ... I really suspect that is an accurate statement. You may
>>>> disagree, but that is your right.
>>>>
>>>> It is possible that you do not believe that Israel has a right to
>>>> exist, or that is not what you believe. We just do not know what you
>>>> believe because you do not know what to say.
>>>
>>> Stop blathering.
>>
>> Start making sense.
>
> What have I said specifically that does not make sense (to you)? All I
> have said basically is Israel doesn't have the right to indiscriminately
> slaughter civilians by levelling multi-story apartment buildings in
> residential neighbourhoods. Are we to take it you disagree with that?
I agree that Israel does not have the "right to indiscriminately slaughter
civilians by levelling (sic) multi-story apartment buildings in residential
neighbourhoods" ... how is that? Do you not see that such an agreement by
us does nothing to move the discussion forward? Do you not see that such a
statement is meaningless? You are not that dense, Bill.
BillB
> What words am I constantly putting in your mouth?
First you made some dumb comment implying I had written or implied that
Israel had no right to exist. I did not. Then when you asked what Israel
could do to stop the rockets I said "agree to a ceasefire" you came back
with this nonsense:
"So, if Israel just stops right now, there will be no more rockets sent into
Israel?"
That's not what I said. You are putting words in my mouth. I did not say
Israel should "just stop" to stop the rocket attacks, did I ? I said they
should agree to a ceasefire.
You said "agree to a
> ceasefire" ... I did try and decide what you meant by it. If you did not
> mean what I thought, please tell us (me) what you meant. You seem to
> think that by speaking riddles, you are being clever or clear but you are
> neither.
There's no riddle. Even the most obtuse reader would know what agreeing to a
ceasefire entails.
> You continue to just make silly little quips instead of joining into a
> real conversation. That is your right, but it does not help with the
> discussion. The discussion here is what can Israel do if it wants to stop
> the rockets. You seem to believe that "agree to a cease fire" is a
> solution. Could you expand on what you mean and what you think would
> happen ... with whom exactly should Israel "agree"?
Who the fuck do you think they'd have a ceasefire with? Nobody is this
stupid in real life. Goodbye.
da pickle
> Who the fuck do you think they'd have a ceasefire with? Nobody is this
> stupid in real life. Goodbye.
I was trying to find out who "you" thought they might "cease fire" with,
Bill ... I already know that there is no one to have a cease fire with that
will actually result in the rockets not continuing to be shot into Israel.
Do you think if you said "Hezbollah" you would actually be making a real
statement?
BillB
> I agree that Israel does not have the "right to indiscriminately slaughter
> civilians by levelling (sic) multi-story apartment buildings in
> residential neighbourhoods" ... how is that? Do you not see that such an
> agreement by us does nothing to move the discussion forward? Do you not
> see that such a statement is meaningless? You are not that dense, Bill.
Oh, by the way idiot....levelling is a correct spelling. You must walk
around feeling foolish all day long.
WuzYoungOnceToo2
>
> Are you really, truly this stupid?
I'm not stupid enough to buy your bullshit song-and-dance here.
> Do I have to dumb down every point I make just for your benefit?
For my benefit, try expressing an honest, direct point and skipping the
asinine one-liners and "I didn't really mean what I actually said"
evasions.
Howard Beale
Yes, Mr. da pickle, and my real name will be revealed! And I'd love to
have a drink with you, thanks!
HB
da pickle
news:jwqxg.238153$IK3.155734@pd7tw1no...
I did not know that "levelling" was correct. Never let it be said that I
cannot learn something new. I don't feel quite as foolish today. Now, how
about the meat of the matter. Why do you continue being so obstreperous?
The current situation in the middle east is much like a police force in riot
gear facing a rock and fire bomb throwing mob that keeps setting people's
apartments on fire and killing some folks behind the police lines with their
random gunfire ... since there are innocent people "watching" the mob at
close range mixed in with the people actually encouraging the mob, it is
difficult for the police to maintain order and stop the rampaging (no poker
content intended) ... so the police have been standing there taking it for a
while ... sometimes rushing up to the mob and taking one or two into custody
... but the mob shows no signs of wanting to negotiate a cease fire. The
mob is happy with the situation. The camera crews have already starting
talking about the police using too much force ... what's a mob to do? They
are happy and they have a bunch of happy people egging them on ... every
time the cameras come around, they cheer and more join into the mob ... I
guess the police should just continue to talk on the bull horns about
everyone just go home and quit killing people ... maybe that is the answer.
I don't know ... I am feeling a little more foolish now. (I still would
like to know if you believe the rockets would stop if the army just ran up a
white flag and said, "cease fire" we agree ... just stop the rockets ... OK
... we stop, you stop ... OK???? Let's just talk.
da pickle
> On Jul 25 2006 6:03 AM, da pickle wrote:
>
>> "Howard Beale" replied to WC:
>>
>> > You are incapable of debating me, you lack the intellect and the tools.
>> > I
>> > understand your fear of me. I debunk your nonsense and you have no
>> > defense. I will partially grant your request and will never respond
>> > directly to you again. I will post in your threads if I feel like it.
>>
>> It drives him crazy for you to cut him off. You'll be included on the
>> roll
>> call for a few weeks and then you will be dropped because you provide him
>> with sustenance. He is indeed uber troll. Every now and then he gets
>> back
>> on his medicine and stops posting for a while, but he falls back again
>> and
>> again and again. Are you going to be at BARGE, HB (not your real
>> initials)?
>> I would like to buy you a drink.
>
>
> Yes, Mr. da pickle, and my real name will be revealed! And I'd love to
> have a drink with you, thanks!
I promise not to spill the beans. I will buy the drinks!
A. Prock
>On Jul 23 2006 5:43 PM, William Coleman wrote:
>>
>> So fucking what??? Do you think no innocent civilians live there? You
>> still do not understand the concept of the war crime of collective
>> punishment. You cannot drop bombs to kill terrorists if it is predictable
>> that innocent civilians will be killed.
>
>Drop them, I say. I'm not going to play by the terrorist's rules.
What are the "terrorist's" rules? And how are they differen't from
the the rules of other military powers in the region? I'm always
baffled how people can just negate the ligitimacy of a group by
calling them terrorists. FWIW, that's exactly how much of the
Arab world describes the Israel and US military operations, as
terrorism.
Are we terrorists just because they call us such? No. Are they
terrorist because we call them such? No.
If you don't want to think about the issues, and just pick side
that's fine. But don't expect anything to get better.
- Andrew
A. Prock
>
>I think it's been too late to fix things over there for a while now anyway.
I think this is basically correct. As long as religious zealotry
and jingoism of the highest degree is the operating philosophy
of any and all participants in the conflict, there will be no
peace. Eventually, the Western world will tire of propping up
Israel and come to the conclusion that a final resolution to the
situation must be made one way or the other.
Minor Glitch
Lebanese civilians and causing the deaths of hundreds during two weeks of
cross-border violence with Israel.
* * *
"Consistently, from the Hizbullah heartland, my message was that Hizbullah
must stop this cowardly blending ... among women and children," he said.
"I heard they were proud because they lost very few fighters and that it
was the civilians bearing the brunt of this. I don't think anyone should
be proud of having many more children and women dead than armed men."
da pickle
There is, of course, danger in using the term "final resolution" ... it
sounds similar to another sort of final solution. What exactly are you
thinking about when you say ... "tire of propping up Israel" and what sort
of final resolution do you have in mind ... "one way or the other?" I
agree the situation is the pits, but I have not heard of any final
resolution that seems likely. You?
da pickle
> According to Howard Beale
I agree that a terrorist is not a terrorist because someone uses the name
... do you think that the word has any meaning at all? Is there ever a use
for the word? What issues do we need to think about that are not being
thought about? I have my thoughts on what HB might mean when he says
"terrorist's rules" ... I could be wrong, however. I do think that the
so-called terrorists that send children into crowded marketplaces with bombs
strapped to their little bodies to kill and maim are aptly named.
BillB
"da pickle" <jcpi...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hOWdnUTAUaZt31vZ...@giganews.com...
>
> I did not know that "levelling" was correct. Never let it be said that I
> cannot learn something new.
While you are at it you should learn that only the very biggest dweebs point
out spelling errors (real or imagined) on Usenet. You get extra DPs (dweeb
points) for using "sic" to do it.
WuzYoungOnceToo2
>
> While you are at it you should learn that only the very biggest dweebs point
> out spelling errors (real or imagined) on Usenet. You get extra DPs (dweeb
> points) for using "sic" to do it.
What kind of points do you get for repeatedly dodging substantive
questions in favor of semi-clever bullshit like the above?
Howard Beale
> According to Howard Beale <a1...@webnntp.invalid>:
> >On Jul 23 2006 5:43 PM, William Coleman wrote:
> >>
> >> So fucking what??? Do you think no innocent civilians live there? You
> >> still do not understand the concept of the war crime of collective
> >> punishment. You cannot drop bombs to kill terrorists if it is
predictable
> >> that innocent civilians will be killed.
> >
> >Drop them, I say. I'm not going to play by the terrorist's rules.
>
> What are the "terrorist's" rules?
That 'we can shoot at you but you can't shoot at us because we are firing
at you from the midst of civilians'. Here is a link and a quote from the
article I posted in the 'Hezbollah on it's heels' thread. I hope the link
still works but you can google the headline and find it if you care to:
Article on Canada.com: http://tinyurl.com/nrjjt
UN humanitarian chief accuses Hezbollah of 'cowardly blending' among
civilians
Lauren Frayer, Canadian Press
Published: Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Article tools
BEIRUT (AP) - The UN humanitarian chief accused Hezbollah on Monday of
"cowardly blending" in among Lebanese civilians and causing the deaths of
hundreds during two weeks of cross-border violence with Israel.
And how are they differen't from
> the the rules of other military powers in the region?
They are different from Israel's. I don't know what the Arab regimes do
but I doubt that they hide their armies in the midst of civilians either.
I'm always
> baffled how people can just negate the ligitimacy of a group by
> calling them terrorists.
'Calling' is one thing. Actuality is another thing. Suppose I take what
I think is your point and I look to the legitimacy of Hizballah by which I
take you to mean the legitimacy of their point of view and actions.
Formed as a resistance movement primarily to expel Israel from Lebanon
along with all other foreign forces
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizbullah) they were eventually successful.
To me resistance to foreign interventions and occupations is legitimate
and understandable. I may not consider it to be correct but it is
understandable. And, as I said, they were victorious. In 2000 Israel
ended it's disastrous misadventure in Lebanon and withdrew to it's side of
a UN certified border. Of course that was not the end of Hizballah even
though it's stated goal was accomplished. In the years since they have
fortified their positions in Lebanon, armed themselves further and
acquired ~12,000 rockets and missles. They have carved out for themselves
a state within a state. They have created bunkers and warrens from which
to operate. But operate against what? Israel has quit Lebanon. The
border is uncontested except for Shaaba Farms which is used as an excuse.
Remember the UN considered Shaaba Farms and certified the border as
accurate and legitimate. It is clear to me that Hizballah has been
preparing for exactly what has come to pass. And what has come to pass?
Hizballah invaded Israel and killed 3 soldiers and abducted 2 others. I
do not consider that legitimate. To fire rockets aimed intentionally at
civilians, to hide amongst civilians as they fire at Israel is not
legitimate. Some will say that their goal of destroying Israel because it
is an 'infestation' (as I've seen another poster call it) is legitimate.
Fine, then. They want war and I say if that is what they want that is
what they shall get. It is certainly legitimate to defend yourself. War,
not a police action, not a stupid 'proportional response', not a kid's
glove treatment. They are lucky I'm not in charge. I'd turn my tanks NE
and head straight for Syria and watch as the rockets stop as soon at they
crossed the border on the way to Damascus.
FWIW, that's exactly how much of the
> Arab world describes the Israel and US military operations, as
> terrorism.
Ok, there are sides. I pick my side.
>
> Are we terrorists just because they call us such? No. Are they
> terrorist because we call them such? No.
Do I have to go thru the same refrain again? If they can bomb a disco
full of teens and they can break into a house, hunt down a cowering
mother trying to shield her two children in a back bedroom with her body
and shoot them all to death (children hiding in a corner behind their
mother shot to death at point blank range god curse them for all eternity)
then they are terrorists and beyond. They are heartless, savage monsters
worthless trash and less than that. People can disappoint me to no end
but that is the limit.
>
> If you don't want to think about the issues, and just pick side
> that's fine. But don't expect anything to get better.
>
> - Andrew
I've thought about the issues and I have picked the side of civilization
over savagery, tribalism, repression and revenge and I'm willing to fight
for it. If I were 25 again I'd be on my way over there. If they ever say
they need me now even at my age I'll go in a minute.
As a solution I advocate a 2 state solution along the lines offered by
Barak at Camp David and which was rejected out of hand by Arafat. It
seemed fair to me and it seemed fair to President Clinton also yet it
wasn't even the basis for further discussions by the Palestinians. I want
peace. The Israelis want peace. The extremists amongst the Palestinians,
Muslims, Arabs-call them what you will-apparently do not and they are in
charge. That is the shame of it.
HB
_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
da pickle
When I quote someone, I like to make it an actual quote. Sorry if my
dweebness has obscured your ability to respond to the meat of the
discussion.
BillB
> When I quote someone, I like to make it an actual quote. Sorry if my
> dweebness has obscured your ability to respond to the meat of the
> discussion.
No, it is you who has that inability. The "meat of the discussion", long
before you turned up, was about the human rights of the innocent civilians
in south Beirut (yes Pickle, even people with brown skin living in poor
neighbourhoods have human rights). The thread is not about what Israel *can*
do; it is about what it *can't* do (namely, destroy block upon block of
residential housing). You tried to change the subject and I am not buying
into it. I doubt anyone else is either.
A. Prock
There are two basic resolutions. Either Israel ceases to exist as
a political force, or it's enemies cease to exist as a political
force.
Unless both sides abandon their zealotry, no other solution is
really feasible.
FL Turbo
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:11:26 +0100, Befunge Sudoku
<davidd...@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <3q3cc2lndb1o157ci...@4ax.com>, noe...@notime.com says...
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:56:25 +0100, Befunge Sudoku
>> <davidd...@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <kb0cc29sqdeopc3v3...@4ax.com>, noe...@notime.com says...
>> >> A "comprehensive peace settlement" THIS time will bring the same
>> >> results as every other time it has been tried.
>> >> The Terrorists will violate any terms to which they have agreed, any
>> >> old time they want to.
>> >
>> >Perhaps if Israel actually fulfilled their end of the deal for a change? You know, just
>> >once would be nice?
>>
>> Israel pulled out of Gaza, lock, stock and barrel.
>
>But moved into other areas at the same time.
>
>> They uprooted Israel settlers who had lived in Gaza all their lives.
>
>Well, that land had been farmed by Palestinians for over a 1000 years before the
>Israelis arrived...
>>
>>
>> They built a tunnel into Israeli territory and used it to kidnap an
>> Israeli soldier.
>
>Having had a couple of Hamas guys kidnapped the day before
>
Are you sure?
Are you sure that it wasn't some suicide bombers intercepted?
I don't know, either.
But maybe, maybe, JUST ONCE the PA could have stopped that Cycle of
Violence right then?
Did Hamas have to use the tunnel and kidnap the Israeli soldier?
>
>I think it's been too late to fix things over there for a while now anyway. Even when
>the Israelis have killed all the Palestinians (shouldn't take too long at the current
>rate), I don't think it'll end: they've pissed off too many of their neighbours,
>there'll always be a supply of idealistic young men (and women) prepared to carry a
>suicide bomb or fire a rocket. So, the USA will have to go into Lebanon, Syria, and
>maybe a couple of other places to enforce 'democracy', and put up with a bit of
>retaliatory terrorism. The tirck is to have a good enough pretext for going in that the
>other Muslim states let you get away with it.
>The western powers should never have set up Israel at the end of WW2, they should've
>just given the German and East European jews help with relocation to wherever, without
>actually setting up a state on land that some other people were already living in. Too
>late now. I suspect there was enough anti-semitism in the UK corridors of power that
>very few would've got into Britain - we fought that war largely to defend our own
>borders, not becuase we knew about the holocaust, as far as I can tell - just as the
>USa got involved mainly to prevent the emergence of a European superpower rather than
>because they had anything against Germany itself.
Well, this would be a good time for the USA to stay out of it and let
the Israelis go it alone.
Excellent idea.
FL Turbo
wrote:
>According to Howard Beale <a1...@webnntp.invalid>:
>>On Jul 23 2006 5:43 PM, William Coleman wrote:
>>>
>>> So fucking what??? Do you think no innocent civilians live there? You
>>> still do not understand the concept of the war crime of collective
>>> punishment. You cannot drop bombs to kill terrorists if it is predictable
>>> that innocent civilians will be killed.
>>
>>Drop them, I say. I'm not going to play by the terrorist's rules.
>
>What are the "terrorist's" rules? And how are they differen't from
>the the rules of other military powers in the region? I'm always
>baffled how people can just negate the ligitimacy of a group by
>calling them terrorists. FWIW, that's exactly how much of the
>Arab world describes the Israel and US military operations, as
>terrorism.
>
At the risk of repeating myself, I will repeat myself.
Part of an article by Alan Dershowitz.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Predictable Condemners
The Hizbullah and Hamas provocations against Israel once again
demonstrate how terrorists exploit human rights and the media in their
attacks on democracies.
By hiding behind their own civilians the Islamic radicals issue a
challenge to democracies:
Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably
killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave
us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians.
This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose
option, and the terrorists with a win-win option.
There is one variable that could change this dynamic and present
democracies with a viable option that could make terrorism less
attractive as a tactic:
The international community, the anti-Israel segment of the media and
the so called "human rights" organizations could stop falling for this
terrorist gambit and acknowledge that they are being used to promote
the terrorist agenda.
Whenever a democracy is presented with the lose-lose option and
chooses to defend its citizens by going after the terrorists who are
hiding among civilians, this trio of predictable condemners can be
counted on by the terrorists to accuse the democracy of
"overreaction," "disproportionality" and "violations of human rights."
In doing so they play right into the hands of the terrorists, causing
more terrorism and more civilian casualties on both sides. If instead
this trio could, for once, be counted on to blame the terrorists for
the civilian deaths on both sides, this tactic would no longer be a
win-win situation for the terrorists.
IT SHOULD BE obvious by now that Hizbullah and Hamas actually want the
Israeli military to kill as many Lebanese and Palestinian civilians as
possible. That is why they store their rockets underneath the beds of
civilians; why they launch their missiles from crowded civilian
neighborhoods and hide among civilians. They are seeking to induce
Israel to defend its civilians by going after them among their
civilian "shields." They know that every civilian they induce Israel
to kill hurts Israel in the media and the international and human
rights communities.
They regard these human shields as shahids - martyrs - even if they
did not volunteer for this lethal job. Under the law, criminals who
use human shields are responsible for the deaths of the shields, even
if the bullet that kills them came from the gun of a policeman.
Israel has every self-interest in minimizing civilian casualties,
whereas the terrorists have every self-interest in maximizing them -
on both sides. Israel should not be condemned for doing what every
democracy would and should do: taking every reasonable military step
to stop the terrorists from killing their innocent civilians.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not presented as "terrorist rules" of course, but I think it does
explain it very well
>Are we terrorists just because they call us such? No. Are they
>terrorist because we call them such? No.
>
Well, I'll give you my definition anyway.
Terrorists are those who DELIBERATELY TARGET innocent civilians.
I most definitely do not accept any inane phrase like:
"One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist"