View Full Version : Israel Needs To Dump Olmert
And get a leader who will kick some Hezbo ass and quit farting around doing a half ass job of attack.
AnyOldIron
08-09-2006, 08:47 AM
Retard.
AnyOldIron
08-09-2006, 08:52 AM
Israel needs a leader who will quit terrorism.
Israel needs a leader who will kill the terrorist. No ceasefire, killing them is the only way to stop the destruction that they cause.
AnyOldIron
08-09-2006, 09:08 AM
Israel needs a leader who will kill the terrorist. No ceasefire, killing them is the only way to stop the destruction that they cause.
Israel needs to stop using terrorism. If they don't, fuck them.
Guess you don't quite grasp the meaning of the word terrorist! LOL
uscitizen
08-09-2006, 09:43 AM
And get a leader who will kick some Hezbo ass and quit farting around doing a half ass job of attack.
Yeah, he does remind me a lot of Bush.
I agree with that US, Bush is too soft and easy going. He too needs to kick some ass.
uscitizen
08-09-2006, 10:00 AM
He tried to kick some butt Toby, and look what happened. Bush is not too easy going, just an incompetent jerk.
OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 10:03 AM
Israel needs a leader who will kill the terrorist. No ceasefire, killing them is the only way to stop the destruction that they cause.
Give me your address and I'll mail you a bullet. We'll miss you. Well, a little bit anyway.
OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 10:05 AM
Guess you don't quite grasp the meaning of the word terrorist! LOL
Among other things, it means people who are willing to kill innocent men, women and children in order to make themselves safer or happier.
You, sir, are a terrorist sympathizer.
US. Bush took the easy path and didn't get serious enough. He was not agressive enough in killing the terrorist. To afraid of hurting anyone or losing any soldiers.
Ornot. they are not innocent if they have bombs in their basements and support the Hizbos.
OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 10:17 AM
US. Bush took the easy path and didn't get serious enough. He was not agressive enough in killing the terrorist. To afraid of hurting anyone or losing any soldiers.
Ornot. they are not innocent if they have bombs in their basements and support the Hizbos.
So you'll just blow up the whole block in order to be sure to get the ones with bombs in their basements, right? That's terrorist thinking, Tobbes.
uscitizen
08-09-2006, 10:18 AM
Toby, I think you would be a hezbolla member if you had been born in the middle east. You have the same attitude as those radicals, just on the other side.
I would be more of a jew. When someone attacks me, they will pay. if they leave me along then all is well.
I would be proud to be a jew. Hizbos are the scum of the earth.
uscitizen
08-09-2006, 10:22 AM
Why are you not a Jew then Toby ?
OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 10:42 AM
I would be more of a jew. When someone attacks me, they will pay. if they leave me along then all is well.
More terrorist thinking. I really think you need to shoot yourself. It's the only honorable thing to do.
I like who I am, no need to be anyone else. No sorry Ornot, defending yourself is not terrorism. Maybe you should shoot yourself for being such an idiot and brainless.
OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 10:50 AM
I like who I am, no need to be anyone else. No sorry Ornot, defending yourself is not terrorism. Maybe you should shoot yourself for being such an idiot and brainless.
Making someone "pay" is not defending yourself Toby.
Care4all
08-09-2006, 10:52 AM
Among other things, it means people who are willing to kill innocent men, women and children in order to make themselves safer or happier.
You, sir, are a terrorist sympathizer.
I disagree Ornot....
a Terrorist intentionally plans and seeks out the killing of innocent people to further their radical causes....
to rewrite what "terrorist" means as you and anyold have done is intellectually DISHONEST, in my very humble opinion.... :eek:
you seek to diminish the terroristic acts of suicide bombers in restaraunts, or on trains and subways, or in kamikaze pilots with hundreds of innocent passengers on board....when you speak as you and Anyold have done....
I think it is wrong to do such....because there IS A DIFFERENCE between that and dropping leaflets in to a community to warn them to get out because you are going to bomb the shit out of them.....and BOTH MAY STILL BE BAD ACTIONS....but as with all things, intent and other circumstances define the degrees of the wrong action. For example, there is murder in the first degree or the second degree, or there is voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter.....
AND BOTH CIRCIMSTANCES ABOVE ARE NOT IN ANY WAY EQUAL....
to say such, as I have said above, is just outright WRONG....( Ornot and Anyold)
hahahaha! Now be nice, when you answer me.....lol...
:p
care
Maybe you are a good Christian Ornot and believe if someone tries to kill you you should let them. I disagree. If someone tries to kill me, then I have the right to make the pay for the effort to kill me, by killing them. Guess I am not as Christian as you. LOL
uscitizen
08-09-2006, 11:02 AM
hmm, not had any terrorists try to kill me....
uscitizen
08-09-2006, 11:08 AM
I would be more of a jew. When someone attacks me, they will pay. if they leave me along then all is well.
So why do you hate Hezbiolla when they have done nothing to you ?
OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 11:20 AM
I disagree Ornot....
a Terrorist intentionally plans and seeks out the killing of innocent people to further their radical causes....
to rewrite what "terrorist" means as you and anyold have done is intellectually DISHONEST, in my very humble opinion.... :eek:
you seek to diminish the terroristic acts of suicide bombers in restaraunts, or on trains and subways, or in kamikaze pilots with hundreds of innocent passengers on board....when you speak as you and Anyold have done....
I think it is wrong to do such....because there IS A DIFFERENCE between that and dropping leaflets in to a community to warn them to get out because you are going to bomb the shit out of them.....and BOTH MAY STILL BE BAD ACTIONS....but as with all things, intent and other circumstances define the degrees of the wrong action. For example, there is murder in the first degree or the second degree, or there is voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter.....
AND BOTH CIRCIMSTANCES ABOVE ARE NOT IN ANY WAY EQUAL....
to say such, as I have said above, is just outright WRONG....( Ornot and Anyold)
hahahaha! Now be nice, when you answer me.....lol...
:p
care
With all respect, Care, I think you're missing some important points.
First, I don't give a poop about whether someone "intends" to kill innocent civilians or not. Arguing about other people's intentions is childish speculation. I don't care about the state of their souls -- largely because I don't believe in souls, or redemption, or damnation.
Killing innocent civilians in pursuit of some "higher" goal is wrong. Period. It doesn't matter whether the perpetrator intends to kill them or not. If you want to reserve the word "terrorist" for people who do it intentionally, fine. I'll just call the others "murderers" instead. How's that?
The Israelis are murdering people and have to be stopped. Furthermore, they're being worse murderers than the Shi'ite terrorists are being terrorists, since a lot more innocent Lebanese than innocent Israelis are being killed.
No offense intended but, to claim that lack of intent excuses murder is intellectually dishonest. We have phrases for murder without specific intent. Phrases like "second degreee murder" and "manslaughter" for example.
Now, let me pose a question. Which is worse, 40 cases of first degree murder or 400 cases of manslaughter? I'll go with the latter as being the worse, every time.
OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 11:48 AM
Maybe you are a good Christian Ornot and believe if someone tries to kill you you should let them. I disagree. If someone tries to kill me, then I have the right to make the pay for the effort to kill me, by killing them. Guess I am not as Christian as you. LOL
There is a difference between defending your life and "making someone pay" for attacking you. A very large difference, Toby, and a critical one.
uscitizen
08-09-2006, 11:54 AM
Heck Ornot, I am not a Christian and I understand that. Perhaps I do understand because I am not a Christian ?
uscitizen
08-09-2006, 11:55 AM
Toby would be proud to be a member of the religious sect that had Jesus crucified ?
OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 12:02 PM
Heck Ornot, I am not a Christian and I understand that. Perhaps I do understand because I am not a Christian ?LOL! Oh, I know quite a few Christians who get it. I think Care probably would if she'd just think of it in those terms.
Good to see you again, uscit. :clink:
uscitizen
08-09-2006, 12:07 PM
Good to chat with ya again too Ornot.
Hey I like the ignore thingy, it shows that the ignored party posted, but not what they said.
Could cause some gaps in reading the replies, but I can live with that :)
Care4all
08-09-2006, 12:47 PM
If you READ what I said ;), I clearly did not in any way bring in Christianity to the issue...the issue is degrees of killing, as in first degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter...etc...all is killing another human being that did not deserve to die....
to DENY that this is how a JUSTICE system works is beyond me...?
And I NEVER SAID that both parties can not be BOTH GUILTY OF WRONG, did I? I specifically said that they BOTH COULD BE WRONG, but that THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN DEGREES of killing.
.... and my friend Ornot :), if YOU want to bring Judeo/Christain values in to it, then you are wrong...there is most CERTAINLY DEGREES OF KILLING that involve intent with the appropriate just punishment in these religions as well as our Justice system!
Not that I believe in any way that Christianity sanctions unjustified wars, because in no way does it and I am "with you there"...only that there is a difference between killing in the manner that I spoke of above in my initial post to you....
care
klaatu
08-09-2006, 12:49 PM
There is a difference between defending your life and "making someone pay" for attacking you. A very large difference, Toby, and a critical one.
I must say ... this we agree on! :)
OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 01:20 PM
If you READ what I said ;), I clearly did not in any way bring in Christianity to the issue...the issue is degrees of killing, as in first degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter...etc...all is killing another human being that did not deserve to die....
to DENY that this is how a JUSTICE system works is beyond me...?
And I NEVER SAID that both parties can not be BOTH GUILTY OF WRONG, did I? I specifically said that they BOTH COULD BE WRONG, but that THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN DEGREES of killing.
.... and my friend Ornot :), if YOU want to bring Judeo/Christain values in to it, then you are wrong...there is most CERTAINLY DEGREES OF KILLING that involve intent with the appropriate just punishment in these religions as well as our Justice system!
Not that I believe in any way that Christianity sanctions unjustified wars, because in no way does it and I am "with you there"...only that there is a difference between killing in the manner that I spoke of above in my initial post to you....
care
But think about it. Let's say a bomb goes off in the middle of a sidewalk cafe killing about a dozen people and wounding many more. Let's further say, just for the sake of argument, that we just don't know whether it was a bomb planted by some terrorist group or one dropped by a military plane trying to take out the terrorists.
Why should we care if the bomb was intended to kill the civilians or not? What difference does it make? It killed a bunch of innocent men, women and children. Do the families of the dead give a shit whether those who set off the bomb intended to kill innocents? No, they don't. In fact, if those who set off the bomb didn't intend to kill innocents then it almost makes it worse, in some ways.
In practice, the only reason we might care about the intent of the bombers is if we care about the state of their souls. Whether they're really bad people or basically good people who made a bad decision.
That might make a difference in a criminal case. I'm sure it would. But now suppose that bombs are going off every single day and civilians are dying left and right. The more "accidents" that happen the less the mitigating circumstances are going to count.
Right now, Israel is killing more innocents than Hezbollah is. I don't care if they feel justified or not. In fact, it kind of makes it worse if they do feel justified.
As I said earlier, 400 cases of manslaughter are worse than 40 first degree murders, even though one single case of murder is clearly more heinous than one single case of manslaughter.
Cypress
08-09-2006, 01:29 PM
I don't think I'd feel any different if my wife were blown up in a pub by an IRA bomber, or if she were killed in a (hypothetical) airstrike by british aircraft seeking to destroy IRA supporters and financiers located in Boston.
I can see the difference in "intent" being important in a criminal sense. Indisrminate attacks with the goal of maximizing civilian casualites is a war crime. Presumably, the British air force would nominally seek ways to reduce or mitigate collateral damage.
OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 01:40 PM
I don't think I'd feel any different if my wife were blown up in a pub by an IRA bomber, or if she were killed in a (hypothetical) airstrike by british aircraft seeking to destroy IRA supporters and financiers located in Boston.
I can see the difference in "intent" being important in a criminal sense. Indisrminate attacks with the goal of maximizing civilian casualites is a war crime. Presumably, the British air force would nominally seek ways to reduce or mitigate collateral damage.
I think it helps if we think of these as criminal acts from the outset. For indeed, so they are.
Lobbing missiles into Israeli cities -- or any other cities -- is criminal. It's absolutely unforgivable. But you can't react to criminal acts by lobbing bombs into the areas where you know the criminals live. That's not justice, that's revenge. That's not self-defense, it's escalation and retribution.
The Israelis -- and here I'm talking about the Israeli people, not the Israeli government -- want justice. They also want security in their own homes. That's totally fair: everyone is entitled to those things. They don't have the right, however, to kill off everyone in southern Lebanon to gain those goals.
uscitizen
08-09-2006, 02:14 PM
Amen brother Ornot.
You pretty well summed it up for me. Israels actions are just fanning the flames to keep the hatred from dying down. After all if they did not have enemies would they be the biggest recievers of US foreign aid ? Peace = poor for Israel. At least in their leaders limited viewpoint.
Care4all
08-09-2006, 02:48 PM
I don't think I'd feel any different if my wife were blown up in a pub by an IRA bomber, or if she were killed in a (hypothetical) airstrike by british aircraft seeking to destroy IRA supporters and financiers located in Boston.
I can see the difference in "intent" being important in a criminal sense. Indisrminate attacks with the goal of maximizing civilian casualites is a war crime. Presumably, the British air force would nominally seek ways to reduce or mitigate collateral damage.
I don't either....and I have not "justified" Israels wrong actions...I only say, that there is a difference between a terrorist's actions of committing suicide while INTENTIONALLY killing men women and children....and a nation's killing of innocent people, after these people have been warned to get out, while the agressor is trying to get to "the bad guys".....
I am not going to give the satisfaction to the terrorists that INTENTIONALLY CHOOSE to blow up people that just chose to ride the subway that day, and say their actions are no different than the killing that sometimes occurs on a battlefield.
So, the Dems and others like you can COUNT ME OUT on jumping haphazzardly on that "band wagon"....but, to each his own... ;)
I see both of them as WRONG.....just not equal.
Thus I truely believe in loving thy enemy and by Turning my cheek, before war.... war is for self defense only....
care
OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 03:20 PM
I am not going to give the satisfaction to the terrorists that INTENTIONALLY CHOOSE to blow up people that just chose to ride the subway that day, and say their actions are no different than the killing that sometimes occurs on a battlefield.
care
Personally, I don't say "no different" -- except when I'm trying to irritate conservatives -- but rather "little different." It's the same mindset, really, just a difference of degree.
The terrorists and those who've decided to attack the terrorists in urban areas have made the same choice. Specifically, they've both decided that a certain number of civilian deaths are acceptable in pursuit of their goal. I'd say that they're both damned by it save that, as previously stipulated, I don't believe in damnation. ;)
Have you ever read the statements by the groups like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda? Inevitably, they say that civilian deaths are "regretable." They always say, however, that the innocents are not really innocent because they haven't joined to fight against the Great Satan, or the Zionist Invaders or whomever the chosen Evil du jur is.
Just like the Lebanese civilian deaths are "regretable" but they should have left when they had the chance and shouldn't have allowed Hezbollah in their communities in the first place.
Same sh*t, different toilets.
Care4all
08-09-2006, 05:44 PM
OrnotBitwise;5585]Personally, I don't say "no different" -- except when I'm trying to irritate conservatives -- but rather "little different." It's the same mindset, really, just a difference of degree.
The terrorists and those who've decided to attack the terrorists in urban areas have made the same choice. Specifically, they've both decided that a certain number of civilian deaths are acceptable in pursuit of their goal. I'd say that they're both damned by it save that, as previously stipulated, I don't believe in damnation. ;)
Sorry, I gotta stop you here, ONCE AGAIN, there is a difference...the terrorists CHOSE INTENTIONALLY TO KILL ONLY CIVILIANS TO MAKE a statement or a point.... to believe that there is "little difference" is just plain ignorant Ornot.... and like I said, I don't believe in war....I have ALWAYS been a Dove since the beginning.... I was even sickened by the actions in Afghanistan, but could understand why most Americans felt the need to go in there for our own security and safety, and to get Bin Laden. But all of the innocent people that we killed there made me ill...extremely ill... :(
I don't see this war in Lebanon in the same manner as the war in Iraq... I think Israel was and is justified in protecting themselves from Hezbollah, I just think their actions in defending themselves were the wrong actions...
We had no reason to go in to Iraq, Iraqis did not attack us, nor would they ever attack us more than likely, even with Saddam in power.... This was a TOTALLY unjustified war in my mind....
so yes:) I do have levels of "wrongness" or degrees of "wrongness" in my moral structure and my ethical foundation that I live by...and make my judgements by...
Have you ever read the statements by the groups like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda? Inevitably, they say that civilian deaths are "regretable." They always say, however, that the innocents are not really innocent because they haven't joined to fight against the Great Satan, or the Zionist Invaders or whomever the chosen Evil du jur is.
Nope, haven't heard any of the suicide terrorists say that! ;)
Just like the Lebanese civilian deaths are "regretable" but they should have left when they had the chance and shouldn't have allowed Hezbollah in their communities in the first place.
Well, they should have left if they did get the leaflet warnings....wouldn't you have done that?
....and I do not think this makes the death of any innocent people any less of a "death"
....just that they were warned...I have heard news reports that Hezbollah has held some of them as shields and at gunpoint, and that is why some of them may not have left, even though they were forwarned about the bombing to come....
And yes, I do believe that some of these people could be the wives and children and brothers of Hezbollah members...to me it would be illogical to think that some might not be...?
And once again, to me, that does not make their deaths any less of a "death"....they are all human beings and deserve to live in peace...
Same sh*t, different toilets.
And again, I respectfully disagree with you.
care
OrnotBitwise
08-09-2006, 05:56 PM
[B]Sorry, I gotta stop you here, ONCE AGAIN, there is a difference...the terrorists CHOSE INTENTIONALLY TO KILL ONLY CIVILIANS TO MAKE a statement or a point.... to believe that there is "little difference" is just plain ignorant Ornot.... and like I said, I don't believe in war....I have ALWAYS been a Dove since the beginning.... I was even sickened by the actions in Afghanistan, but could understand why most Americans felt the need to go in there for our own security and safety, and to get Bin Laden. But all of the innocent people that we killed there made me ill...extremely ill... :(
careWe're going to have to agree to disagree, I fear. :(
I just don't see any significant difference between someone deciding to kill civilians to terrorize the population and someone deciding to kill civilians in order to kill terrorists. Either way, they're deciding to kill civilians. The only difference is what they hope to get out of it . . . and that simply doesn't matter much to me.
Beefy
08-09-2006, 07:01 PM
There's a huge contextual difference here as well. Terrorists are labeled such because they use terror specifically to acheive their ends. They use this weapon because it is the only weapon at their disposal, and they are fanatical relifious nuts that see the world through a solely religious eye.
If they had better weapons, more money, and support from superpowers, they would probably be more conventional, using missiles and airplanes. Well they don't have that, so they use the far less effective suicide bombers.
Care4all
08-09-2006, 07:04 PM
We're going to have to agree to disagree, I fear. :(
I just don't see any significant difference between someone deciding to kill civilians to terrorize the population and someone deciding to kill civilians in order to kill terrorists. Either way, they're deciding to kill civilians. The only difference is what they hope to get out of it . . . and that simply doesn't matter much to me.
well it should matter to you ornot!
it is the difference between a JUST WAR and unjust war also....
it can also be the difference between following geneva convention with pow's or not to with pow's, they are both being held captive, but one behavior is different than the other, though both the same... i don't know if that came out right.... :(
But what I am trying to say is that there is a difference in killings...
For instance, even with you, I am certain it would be okay to kill someone else if they were threatening to kill you....
Or it would be okay to kill a person that was escaping the crime scene after just raping and killing your wife....
Killing a person that was raping your child....
These are human beings that you have most certainly justified their deaths in your head....for self defense...you feel, killing is okay...and you probably presume that most all others accept this "degree of killing".....
As you would put value on this kind of killing, others put "value" on other kinds of killing....
your son is drafted to vietnam, and he killed some vietcong in a war zone....certainly you have justified this killing also....even if the war was an unjustified war, was it your son's fault for killing someone that was fighting against him, even if the other guy was just trying to defend his land and beliefs?
To say that both circumstances of the killing of innocent people FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE, and the decision to accept civilian casualties as you go after the bad guys and targets that could hurt your citizen's safety is the same thing, both Terrorism, then like I have said before....I don't know what to say...because to me, thye LOGICALLY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME, NOR EVEN CLOSE...
though both may be the wrong decisions to make....which I think they are....(I think they should have gone in on foot as we should have done in Iraq, instead of all that shock and awe of nothing but the ruining of their infrastructure and yes, killing innocent people that stayed behind, even after we had warned them with flyers as the Israeli did....) I do not think they are on the same degree of killing...one is premeditated and one is in the second degree....though both killing...
And I just can't knock that, I am sorry....my whole life is run that way... :(
care
p.s. And yes, if I were the family member left behind, How my brother was killed or child was killed would not matter to me.....the pain and hatred towards those that killed my innocent relative would be the same....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.