General Chat / WWIII

Well in theory, you can justify anything.

The difference here is that the US and Israel are not specifically targeting people who are innocent non fighting civilians. These groups are. Its one thing to target something that can fight back, its quite another to attack and unsuspecting defenseless being.

Sure you can justify it all you want, but there is a clear right and wrong here.

So kids, which television show did this war interrupt?

Well in theory, you can justify anything.

The difference here is that the US and Israel are not specifically targeting people who are innocent non fighting civilians. These groups are. Its one thing to target something that can fight back, its quite another to attack and unsuspecting defenseless being.

Sure you can justify it all you want, but there is a clear right and wrong here.

Blowing holes all over Beirut isn't targeting civilians?

Blowing holes all over Beirut isn't targeting civilians?

They do it like the Russians - tell 'em to evactuate right before they start blowing shit up.

Whatever happens between these two countries is none of the US's goddamn business. We just need to evac our civilians and let them be. The last thing we need is further involvement in the Middle East, after the PR fiasco that is the Iraq war.

-ACE

The thing I find flawed in nate's philosophy (I think) was that each side has their own thinking and belief structure. The thing is, much of the terrorist organizations are the ones who attack us (the US for this point) without prior, purposeful offensiveness; not vice versa. Therefore, when you say that each group's thinking is correct for them, yeah, it may be, but the terrorist side that attacked first with the intent to attack and wipeout the other group (US) for reason based on petty opinions, that's when someone crosses the line. I mean, wouldn't people find it offensive here if I went up to punch someone else for no reason other than because I don't like them?

So then whats the problem with me, being a westerner, taking the side of the Westerners?

And the thing you said about people are people and it doesnt matter whos getting killed, so I assume you dont believe in capital punishment, or any type of punishment for that matter? If someone does something wrong, that doesnt make them differant from someone that didnt do something wrong? People are responsable for their actions and it does matter who is the one being killed.

and

Sure you can justify it all you want, but there is a clear right and wrong here.

There is nothing wrong with taking the side of a Westerner. And there is nothing wrong with taking the side of a Middle Easterner. The problem arises when the two decide that the democratic process is useless and resort to violent means to come to a resolution. Your assumptions are correct, yeshli2nuts, I do not favour capital punishment. Hypothetically, 'Joe' commits a murder and is sentenced to the death penalty through lethal injection. The person who injects 'Joe', did he not just commit a murder? It's interesting, in that the whole purpose of a firing squad (as a early form of the death penalty) was to create ambiguity as to who actually killed the 'guilty one.' It exemplifies a kind of political consciousness to this dilemma of murder justifying murder.

Essentially, there is no right and wrong. Well, in actuality, they do exist, but they are based on opinions. Most of Western rights and wrongs are based on biblical morals. Since when is murder, actually, factually wrong? We are lead to believe it is wrong because we have been conditioned to believe so, but we live on a little tiny planet in a big empty universe; the only thing holding you back is you (Not holding you back from murder, please, don't read it that way. Holding you back from anything, generally speaking).

Therefore, when you say that each group's thinking is correct for them, yeah, it may be, but the terrorist side that attacked first with the intent to attack and wipeout the other group (US) for reason based on petty opinions, that's when someone crosses the line.

History. Firstly, September 11th was not the first attack against not only America, but the World Trade Centre (WTC). The WTC was attacked by Al-Qaeda in 1993. The reasons, as listed by Wikipedia are:

According to the journalist Steve Coll in his book 'Ghost Wars', Yousef mailed letters to various New York newspapers just before the attack, in which he claimed he belonged to the 'Liberation Army, Fifth Batallion'. These letters made three demands: an end to all US aid to Israel, an end to US diplomatic relations with Israel, and a demand for a pledge by the United States to end interference 'with any of the Middle East countries (sic) interior affairs'. He stated that the attack on the World Trade Centre would be merely the first of such attacks if his demands were not met. In his letters Yousef admitted that the World Trade Centre bombing was an act of terrorism, but that this was justified because 'the terrorism that Israel practices (which America supports) must be faced with a similar one.'

Wikipedia: World Trade Center Bombing

Every action has a history. Does the aforementioned article paint America as the creator of this mess. Definitely not. However, their ever reaching attempts at playing leader of the world, at which they really have no authority, targets the country.

However, their ever reaching attempts at playing leader of the world, at which they really have no authority, targets the country.

Well, the rest of the world seems to expect us to.

If some country needs aid, we're the one that gets asked, and we're the one that gets spiked if we don't provide.

I think this is a case of us being leaders when the world needs help, and scapegoats when things go fubar.

-ACE

Yes, and why were we attacked then?

The problem arises when the two decide that the democratic process is useless and resort to violent means to come to a resolution.

That is all fine and good in a situation where the two sides want to negotiate. When one side wants to negotionate and the other wants to exterminate there is a problem. Despite what so many think, that simply does not work.

Essentially, there is no right and wrong. Well, in actuality, they do exist, but they are based on opinions, not facts. Most of Western rights and wrongs are based on biblical morals. Since when is murder, actually, factually wrong? We are lead to believe it is wrong because we have been conditioned to believe so, but we live on a little tiny planet in a big empty universe; the only thing holding you back is you (Not holding you back from murder, please, don't read it that way. Holding you back from anything, generally speaking).

Bolded for comment. If a person truely is the only one who can hold himself back than that is exactly why murder is factually wrong. Murder is the holding back of another.

I'm certainly glad our debates have improved from past years.

This is a good thread so far. Just wanted to say that.

DON'T TRUST THE GERMANS.

Yes.

Anyway, every action has a consquence and we'll be feeling the consquences of this malarky for the next 30 years.

I think these pictures say just about everything I want to say about this. Imagine this is where you live. There is no justification.

Holy shit them last few pictures are nasty. I don't know anything about politics, war or anything, but i do know that whatever is going on over there needs to stop if more of that^ happens.

-X-

Love to read this debate... (Natelox:....some very good ones you have...!)

I try to stay out...would take me so much - boring - text in a language that is not my mothertongue...

But cannot leave to reply to all those ones that still believe the US is one of the "great saviours of this world": do read Cork's message again: their (=US, like many others of course) "helping others" is only because of enlarging their own power/glory/interests (forcing their believes on others), and not just out of pure "charity" or whatever...especially not with someone like a "Bush"....(imo) who did not put any effort into the Middle East at all so far:D (the former one Clinton did quite a great job on that, in mediating etc., and could still do I think, but of Course Bush will be too proud to ask his help......)

I don't deny that even by this "self-interest" sometimes very good and needed things are coming out of that for this whole world, (great thing, a self-interest sword which carves beautiful lines on two sides and it's what this world keeps on rolling...) but it's no "excuse" to close eyes for what (interests) are really going on.......

Edited by Emergo, 20 July 2006 - 02:05 PM.

For once, Pat Buchanan makes perfect sense:

http://www.wnd.com/n...RTICLE_ID=51116

I think these pictures say just about everything I want to say about this. Imagine this is where you live. There is no justification.

Those are terrible terrible pictures that no one would ever want to witness. Now where are the pictures of the countless suicide bombings that have happened in public places for the past five years in Israel?

Those are terrible terrible pictures that no one would ever want to witness. Now where are the pictures of the countless suicide bombings that have happened in public places for the past five years in Israel?

"THEY STARTED IT!!!" is a great philosophy to have, if you're a five year old.

For once, Pat Buchanan makes perfect sense:

http://www.wnd.com/n...RTICLE_ID=51116

Am sure you did not understand one penny of what I wanted to say.....don't blame you of course (as I did not go through the pain of writing out all what I wanted to say (in not my native language) and neither went through the effeort of referring to an outside article, but this one imo is..eh... a bit ...eh... cheap....

nvm, go on with the debate please, that as such is great, whatever you say....

"THEY STARTED IT!!!" is a great philosophy to have, if you're a five year old.

Except that Israel HAS exercised restraint for the past several months. But it hasn't gotten them far. So now they're back to violence.

It's not right. It's just reality.



And I should say that the U.S. has a historical legacy of siding with its allies through everything while condemning and even attacking enemies, even for little. You can have two different countries doing the same thing, but if one's an ally, the United States will praise them like there's no tomorrow.

Think about it. The U.S. does nothing to stop the corruption in Mexico because they're a trade partner. Saudi Arabia is an ally that arguably harbors one of the largest numbers of terrorists in the world, but you don't see real pressure put on them to clean out their own country (mostly because while the government is okay with the U.S., many of the people are not). Try envisioning the U.S. urging Turkey to admit to the Armenian genocide. Not gonna happen.

But if Saddam has so-called WMD's, it's invasion time.



By the way, check out the second most recent issue of Time magazine, where there's an article about how the Taliban is slowly reclaiming Afghanistan through psychological terrorism. Much of the country still remains in disorder. Outside of the major cities, the U.S. has made little progress since that initial surge (which did brings lots of liberties for women and children, which is good, but even that is sporatic).

Too lazy to look it up, but someone mentioned America is great in attacking, invading, and total offense. Which is totally true. But come clean-up stage and long-term stabilization, the U.S. fails pitifully. And still does. It's not even a matter of the soldiers who haven't been trained properly. It comes from the top, which consistently fails to plan for the "what exactly do we do after we've taken over everything" stage.



Finally, just remember that no side is blameless in a conflict. While I place a lot of the blame on Hezbollah for sticking their misguided necks into this mess, I do agree that Israel is carrying out an agenda with their bombing, basically releasing pent up frustration. I do think they were right to strike back, but not to this degree.

On the other hand, they're doing exactly what America did in Iraq, right down the manner and style.

Outside of the major cities, the U.S. has made little progress since that initial surge (which did brings lots of liberties for women and children, which is good, but even that is sporatic).

Who are you and I to decide what is good for the 'women and children', or any person in that, or any country? We believe our Western way of life is the be all, end all solution of which everyone, worldwide will enjoy. It's no different from a Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on your door and trying to sell you their religion. They obviously believe their way is the correct way to live, but those principles just don't work for you and I. Should our perceptions of 'freedom' and liberties be enforced upon a society who may not want anything to do with our way of life?