Munich - Crock of Hollywood Bullshit

Answa~ said:
I don't understand what you're getting at with this question, it just threw me off balance and confused me on your own standpoint.


It shouldn't.
MY standpoint is very different than the government's. That is the government's stand, if you can call it that.

If I ran things, the lady asking to conceal her identity on her license, would be told to leave, the correctional officer would get more of the taxpayers' money and the inmates, less of it, Osama would be flying high on a flagpole, with the thing three feet up his ass. MY stand is at least a little more focused.

I'm all for barbaric aggression when it's deserved.
 
Answa~ said:
Hehe... I'm against both the things being done and some of your answers to them. Injustice sucks... but, sadly, it's part of our daily lives. We have to do something about that.


I'm all ears...
 
Sneakypants said:
Why do we need friends, when we can take? It never stopped us in the past...
... the only reason the U.S. went to war with Iraq, twice, is that we knew ahead of time that we would't get pwned on a large scale.

2,000+ dead in the current war is acceptable to those who run the show.

Invading the Saudi's would lead to much higher casualties.

Let's not make any mistakes about it. Osama Bin Laden and his crew were perhaps not state-sponsored, but surely state-sanctioned. The fact that the 9/11 report has "missing" pages on the Saudi's should illustrate that quite clearly. Our government thinks that if the content of those missing pages would come to see the light of day, then the American public would be up in arms about sticking it to the Saudi's. Our government also believes that our people are better off not knowing, because if they knew, they would demand action, which would be bad for business.

Again, I have no trouble with the notion to go some place and lay waste to it, but ask yourself this: Who is the mastermind of 9/11? As far as I know that wasn't Saddam. Saddam aslo wasn't the guy with WMD (as many have said over and over before we send American's to die in Iraq). Where is Osama? Why hasn't he been captured or killed. We spend more of the taxpayers money on military and intelligence than most other nations combined, yet we can't find one guy in a cave? Give me a fucking break.

Saddam was an easy way out to take the attention away from Osama and the Saudi's, and as little extra we got Iraq's oil too. Life is good. McCain will have to clean this mess up in 2008.
 
Sculli said:
... the only reason the U.S. went to war with Iraq, twice, is that we knew ahead of time that we would't get pwned on a large scale.

2,000+ dead in the current war is acceptable to those who run the show.

Invading the Saudi's would lead to much higher casualties.

Let's not make any mistakes about it. Osama Bin Laden and his crew were perhaps not state-sponsored, but surely state-sanctioned. The fact that the 9/11 report has "missing" pages on the Saudi's should illustrate that quite clearly. Our government thinks that if the content of those missing pages would come to see the light of day, then the American public would be up in arms about sticking it to the Saudi's. Our government also believes that our people are better off not knowing, because if they knew, they would demand action, which would be bad for business.

Again, I have no trouble with the notion to go some place and lay waste to it, but ask yourself this: Who is the mastermind of 9/11? As far as I know that wasn't Saddam. Saddam aslo wasn't the guy with WMD (as many have said over and over before we send American's to die in Iraq). Where is Osama? Why hasn't he been captured or killed. We spend more of the taxpayers money on military and intelligence than most other nations combined, yet we can't find one guy in a cave? Give me a fucking break.

Saddam was an easy way out to take the attention away from Osama and the Saudi's, and as little extra we got Iraq's oil too. Life is good. McCain will have to clean this mess up in 2008.


Whoa, I never said to invade them. I said they, being our friends, shouldn't have a problem with letting us look around for people that harmed us.

When I say let's take it, I'm joking. Ah literalism! :)
Still, we could take it. ^^
/joy lol



2000 people dead in Iraq. ><
The majority of which died after the actual war / battles.
 
Answa~ said:
Heh, I'm only 18 and don't have any voice on US votings unless I move there, since I have citizenship...


You think being a registered voter matters in this country?
I'm not being sarcastic. If you do, I want to hear reasons why you think it matters.
 
Sneakypants said:
You think being a registered voter matters in this country?
I'm not being sarcastic. If you do, I want to hear reasons why you think it matters.
Well, now that I think about it... no. I mean, Bush is President... for the second time... *cough* Well, anyway, I'm 18 and pennyless.

Yes, money does talk, not just in the US, either.
 
Sneakypants said:
2000 people dead in Iraq. ><
The majority of which died after the actual war / battles.
Yeah, that's the biggest bullshit of all Bush pulled on the troops when he put up his fancy "Mission Accomplished" poster. He called the war "over" on May 1st (I believe) 2004 (or was it 2003, I am losing count), and since then the troops do not get combat pay anymore.
 
Sculli said:
Yeah, that's the biggest bullshit of all Bush pulled on the troops when he put up his fancy "Mission Accomplished" poster. He called the war "over" on May 1st (I believe) 2004 (or was it 2003, I am losing count), and since then the troops do not get combat pay anymore.

Yeah. ><
That's messed up. Doesn't the guy realize that's just BAD?!?!
 
Answa~ said:
*Raises his hand*

Why do bombs go boom?

An explosion happens when the material burns at such a speed the gasses generated by the combustion cannot escape at the speed they are created. This leads to ever buiding pressure which breaks the sound barrier, creating a sonic boom.

Or so I've read
 
Violence leads to resolution, all people are human beings first and foremost, therefore when enough evil is destroyed they will inevitably become good, because, in my opinion people are in general good unless made to be different.

In some cases, yes violence can become a cycle. In other cases, one side's aggressions is inevitable. Notice how when Europe tried to appease the Germans prior to WW2 that it was ineffective. The Nazi's objective was total control of the world. Similarly the terrorist's objective is total extermination of any non-muslim in the middle east.

What if Spielberg took Peter Jackson's place to direct Lord of the Rings. Would we leave the theater thinking... "Wow... those poor orcs, if those damn hobbits don't stop don't swinging back the war will never be over!"? Some times there is such a thing as good and evil, and I'm sorry to tell those who disagree, but Israel, really are the good guys.

Furthermore, there's a feeling of guilt fighting countries with dictatorships in my mind. There is only one person to blame yet everyone else is killed. If Iraq should become a democracy and then decide to fight the US, we'll simply beat them again and spin the dice with a new government.

However that seems highly unlikely, Iraq has much bigger problems than worrying about fighting other nations, and once they reach the point that they don't have those problems, they will be grateful to the US.

The fact of the matter is, these terrorists hate everyone who is different, they don't respect the life of those the same and they are impossible to be reasoned with. The only logical thing to do is kill them. I can only label criticism of Israel's defense as one thing and one thing alone, anti-semetism. The world has always hated Jews and don't consider their protection worth the bad press. Then so many Americans take Spielberg's opinion that violence is always bad, as if there's any other option for the terrorists than kill them.

Here's a few quotes from a very cool guy in the IDF on this other debate I was reading. They were talking about the movie and Israel's policy and anti-semitism.


Hey I would just like to clarify to complete misinterpretations.

Seeing as I live in Israel and i am currently serving in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), I think i can say better than all of you about the situation. While you can all claim that I have a very subjective view, pro-Israel if you wish, I assure you what I state are excepted facts.

I am not even going to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it is such a complex issue which cannot be resolved in a few sentences. However, if any of you would like to discuss the topic i would be more than interested.

I hate when Jews cry anti-Semitism for every little thing. However, certain events, comments, actions, ARE based and due to anti-Semitism.

The Passion of Christ was deemed anti-Semetic because of the poor portrayal of the Jews of the time. To say it is historically accurate is completely moronic and shows an utter lack of simple historical comprehension of the time. For example, Josephus had a completely different view of Jesus and his story is very very different fot the version fo the New Testatment. The Talmud, again has another portrayal. The Passion of christ is based on one of the FOUR version fo the story of Christ related in the New Testatment, so even they weren't sure which was right, I am interested to know how come you are so sure. Pontius Pilate was an extremely brutal roman leader who couldn't care less about Jesus, and the portrayal of him as a sympathetic leader who was nice and gentle is simply insluting to educated audiences. The Jews in the film are all ugly and disgusting as opposed to Jesus who is a good looking actor whith a charm and holiness about him. The whole scene where the jews riot in front of the palace and finally choose Barrabas instead of Jews, show the Jews as a sick demented wild mob. For reasons such as those the Passion was labelled anti-Semitic. Jews for over two thousands years have suffered at the hands of zealous Christians who blamed them for Jesus's death. Being such a sensitive issue, Jews today were frightened by the meaning and consequences of the movie, especially in this post-Holocaust modern era. To whoever said that "The Jews killed Christ, you can't twist that" all I say is maybe you should do some reading.

While not everyone who criticizes Israel for her politics is anti-Semitic, the notion of being anti-Israel stems from anti-Semitism. It isn't politically correct to be anti-Jewish but it is very fashionable to be anti-Israel. The Palestinians are an oppressed people (although I don't think they qualify as a nation according to the definition of the word, plus they were formed in the 1920's not thousands of years ago as they would claim), but Israel is the victim. The arabs worlds owns an astonishing 22 countries around the world yet none of them have offered a permanent solution to the Palestinians. No let's force the Jews to take them. The Palestinians deserves right and to be treated better (But I might add that they are treated better then they would in any other arab country), however those who say you don't agree with Israel, her right to exist and most improtantly which is so often forgotten, to defend herself and her citizens! without a complete understanding is a quick reaction to media and influence and is based on an anti-Semitics nature.





But to all you people who think you know something and don't, here is a short history lesson.

Jews having been living in Palestine since the destruction of the Second Temple way back in 70 A.D. Although there was never an official Jewry in Palestine there have always been Jews living there.

Jews began immigrating to Palestine (then under Ottaman rule) during the second half of the 19th century. In 1896, the first Zionist Convention was held in Basel, Switzerland, lead by Israel's visionist Theador Herzl. it was deemed then that a Jewish state needs to be formed as a safe haven for Jews around the globe from the escalating anti-semitism in the world. They began buying land (note, NOT STEALING BUT BUYING) land from Arab owners in the Palestine region. After the second world war the Mid-East was divided by the French and British. Britain took Palestine and Transjordan and France took Syria and Iraq. All these countries were formed then. (I think there were some other countires too but I don't remember). In 1917 Britain put out the Balfour Decleration stating that a "two state" resolution should be made for the Palestine issue. The Jews rejoiced while the Arabs rejected the decision. In 1947 the U.N. recognized the right of the Jews to form a Jewish state in the land of Palestine and again called for a "two state" resolution. Again the Jews accepted while the Arabs said no. The U.N. demanded that the British leave and the Jewish state be formed. In 1948 on the 5th of May, Israel was founded when the British left. The Arabs were not happy by this and due to immense pressure from the Soviet Union (they wanted control in the Palestine region for military and influential reasons) FIVE arabs states waged war on Israel: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Sudia Arabia and Iraq. The world did nothing as they would continue to do in the years succeeding when Israel was attacked. Finally in 1949 after Israel suffered many casaulties, as did the Arabs, a truce was reached based on military considerations. (Now this is important, they did NOT decide final borders but due to military considerations reached a cease-fire) So there is no pre-67 borders it is a myth! The Arabs were upset because basically they got their asses kicked and lost a lot of land (not exactly what they were hoping for...) and they started winging and whining. In 1956 again, Egypt waged war cutting off Israel's water supply. Israel retaliated and conquered the whole Sinai region. But they gave it back due to world pressure. In 1967 again, on the brink of war, Israel made a pre-emptive attack on the countries who had waged war on her and Israel again conquered more lands. In 1973, again Israel was attacked and they again conquered the Sinai Dessert (which was given back in the Israel-Egypt peace agreement in 1979.) So I can continue like this and show you all the facts but I think we get the point. Israel didn't steal anything, there is no Palestinians, oh and the world hates Israel and wants to appease the arabs.





Firstly, don't bring emotional physcological warfare in this debate. I am very sad for your friends, however, I too have known several people who have been killed through terrorists attacks and fighting. A friend of mine was killed on a bus bomb, another in a terrorist shooting at his school. And i can go on for hours but lets face it, both sides have suffered. However, a difference should be made. Now don't take this as an insult to you or your friend, but ALL and I stress all Israelis that have been killed in this conflict were INNOCENT (as you put it) civilians. Now when I say innocent I mean that they were targeted simply for the fact that they were Israeli/Jewish. That is not the case with the Palestinians. While I admit that innocent people have been killed, like your friend, which by all means is wrong, several terrorists were killed too. That makes for a huge difference in the definition of the casaulties. Personally, I think that when assessing the Palestinian casaulty number the terrorists should be disregarded from the count. I think it is an inslut to those truly innocent people such as your friend.

You asked me if i have ever questioned Israeli tactics. The answer is yes but I then understood that the situation calls for certain actions. Israel is NOT "all perfect and cannot do wrong", BUT for it's worth, the situation that Israel is in, they are doing blo*dy well. Israel is not the west, and things don't go here like in the U.S. and until the world understands that, we won't have a solution. The Middle East is different!! A different way of thinking.

Israel is the victim. Israel is the victim of racism and pure hatred. Israel is the victim of terrorist organizations. Groups like the Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, the Hizbollah, the Fatah, and many others. These organizations are sponsored and allowed to run free by the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Syria Lebanon, and Iran. Iran, Lebanon and Syria all openly sponsor the Hizbollah, Syria funds the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and the Hamas. Egypt funds the Jihad, the Hamas and Al Aqsa. Do you want me to continue? They are not a few people from Gaza who have risen up, they are a new form of attacking Israel. When the sorrounding states realised that they could not defeat Israel through convential warfare they resorted to terrorism, and the WORLD NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND THAT!! These nations pry on the Palestinian people to achieve their goal. they could not care less about the Palestinians. Tell me if they do care, why have they not offered to take in the Palastinians to the thousands of miles of land? Why do they not help them? Fund education, health care, etc?

The story of you at the checkpoint saddens me to think that people, especially from my country could behave like that to another human being. However, to take an individual and claim he is the whole is silly at best. I know many people, including myself, who treat the Palastinians very respectfully at checkpoints. The Israeli army denounces and Court Marshals soldiers who act badly at the checkpoints. The army as a whole is moral and they attempt (I admit that it fails sometimes, even a lot of times) to protect innocent civilians from harm. That is IDF policy. Fact.

I feel that whatever Israel needs to do to protect herself from those who rise up against her, to destroy her, then yes is justified. I wouldn't say that about any country, the whole "whatever they need to do" because different countries would have different concpetions of "whatever" is. But since it is Israel, then yes whatever. Because I know that the "Whatever" of Israel is within the bounds of excepted morality. It is a country based on a moral and ethical religion, and democracy, taking a lot for the West and the stongest democracies around the globe. And the country attempts to live up to those standards. i have full belief that Israel will never go beyond the realms of ethical judgememt. Again this is not about individuals, but the country as a whole.

Regarding the crime situation in Lod. All i can say is that Israel is a very new country. Having only been around for fifty years, the country is doing amazingly, especially considering the situation. Unfortunatly, the police have more important matters to worry about, i.e. terrorism, and the therefore the war on crime has suffered. The whole country is experiencing the setbacks and Jerusalem too has crime. But you should know that crime in Israel is one of the lowest in the world...

Phew... Hope i answered.


And another guy makes a case for the civilian death count.


There orignially was an accusation that a massacre took place in the town. Palestinian sources claimed that around 500 people were killed. Later the numbers went down.
Do you know how many Palestinians were killed in the Jenin battle? Approximately 52. Fifty two.
Do you know how many of those 52 were civilians? Approximately 22. Twenty two.

You see... you are dealing with serial liars and murderers here. Even if they do get interviewed on the BBC. I was touring India at the time and one of the op-ed pieces in the paper (The Times of India, I believe) compared Jenin to the concentraion camps of the Holocaust. I love the media.

Do you know how many Israeli soldiers died in Jenin? 33. Thirty three. 13 (Thirteen) in one day alone. Do you know why they died in Jenin that day? Do you? It is because Israel sent in men on foot to pick off the terrorists and destroy their infrastructure. Jenin was a terror hornet's nest. Israel could have sent in planes to carpet bomb Jenin and the whole thing would have been over in 5 minutes. But had they done that, some enlightened would claim that Israel destroys entire towns and hundreds of civilias in a single operation. The BBC would report a massacre.
Oh wait... that happened anyway. Darn, I guess those soldiers died for nothing. They go in with infantry to minimize civilian loss, at their own risk and get accused of bombing an entire town. They may as well have actually done it and lived.

What was it like fighting in the town of Jenin, in which the noble Paestinian freedom fighters took such good care of their own civilian population? Well, from the horses mouth, I give you the words of Tabaat Mardawi, an Islamic Jihad member in a CNN interview:
there were "between 1000 and 2000 bombs and booby traps" placed by Palestinians throughout the camp.

After learning that Israel was sending in ground troops and not fighter planes:
"It was like hunting ... like being given a prize... I've been waiting for a moment like that for years."

BTW, some of the explosives were reported to be as large as 250 lbs.

Spreading booby traps all over a civilian town, inflating the body count and later blaming Israel for a massacre. And why won't they do it? They know that foolish and gullible individuals from around the world will believe them and be glad to support them.

When offered a chance for a state in 2000, their wise leader should have taken it or given a proper counter-offer instead of starting a violent and bloody intifada.

When a society has men who braiwash boys into blowing themselves up on buses and killing children and those men hide among civiilians and build their bombs in civilian areas, well those areas will become war zones.

The IDF goes after terrorists and in some operations civilians die. As opposed to the Hamas which goes after soldiers and civilians and when civilians die it is a part of the mission.
If Israel really had a "guiding principal" to kill as many Palestinian civilians as possible, there WOULD BE NO Palestinian civilians. There would also, BTW, be no dead soldiers like the ones in Jenin because Israel would NOT risk infantry losses.

BTW, I hope that one day you have a gun in your hand and that it is filled with bullets. I hope that the next moment a group of "kids" throw sharp rocks and flaming bottles at you. As those harmless rocks and flames hit you on the head, I wonder what your reacition will be.
Doesn't sending out kids to test defenses (on the fence for example) or to cross a checkpoint with a bag filled with explosives (sometimes against their knowledge), or using the sick and ambulances to smuggle ammo and bombs, strike you as a bit sick?
"When they are alive, they are fighters, but when they are dead (and the cameras are watching), they are kids." seems to be the motto over there.

I am NOT arguing that no mistakes or flat-out immoral decisions are made on the part of the IDF. I am arguing that no army would do better under identical circumstances and I can't help but wonder how you can even dare to lecture Israel about human rights and morality when they are faced with an enemy who know nothing of either one.
 
Back
Top