Jump to content
Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

OT - Is the New York Times really that stupid?


Recommended Posts

They printed a story about a possible plan to invade Iraq. Why don't they just call Saddam and tell him what day it's going to start and where to point his anti-aircraft guns? :mad: During WWII, vast, complex hoaxes were devised to make the Nazi's think that the D-Day invasion was going to happen at a different time and place than what was actually planned. A look-alike for General Montgomery was flown to North Africa for mock troop reviews. Detailed false intelligence reports informed Berlin of bogus invasion details. A ficticious person was created to make the story more believable (the so-called "man who wasn't there"). All of the details of his life had to be fabricated. Churchill even went as far as to give orders to ignore intercepted warnings of an imminent attack on the royal palaces. If the royal family was moved at the last minute, the Nazis would have known that the Enigma code had been broken. Today, we have newspapers and cable and internet news networks warning rogue governments of impending attacks. What's wrong with this picture? I'm all for a free press, but can't these morons exercise a little restraint? Is there no such thing as patriotism anymore? I'd like to think that this is all part of a grand ruse to scare Saddam into accepting weapons inspections, but that seems unlikely in a culture that would sacrifice a nation's military advantage for an outside chance at a Pulitzer Prize.

The Black Knight always triumphs!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The other day on the radio I heard that the FBI was quietly warning it's field offices of a possible terrorist attack on supermarkets and large malls. Not too quiet of a warning huh? Gotta love news like that. But as far as the NY Times go they are simply pumping crap to the blood-loving populace. Same with Newsweek during the Desert Storm Operation. We need to hear about whats going to happen before it happens for some reason. Or mabye I have my head in a tight stinky place :D Iaian

San Andreas,

The hope to save our nation by turning Las Vegas into a seaside community. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote] I'd like to think that this is all part of a grand ruse to scare Saddam into accepting weapons inspections [/quote]Personally I think Saddam would be happy for the US to invade Iraq ,I'm guessing he thinks this would be a catalyst for some kind of world wide uprising of the Islamic nations against the west.One things for sure,things will get realy nasty .
I once had a quasi-religious experience..then I realised I'd turned up the volume.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another difference with WWII Dan was that people, the media included, tended to be more supportive of things and understood the need for secrecy a bit better. And in times of such extremen peril to a country, things get restricted moreso than in peacetime. I'm all for civil liberties and the Bill of Rights, but IMO, we're in such a time RIGHT NOW, and it would be better for the media to use some voluntary discretion than it would be for the government to impose restrictions. The advent of the "war on TV" was really with Vietnam, and nothing's been the same ever since. Yes, the NY Time CAN be that stupid... but how do you know it's not disinformation? ;) Not saying it IS, but it could be. Iraq can't know for sure. Remember, their media is totally State controlled, and in their world view, it is hard for them to understand that any country's media could be fundementally any different, especially where matters of national security are in play. Besides, Saddam would have to be an even bigger idiot than he is to NOT know we're going to go in there sooner or later - there's no way we're going to allow something like "The Sum Of All Fears" to go down here if we can avoid it. And he'd definitely USE the bomb if he had it. Mark, yes it would get nasty, but my bet is that most of the Islamic countries would not openly side with Iraq - because it WOULD be messy, and there's no "upside" for them - there's no way the USA would lose a war against them. And if that type of war comes, it's going to be a TOTAL war, and the gloves will come ALL the way off. :eek: Let's hope people are smarter than that - on ALL sides. Besides, look at history. Back in '91, Iraq had very few friends - the only ones I can think of off the top of my head were Sudan and Arafat's PLO. (boy did he bet on the wrong horse THAT time!) The Arabs are traders - businesspeople. If a total out and out war went down, they lose. Period. Not just militarily, although that's a given. They lose their oil. Their economies rely on them SELLING oil even more than ours relies on having that oil available to us. And they'd lose their POWER. That's more important to a lot of people than the money is. And if there's one thing the Saudi royal family wants, it's for the status quo ante to remain in effect. No WAY we'd allow that to happen if they went to war against us. We win, they'd be out. There's too much to risk and not enough odds that they'd win, and the payoff is too low to make such a risk palatable to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd hate to think Bush would sanction an unprovoked (in military terms) on Iraq but I wouldn't bet against it. I hope the US would be acting on their own - even Bush's new lapdog Blair might balk at unilateral action as he would recieve very little support both from MPs and from the general public. As for the paper ... until such a time as war breaks out I don't see why they shouldn't print what they want - it's all speculation anyway! :)
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." - Banky Edwards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rog, I'll assume you're a Brit, and maybe it doesn't apply to you over there, but in case you haven't noticed, for us over here in the USA, war already HAS broken out. Iraq is in violation of nearly all the agreements they made at the end of the Gulf War. No UN inspections. Violating No Fly zones. Attacking US and British aircraft that patrol said zones. Etc. Etc. But most relevant to the topic at hand, Iraq is a State sponsor of International terrorism. And Iraq is actively developing NBC capabilities. In case the acronym isn't familiar to you, that's not some TV network here in the States - it stands for Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons. Not a good mix with State sponsored terrorism. And Saddam has already shown that's he's more than willing to use such weapons - just ask the Iranians and the Kurds. "Unprovoked... Unilateral attack on Iraq"? Hardly. Now if you had said PROVOKED... PREEMPTIVE strike, I might be willing to agree with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe: [b]Rog, I'll assume you're a Brit, and maybe it doesn't apply to you over there, but in case you haven't noticed, for us over here in the USA, war already HAS broken out. Iraq is in violation of nearly all the agreements they made at the end of the Gulf War. No UN inspections. Violating No Fly zones. Attacking US and British aircraft that patrol said zones. Etc. Etc. But most relevant to the topic at hand, Iraq is a State sponsor of International terrorism. And Iraq is actively developing NBC capabilities. In case the acronym isn't familiar to you, that's not some TV network here in the States - it stands for Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons. Not a good mix with State sponsored terrorism. And Saddam has already shown that's he's more than willing to use such weapons - just ask the Iranians and the Kurds. "Unprovoked... Unilateral attack on Iraq"? Hardly. Now if you had said PROVOKED... PREEMPTIVE strike, I might be willing to agree with you.[/b][/quote]I'm not gonna start a war here Phil :) Saddam's been hectoring the US and UK for a while now - just trying to piss us off a little. He knows a massive strike against Iraq would lend him sympathy from other Arab nations and it looks likely that Bush is willing to give him what he wants. As for the NBC situation, there's propoganda coming from both sides. He used chemical weapons against Iran (when THEY were the bad guys) and against his own people. Didn't the US do something similar in Vietnam? All I'm saying is that there are always two sides and Bush had better know what he's getting into with this ... that's all. :)
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." - Banky Edwards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello All. Not that I work with the FBI/CIA or anything like that (for gods sake I`m a musician) but there is so much going on that the public does not know or will ever now. Do you really think the US govt. is going to give away any critical knowledge? Let the NY Times write what they want. I read the article with interest and was not surprised by any of it. The US govt. KNEW that terrorists attacks where looming but not of the magnitude of 9-11. The US was caught off guard because who the hell was expecting to be attacked with commercial airlines? Don`t be surprised in the future (in 20 years) when people are writing books on the subject and you hear about all the nucleur, chemical and biological weapons that were manufactured, used and discovered during our present time. They are battles going on everyday that go on without any knowledge (even the top military don`t know about). This is what "covert" is all about. The Honest to god truth is... I DON`T WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING THATS GOING ON. Let the govt. do what they have to do... thats why we pay them and thats why I get paid to make music. We`re pros so... DO WHAT YOU KNOW AND LEAVE ME ALONE. Heres an interesting theory a very old friend/neighbor of mine had. He was stationed at Pearl Harbor when it was attacked. He said the whole attack was known about and allowed because the US needed a way to get the public to support an all out war with Germany. The US knew an attack would give us/US the "IN" we needed. My neighbor was stationed at Pearl when it was attacked and he told me how everyone was allowed to take leave from the base for the weekend. Hmmm... He said this was rather unusual and after the attacks he put together this theory. Makes sense doesn`t it? Even though people were killed at Pearl Harbor, this was accepted and expected because the govt. had to make it look like it really was a surprise. {Unfortunately, the #s killed that day were considered a "small price" to pay. Hows that for scary?} Does the public really need to know all this? No and they could not because they never would have supported the war. Anyway, I`m not saying its true or false but it does sound familiar with 9-11 because WE KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. We just didn`t expect an attack of this size. Anyway... if I happen to disappear in the next few days... I knew too much. Yikes, Ernest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the Gulf War, Saddam was considered a hero for tackling the U.S., the greatest imperialist superpower in the world. What was an economic battle for the recovery of a nation in which we had oil interests turned out to be a war between civilizations. Despite the fact that Saddam´s actions were despised in the Arab world, Muslims nonetheless sided with him because he wasn´t afraid to tackle the Imperialist Western world. To us what seems to be a war between Muslim extremists and terrorism is considered by them to be the continuing battle between the Christian West and the Islamic Middle East. As long as the Western world intervenes on the actions of the Middle East, the U.S. will continue to look down the barrel of terrorism. Also, many Middle Eastern nations are achieving NBC capabilities. Considering the speed at which information and technology can be propogated, this is inevitable, yet Westerners refuse to acknowledge this. The only way that countries like Iraq, Sudan, Lybia, Algeria, etc. can compete with a nation that can mobilize and bomb any inch of the world within a few days is with weapons of mass destruction. They are moving very rapidly to achieve this because once they do we will no longer present a threat to that. By that I mean that once these countries develop nuclear capabilities, the U.S. and other Western countries won´t attack them. Can you think of one single country that has nuclear capabilities that the U.S. attacked? I can´t. Muslims are quite aware of this. The best option for the U.S. is to pull out and let the Muslim world work out their differences on their own. In doing so the U.S. will have to sacrifice some of its economic grip there. This means oil prices will go up, and consumers will be pissed. Human rights violations will occur there, and U.S. citizens will want to get involved. Regardless of whatever happens, we shouldn´t. I can go on about how there are problems in the U.S. regarding education, poverty, pollution, etc. and that the last thing we need to do is redirect resources to a battle with a different kind of people in another part of the world. But if the U.S. continues to engage in attacks against Muslim cultures for the sake of preventing terrorism, then America will have far more to worry about. -- Jimmy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The U.S. hasn't given out detailed plans for exactly HOW an attack will occur. Giving out the info that we WILL attack is to our advantage in two ways: 1) It makes the enemy expend effort in mobilizing 2) It makes the enemy reveal his defenses From what I gather, both Iraq and Israel are developing ethnic-specific bio weapons. [i]Or at least the idea has been seeded in the press[/i]; while Israel is capable of this I don't know if Iraq would have the wherewithal to do such a thing (at least not without Western technology that is SUPPOSED to be embargoed). We won't attack for a while. We'll wait until George Jr. puts his foot in his mouth again or does something stupid, then suddenly we'll see green nightscope footage all week on CNN and forget about it. Alternately, this will occur if Sharon wants to do something aggressive again in Israel, which is likely to happen since they've refered to the whole Jenin situation as "Phase 1".... instead of seeing stories about that we'll see images of things blowing up in Iraq. [i].. and we still won't have Bin Laden, we still won't kill Hussein, and Sharon will still be doing whatever he wants in the occupied territory, and terrorism will continue.[/i] Somalia will still be sitting there, Saudi will pull away from us even more, we'll lose about 3 more foreign-soil airbases, Libya and Khadaffi will still be there, Al Quaida will still have operatives in 20 different countries, North Korea will still be threatening South Korea, and India will still be provoking Pakistan. We'll spend millions of $, and probably kill hundred or thousands of Iraqi civilians and maybe a couple Americans will die in the process. ... and bubbas will still be sitting around saying "I wunder why all them people hate us so". The U.S. military isn't stupid enough to let out important tactical information, UNLESS it was deliberate. If they WERE that stupid - I wouldn't blame the New York Times Dan, I'd say it's time for new leaders in the military....

Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com

Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/

 

/ "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimmy, I have to dissagree with you because I honestly don`t think the Middle East will leave us alone now if we leave them alone. Its too late for that. Anyways, George W. Bush is too much of a "toughy". He likes to strut his military might and this is somewhat scary. At the same time, I feel that the US-Britian and possibly Russian Alliance would do the world good if they united and took out every country that harbors terrorism. Yes, this will take forever and it will probably never end but wouldn`t it be better for the Saddams Husseins of the world to be extinct. I`d sleep a little better at night knowing these monsters don`t exist. Ignoring a problem will not make it go away. I thought we all knew this by now. Peace, Ernest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]posted by Dan South: [b]They printed a story about a possible plan to invade Iraq. Why don't they just call Saddam and tell him what day it's going to start and where to point his anti-aircraft guns?[/b][/quote]Dan, Administration has been planning an Iraq invasion for months, and Saddam knows it. The point, I believe, of the NYTimes article, is for the paper to be seen publicly in Bagdad. Get it? It's a psy-ops thing. The pentagon leaks this stuff to the press to rattle the enemy. I personally thought it was a good article, and was glad to see it. Let's give our Arab friends a heads-up that we're serious about dealing with Herr Saddam.

Eric Vincent (ASCAP)

www.curvedominant.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<> The only way to end terrorism is to end the circumstances that cause it. Think about the suicide bombers: they feel they don't really have any reason to live, so they figure they might as well go out in a blaze of glory, getting respect from their peers they probably wouldn't have gotten in any other way. I believe these people are truly not terrorists at heart. I believe they are heartbroken, and are being manipulated to serve other people's agendas. If they had any hope whatsoever for the future, they wouldn't blow themselves up. The other day I saw a plane go overhead. I had a flash where I realized that in many parts of the world, there's a good chance a bomb would drop out of that plane and kill or injure you, or someone you know. There are places where just going to buy food is a risky exercise, and you can watch your kids die in front of your very eyes for diseases that would be preventable over here. It's one thing to talk about suicide bombers as nut cases, and as terrorists as something that has to be "rooted out." But the far more important question is WHAT MADE THEM THIS WAY. Treat the disease, not the symptoms. So far, it seems Bush is big on the symptoms, but very short-sighted when it comes to dealing with the disease. These people deserve not sympathy necessarily, but understanding. They are human beings who have lost their dignity, been betrayed by their leaders, and live in a world that is out of control and stacked against them. Does this justify terrorism? No. Does this explain why "rooting out terrorists" will never succeed as long as the conditions that led to it aren't ameliorated? Yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Government should always be held accountable and never trusted. Right wing or left wing. Letting members of the government devise policy in secrecy is a mistake. If this administration intends to invade Iraq it needs to get permission from the people through an act of Congress. The President does have the right to declare war.

"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis

maintain their neutrality."

 

[Dante Alighieri] (1265-1321)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good reply, Craig, and it applies to most of the terrorists. It does NOT, however, apply to Osama himself. He was born into wealth and voluntarily left it to pursue a goal of destroying the U.S. Granted, he himself will never perform a suicide mission, but he and people like him who are completely blinded by hate must still be hunted down; even if we could elevate the standard of living for the Palestinians there will always be poverty-ridden people without hope who can be recruited by monsters like this. And the way the world's population is spiralling out of control that's never going to change. Back to Dan's original question: whether this info was an intentional "leak" or not, YES the press is that damn stupid!! I will never forget in my life the pictures of our military attempting to dig in under cover of darkness during the Gulf War, while the press stood ten feet away with floodlights on full blast, "getting the story". :mad: :mad: :mad: To endanger U.S. soldiers just to get pictures for the 10:00 news I would consider High Treason. Damn!!

Botch

"Eccentric language often is symptomatic of peculiar thinking" - George Will

www.puddlestone.net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Anderton wrote: [quote]It's one thing to talk about suicide bombers as nut cases, and as terrorists as something that has to be "rooted out." But the far more important question is WHAT MADE THEM THIS WAY. Treat the disease, not the symptoms. [/quote]I disagee. Why then aren't ALL Palestinians suicide bombers? Surely whatever "MAKES THEM THIS WAY", makes ALL Palestinians "that way". No Paelstinian could actually protect themselves from the "disease", could they? No Palestinian is immune from the "disease", are they? Is there a vaccine? Or could it be that some Palestinians CHOOSE to be terrorists and some do not? What can I do to stop you from the choices you make? What are you going to do to stop the terrorists from making their choice? It's not as if the 16 year old girl bomber has exhausted every peaceful means of ending the conflict at her disposal and her only obvious choice left is to kill herself and take as many Jews as she can with her. She chooses to kill herself -it isn't INEVITABLE. Jonah Goldberg, a conservative columnist touched on that subject: "...Constantly we are told that these young people do what they do because they "have no hope." We — and more to the point, Yasser Arafat — cannot stop the suicide bombers, the Hanan Ashrawis declare, because you cannot stop hopeless people from committing suicide. Well, first of all, they're not committing suicide. They're murdering lots of people in a manner that takes their own life too. Suicide as a political act is quite common in human history. The most recent effective instance seems to me to be that of the Buddhist monks in Vietnam. But today's terrorists aren't killing themselves to make a statement, they are killing other people to make a statement. Even Hamas concedes this. They've said over and over again that the suicide bombers are visiting terror on Jews because it is the Jews they want to terrorize. But the more important point is that it is a myth that these people are killing themselves because of their "hopelessness," at least in the way the propagandists frame it. They are hopeless because they've been told to believe they have no hope — much like that college kid was led to believe that corporations prevented him from speaking his mind or becoming a lawyer, doctor, whatever. When you read the profiles of some of these human bombs, especially the female ones, it does not seem like their objective circumstances were hopeless. Some were students, some were engaged to be married. Some had jobs or good prospects. Indeed, the rise of human bombs tracks pretty closely with the improvement of the Palestinians' prospects. Ten years ago, such heinous acts were unheard of. And in those last ten years, Israel had moved more or less inexorably toward giving the Palestinians much of what they wanted: The Palestinian Authority was created in the last ten years. Indeed, in the last year and a half, the number of human-bomb attacks skyrocketed seemingly in response to the Palestinians' improving prospects. Israel had offered the Palestinians enormous concessions, and for the first time in history the president of the United States called for the establishment of a Palestinian state. In response, young men — and now women — were strapped with explosives and told to kill men, women, and children. The more hope, the more murder. Not the other way around. Why? The main reason isn't what Israel did — but what Arafat did. He in effect issued an order for the younger generation to become radicalized. If hopelessness were the cause of suicide bombing we would have seen it a generation ago, when the plight of the Palestinians in the wake of the 1967 war was much, much more bleak. But the most significant reason why the propaganda about "suicide bombers" is such a blatant lie, is that hopeless people do not have access to sophisticated belts of high explosives simply by virtue of their hopelessness. Depression over your nationalist aspirations does not magically conjure weapons of mass-murder. It takes hard work to sacrifice your body for mass murder — just look at the September 11 bombers. "I hate my life," or even "I hate Jews": These are not abracadabra words that pull these devices from an alternate dimension. Someone needs to give you these devices. Someone needs to buy them, make them, and hide them. Someone needs to train — i.e., brainwash — you. Someone needs to lay out and plan a path to a weak spot in Israeli defenses. And, as we are now learning, someone — like Saddam Hussein — has to compensate your parents and family to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars to pay for your "martyrdom." I wonder, do you still get your 72 virgins if you blew yourself up on a fee-for-service basis? Arafat's mouthpieces can say, "We cannot stop the hopelessness this brutal occupation breeds in these young people and that forces them to kill themselves." Well, they could actually do much to stop the hopelessness, in my opinion. But let's take them at their word. They could still, it seems to me, stop the well-funded organizations — many of them answerable directly to Arafat — from providing these "hopeless" youths with these weapons. They could, that is, if they wanted to. " Interesting points, I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think it matters if he knows we're coming or not. It's not like it's an even match. The U.S. can wipe Iraq out without batting an eye. I'm not bragging, it's just a fact. Saddam Hussein has been doing everything in his power to arm himself to the max since the last war. Whether he knows we're getting ready to attack has no effect on that. I think the greatest fear of the Muslim terroist is that Western religion,economics, and culture will overpower and destroy theirs. That may be a well founded fear, but the problem with trying to understand someone who is your sworn enemy is, while you are trying to understand them they may cut your throat. Now this may sound like war mongering but it's really just another example of the divisive forces affecting the human race.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if i were so hopeless to ever commit suicide, i would certainly take out a shitload of people with me that created the condition that brought on the suicide solution. fortunately, my life never even got near that road... and im sure it never will. i just find it odd that unconventional methods of fighting is called terrorism and conventional methods is called war. and unconventional means killing innocent people is deemed murder while conventional means is called collateral damage. america was full of little terrorists 250 years ago. i dont see the palestinians as anything different... and its really disturbing that the news is so focused on the being suicide murderers and not even bothering to listen to why they became that way.... its just simply dismissed.

alphajerk

FATcompilation

"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alphajerk wrote: [quote]i just find it odd that unconventional methods of fighting is called terrorism and conventional methods is called war. and unconventional means killing innocent people is deemed murder while conventional means is called collateral damage [/quote]alphajerk, I see it differently. Terrorism as exemplified by the Palestinian homocide bombers is not simply "unconventional fighting". Targeting defenseless civilians expressly for the purpose of inciting terror through murder is not the equivalent of soldiers fighting soldiers, is it? Killing innocent people (civilians) by specifically targeting them IS murder. Killing innocent people that are being used as cover by your enemy IS collateral damage, unfortunate, but a fact of war. Were the WTC victims collateral damage? The airline passengers? At least the Pentagon employees could be considered soldiers to some degree. Murdered or collateral damage? Why doesn't the PLO attempt to bomb Israeli troops more often? Surely ther "hopelessnes" could find no more visible, worthy and obvious manifestation than an armed IDF soldier. Martyrdom would certainly be twice-blessed if the victims were Israeli soldiers...but no, they like those shopping malls and markets, wedding parties and bat mitzvahs. If an enemy chooses to not play by the "rules of war", refuses to attack enemy soldiers and insists on using civilains as targets/shields, must we then try to understand his "motivations" and determine the "root causes" of his discontent? alphajerk wrote: [quote]america was full of little terrorists 250 years ago. i dont see the palestinians as anything different... [/quote]Really? Where is that Palestinian equivalent of the Declaration of Independence again...unless of course you mean the charter that calls for the complete elimination of Israel? George Washington was a terrorist? The Minutemen were terrorists? The Continental Army were terrorists? How many civilian British/Crown sympathizers were killed by these terrorists in civilian-targeted terrorist acts during the War of Independence? Yassir Arafat and the PLO = Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Hancock, Paine, Hamilton et. al.? Nope.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are engaged in a campaign of misinformation.... or maybe that's what we are supposed to think. Slight of hand. The magician moves one hand to catch your eye, while the other pockets the token. Watch The Phillipines or Sudan for the next action. ...or maybe I'm an idiot. :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<> Because not all Palestinians are the same. Some people are crushed by circumstances, some rise above those circumstances. But GROUPS of people can be made more receptive to messages through manipulation (a word I did not mention accidentally). The piece you quoted actually supports the concept that manipulation is part of the process, as well as betrayal from their leaders. I'm not romanticizing this at all. Just try to think where your mind would have to be to want to blow yourself up in a crowd of innocent people, then work backward as to how someone would get there. As to the connection between Palestinians having more hope leading to more bombings, I think the answer is much simpler than that. There are some people who don't want peace. They *want* to create enough chaos and friction to cause a full-on battle between Israel and the Arab states, because they believe they would ultimately annihilate Israel (a questionable belief, I think), as well as bring the US into this whole thing and bloody us as well. So yes, as the prospects for accommodation get closer, it becomes necessary to take more drastic steps to screw things up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

deluxe, dont kid yourself and everyone else here. the fucking israeli's are killing just as many [if not MORE] innocent palestineans by means greater than some explosives strapped to ones body, they just use US tanks to do it, US planes to do it. colonial america wanted the british occupation GONE, the palestineans want the israeli occupation GONE. and im sure to civilian palestineans, they view the leaders of their plight in just as grand of views as you hold those you mentioned. just imagine if YOU were a palestinean born in the west bank... im sure you would feel quite differently than the americentric views you spout. p.s. im NOT saying that the suicide bombers are RIGHT, just as i dont think what the US is doing is right, just as the israelis, saddam, OBL, ANYONE who doesnt view ALL life as precious... even "collateral" victims, and YES. thats STILL murder. i would rather die than take another humans life. i dont believe in an eye for an eye, or revenge.

alphajerk

FATcompilation

"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by DeluxeReverb: [b]Terrorism as exemplified by the Palestinian homocide bombers is not simply "unconventional fighting". Targeting defenseless civilians expressly for the purpose of inciting terror through murder is not the equivalent of soldiers fighting soldiers, is it? Killing innocent people (civilians) by specifically targeting them IS murder. Killing innocent people that are being used as cover by your enemy IS collateral damage, unfortunate, but a fact of war. Were the WTC victims collateral damage? The airline passengers? At least the Pentagon employees could be considered soldiers to some degree. Murdered or collateral damage? [/b][/quote]What about the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed in Viet Nam, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki? Were those innocent lives worth less than Israeli or American lives? What about the innocent original peoples of the Americas who were massacred by European invaders? One of the cruelest attributes of war is that its motives are so subjective. Any attrocity can be rationalized.

The Black Knight always triumphs!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, this is not a new thing. Conflicts drawn more or less exactly along these lines have been going on for many hundreads of years. Muslims dislike Christians. Muslims dislike Jews. Christians dislike Muslims. Jews dislike Muslims. Christians dislike Jews ... etc etc. Until people of all faiths stop thinking that they follow the one true faith and everyone else is wrong and therefore needs a bullet then we are collectively fucked. Sadly, having faith also means believing you're right. I don't see any way to have one without the other. I'm off to start a colony of aethiests on the moon ... anyone coming? ;)
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." - Banky Edwards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b]<> Because not all Palestinians are the same. Some people are crushed by circumstances, some rise above those circumstances. .[/b][/quote]Brilliantly put - every person's psychology is different - to believe otherwise is to assert we are sheep (and not even sheep have identical personalities!!!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by ernest828@aol.com: [b]Jimmy, I have to dissagree with you because I honestly don`t think the Middle East will leave us alone now if we leave them alone. Its too late for that. Anyways, George W. Bush is too much of a "toughy". He likes to strut his military might and this is somewhat scary. At the same time, I feel that the US-Britian and possibly Russian Alliance would do the world good if they united and took out every country that harbors terrorism. Yes, this will take forever and it will probably never end but wouldn`t it be better for the Saddams Husseins of the world to be extinct. I`d sleep a little better at night knowing these monsters don`t exist. Ignoring a problem will not make it go away. I thought we all knew this by now. Peace, Ernest[/b][/quote]Hey there Ernest, Indeed ... the U.S. has bitten off a bit more than it can chew, and we are in this . I read comments above about how the U.S. can wipe out Iraq, Sudan, Libya, etc. by merely mobilizing forces or pressing a button. Most of this can be done while sparing American lives and minimizing expenses. However, we should be more concerned about minimizing the aftershocks of such actions. Every action of ours will result in an equally devastating retaliation on American citizens in the not-too-distant future. We´ve seen this happen once; we can expect it to happen again. The only way to prevent such retaliation is to get out of the Middle East. Islamic culture is exploding at an unprecedented rate. Shares of world population under the political control of Muslims has increased from 2.4 percent in 1920 to 17 percent in 1995 and will probably increase to 20 percent by 2025. No one needs reminding of how passionate Muslims are regarding their religion. Furthermore, no one needs reminding of the steps they will take to prevent infiltration of other cultures into theirs. In other words, if you think that we have a problem now, just wait. Every Muslim country harbors many Saddams. Wiping out one isn´t going to do us any good. -- Jimmy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig Anderton wrote: [quote] Because not all Palestinians are the same. Some people are crushed by circumstances, some rise above those circumstances [/quote]Exactly my point, Craig. You characterized the Palestinian bombers as symptoms of a "disease". I say they are simply murderous reactionary assholes. If all Palestinians are equally afflicted by the "disease" of being "oppressed and humiliated", then how is it that the "disease" creates so relatively few homocide bombers? In other words, how can the majority of the population resist becoming homocide bombers? Could it be that the majority of Palestinians are decent, peace-loving people (just like the majority of alphajerk's "fucking isrealis") and the bombers are fringe lunatics? Should Mideast policy be framed around the actions of homocidal fringe lunatics? Isn't that what the fringe lunatics want? It's not an external condition or a "disease" that creates terrorists, it is that particular person's internal and personal decision to "rise or be crushed by circumstances" (as you put it). Changing/understanding the circumstances won't immediately make these people model citizens. Remember,the more concessions the Israeli's made, the more terror directed towards them. [quote]There are some people who don't want peace. They *want* to create enough chaos and friction to cause a full-on battle between Israel and the Arab states, because they believe they would ultimately annihilate Israel... [/quote]Yes, and isn't it true that those same people who don't want peace are the homocide bombers whose "circumstances" need to be "addressed", whose "disease" needs to be "treated", according to your initial post? You seem to now agree that some people are terrorists, and that perhaps understanding *why* they are terrorists will not make them any *less* of a terrorist. I have no respect for anyone who says "Woe is me, I feel so bad about my personal situation that I think I need to kill someone". As Goldberg says, it takes a lot of work to be a homocide bomber - it's not a desperate plea for help, but rather a calculated murderous action. For nearly every bombing there is an Israeli incursion or retaliation. What use are further bombings? Well, as I see it, they actually do succeed in what they are attempting: 1)To fool the world into thinking that the situation is so desperate that innocent Palestinian youth are willing to kill themselves of their own free will in response to being "humiliated". 2)To provoke the Israeli actions of self-defense which can then be re-defined as "oppressive aggression" against poor little Palestine, the innocent victim of the evil Zionists. Sorry, but I ain't buying it. Dan South wrote: [quote]What about the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed in Viet Nam, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki? Were those innocent lives worth less than Israeli or American lives? [/quote]What about them? Who put any kind of greater value or worth on any particular person's life? Not me. I don't understand the relevance of your question. Dan also wrote: [quote] What about the innocent original peoples of the Americas who were massacred by European invaders? [/quote]What about them? Who is indigenous to where? Why start with those pesky, good-for-nothing Europeans? Think bigger and deeper: How about the "original peoples" invading and killing each other? Or do you actually believe that war, conquest and assimilation were White European Male inventions? (Assuming you yourself are of European descent, such self-loathing is an unflattering and pointless trait, IMHO). You'll have to look elsewhere if you are trying to find someone to equate "European invaders" and "innocent original peoples of the Americas" with Palestinian homocide bombers and their victims. That's a leap in logic even I won't take! ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
  • Create New...