A cartoon vs. reality
-
Farhan Noor Qureshi wrote:
At least 422 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in Lebanon
since terrorists don't wear uniforms, just how in the hell can anyone tell? -- modified at 17:06 Wednesday 26th July, 2006
Actually, Hezbolla do wear uniforms. They even have a flag, it is yellow BTW. But thankyou anyway, one agin your total ignorance of the situation shines through giving the rest of the world a clear indication of the US's ability to engage in world issues inteligently and maturely.
Tronché pas ma miche!
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So in other words, you trust your media to tell you what to think ?
I don't trust the media to tell me anything. But I do trust my own common sense. I'm simply not going to believe the word of people who slaughter innocents as a matter of course and as a part of the strategy. Hizbollah are murderers. They are nothing but murderers. They have no political legitimacy of any kind. They should not be listened to or reasoned with. They should simply be killed.
Christian Graus wrote:
What if the women and children in question have been locked up for no good reason ? Doesn't that constitute terrorism ? Not saying that this is the case, but my question is, how do you know that it's not ?
I simply do not believe Israel would do that. Israel is a civilized nation guilty of nothing more than exerciseing their right to survive. If they have them locked up, it is for a damned good reason.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't trust the media to tell me anything
OK, good.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm simply not going to believe the word of people who slaughter innocents as a matter of course and as a part of the strategy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Israel is a civilized nation guilty of nothing more than exerciseing their right to survive
OK, so either you DO trust your media to help you form opinions, or you've spent time in the Middle East, in a privileged position of being able to examine their political process and the quality of justice available to people of all races there ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Because it might interfere with your one dimensional view of the situation ?
Are you suggesting that it might justify Hezbollah's actions if Israel had imprisioned "women and children"?
Score: 1.0 (1 vote). wrote:
if Israel had imprisioned "women and children"?
There's no 'if' about it, according to what I've seen. And, the answer is no. It points to both sides provoking the situation, both sides are at fault.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't trust the media to tell me anything
OK, good.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm simply not going to believe the word of people who slaughter innocents as a matter of course and as a part of the strategy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Israel is a civilized nation guilty of nothing more than exerciseing their right to survive
OK, so either you DO trust your media to help you form opinions, or you've spent time in the Middle East, in a privileged position of being able to examine their political process and the quality of justice available to people of all races there ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, so either you DO trust your media to help you form opinions, or you've spent time in the Middle East, in a privileged position of being able to examine their political process and the quality of justice available to people of all races there ?
No, I said I trust my common sense. Not trusting the media doesn't mean that I therefore think every single thing I hear or see is an overt absolute lie. I don't think the events of 9/11 were a lie, I don't believe that it is a lie that suicide bombers from various Islamic organizations routinely murder people, especially in Israel. The media may try to spin those facts in any number of ways, but they remain facts. My common sense tells me that it would be foolish to even consider listening to people who employ terrorist tactics. People who are capable of such acts will say any thing to accomplish their objective. They are not worth listening to. Their own acts utterly invalidate any other position they could possibly wish to promote. Even if I knew absolutely nothing about Isreal, if it is under attack from those whom I know to be evil (as I have defined above), than it is altogether logical to assert therefore that they must be trying to destroy Israel because Israel is, in fact, not evil. In other words, I am for what ever the terrorists are against, and I am against whatever the terrorists are for, without any further consideration of explanations or rationals for their behavior. I am completely close minded on the issue of terrorism. No cause justifies it, and it should be opposed with unrelenting fury and intolerance without listening to a single word any of them have to say. The only reason one might wish to have a conversation with one of them would be as a pretext for getting close enough to kill him. I don't need any kind of media to help me arrive at that conclusion - it is thoroughly straight forward reasoning.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
I'm interested to know - does anyone in the USA know that those soldiers were kidnapped to try and achieve the release of women and children being held in prison by Israel ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Really? I didn't heard anything about this! :confused: You could be missinformed about this, isn't possible?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, so either you DO trust your media to help you form opinions, or you've spent time in the Middle East, in a privileged position of being able to examine their political process and the quality of justice available to people of all races there ?
No, I said I trust my common sense. Not trusting the media doesn't mean that I therefore think every single thing I hear or see is an overt absolute lie. I don't think the events of 9/11 were a lie, I don't believe that it is a lie that suicide bombers from various Islamic organizations routinely murder people, especially in Israel. The media may try to spin those facts in any number of ways, but they remain facts. My common sense tells me that it would be foolish to even consider listening to people who employ terrorist tactics. People who are capable of such acts will say any thing to accomplish their objective. They are not worth listening to. Their own acts utterly invalidate any other position they could possibly wish to promote. Even if I knew absolutely nothing about Isreal, if it is under attack from those whom I know to be evil (as I have defined above), than it is altogether logical to assert therefore that they must be trying to destroy Israel because Israel is, in fact, not evil. In other words, I am for what ever the terrorists are against, and I am against whatever the terrorists are for, without any further consideration of explanations or rationals for their behavior. I am completely close minded on the issue of terrorism. No cause justifies it, and it should be opposed with unrelenting fury and intolerance without listening to a single word any of them have to say. The only reason one might wish to have a conversation with one of them would be as a pretext for getting close enough to kill him. I don't need any kind of media to help me arrive at that conclusion - it is thoroughly straight forward reasoning.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't believe that it is a lie that suicide bombers from various Islamic organizations routinely murder people, especially in Israel.
OK, see, that's something you can only trust the media to report, you have no first hand knowledge and certainly no context on those events.
Stan Shannon wrote:
than it is altogether logical to assert therefore that they must be trying to destroy Israel because Israel is, in fact, not evil.
This cowboys and indians mentality is what amazes me. Why must one side be evil, and hte other good ? Why can't they just both be idiots ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
. I am completely close minded on the issue of terrorism.
http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0410/041008.htm[^] Here is an exerpt. Young men who join the army want to fight in the most sophisticated tanks, to fire the most frightening cannon, to fly the brand new jet fighters, to operate the Apache helicopters, to conquer the most heavily fortified enemy positions, to parachute behind enemy lines. Then, after all their extremely difficult training, after all the suffering and ambition, they find there is no heroism, no glory, no diving as marine commandos under the waters of the Persian Gulf. Instead, all they do is throw families out of their homes in the middle of the night, demolish their houses, bomb a six-story building in Gaza, starve a town, harass women at checkpoints, watch Shin Bet torture detainees, bring more misery to the refugee camps. Surely this sounds like terrorism to you ? What skills do you bring to bear in assuming that this story is a lie, but the stories you're told of attacks on Israel are completely unbiased and true ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Really? I didn't heard anything about this! :confused: You could be missinformed about this, isn't possible?
If you mean the hostage situation, it's been widely reported here that the Israeli soldier was kidnapped as a hostage for release of women and children held by Israel. I've mentioned this in the soapbox before, the response has been 'well of course they all had bombs strapped to them' ( one wonders if this is so, why they were still alive to arrest ). The Israeli response was not to deny that they have these prisoners, but to state that they 'don't negotiate with terrorists'.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't believe that it is a lie that suicide bombers from various Islamic organizations routinely murder people, especially in Israel.
OK, see, that's something you can only trust the media to report, you have no first hand knowledge and certainly no context on those events.
Stan Shannon wrote:
than it is altogether logical to assert therefore that they must be trying to destroy Israel because Israel is, in fact, not evil.
This cowboys and indians mentality is what amazes me. Why must one side be evil, and hte other good ? Why can't they just both be idiots ?
Stan Shannon wrote:
. I am completely close minded on the issue of terrorism.
http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0410/041008.htm[^] Here is an exerpt. Young men who join the army want to fight in the most sophisticated tanks, to fire the most frightening cannon, to fly the brand new jet fighters, to operate the Apache helicopters, to conquer the most heavily fortified enemy positions, to parachute behind enemy lines. Then, after all their extremely difficult training, after all the suffering and ambition, they find there is no heroism, no glory, no diving as marine commandos under the waters of the Persian Gulf. Instead, all they do is throw families out of their homes in the middle of the night, demolish their houses, bomb a six-story building in Gaza, starve a town, harass women at checkpoints, watch Shin Bet torture detainees, bring more misery to the refugee camps. Surely this sounds like terrorism to you ? What skills do you bring to bear in assuming that this story is a lie, but the stories you're told of attacks on Israel are completely unbiased and true ?
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, see, that's something you can only trust the media to report, you have no first hand knowledge and certainly no context on those events.
Yes, and you have to trust the media that Arab children are actually being killed by Israelies in Lebanon. It isn't a matter of trust. It is a matter of common sense.
Christian Graus wrote:
This cowboys and indians mentality is what amazes me. Why must one side be evil, and hte other good ?
Because terrorism is evil. That which opposes evil is good. The situation is no more complex than that. If you try to make it more complex than that, it just becomes something else for the side of evil to take advantage of - and it will. You don't try to rationalize evil. You kill it, and move on. That worked very well for the cowboys.
Christian Graus wrote:
Here is an exerpt...
:zzz: (EDIT - Besides, why is the media source this is from any more trustworthy than any other. Seems to me that you are far more trusting of media sources than am I)
Christian Graus wrote:
Surely this sounds like terrorism to you ? What skills do you bring to bear in assuming that this story is a lie, but the stories you're told of attacks on Israel are completely unbiased and true ?
I'm sure it is true. That is sure as hell what I would be doing if I were Israel. -- modified at 8:47 Thursday 27th July, 2006
-
If you mean the hostage situation, it's been widely reported here that the Israeli soldier was kidnapped as a hostage for release of women and children held by Israel. I've mentioned this in the soapbox before, the response has been 'well of course they all had bombs strapped to them' ( one wonders if this is so, why they were still alive to arrest ). The Israeli response was not to deny that they have these prisoners, but to state that they 'don't negotiate with terrorists'.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
This make things worse than I judged at first sight. Then, who is guilty about all these? Israel? (Anyway, I'm sure that are big interests to have a war in that area, and with or without hostages pretext, the war should be there. I smell like Irakian "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to me.)
-
If you mean the hostage situation, it's been widely reported here that the Israeli soldier was kidnapped as a hostage for release of women and children held by Israel. I've mentioned this in the soapbox before, the response has been 'well of course they all had bombs strapped to them' ( one wonders if this is so, why they were still alive to arrest ). The Israeli response was not to deny that they have these prisoners, but to state that they 'don't negotiate with terrorists'.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
And who was the poster girl for these prisoners? This mother Theresa figure[^]. Who, with a little googling you can discover that she has previous, for plotting with Islamic Jihad: "Ataf Alian, who planned to execute a suicide bombing by detonating a car bomb in Jerusalem in 1987. Ataf Ailan was imprisoned in Israel for 10 years and was released in 1997." And whose poor, pining husband has convictions for raising funds to support terror. She is currently interned, granted: "Ataf Ilayan is a Palestinian woman who is a member of the Islamic Jihad. When Palestinian prisoners were released as part of the Oslo Accords, Ilayan also went home. She was free until one month ago when Israeli police boarded a bus in a Palestinian- controlled area and re-arrested her, placing her in “administrative detention” — arrest without trial. Ilayan declared a total hunger strike — no food or water — until Israel releases her." But 'Innocent', no.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, see, that's something you can only trust the media to report, you have no first hand knowledge and certainly no context on those events.
Yes, and you have to trust the media that Arab children are actually being killed by Israelies in Lebanon. It isn't a matter of trust. It is a matter of common sense.
Christian Graus wrote:
This cowboys and indians mentality is what amazes me. Why must one side be evil, and hte other good ?
Because terrorism is evil. That which opposes evil is good. The situation is no more complex than that. If you try to make it more complex than that, it just becomes something else for the side of evil to take advantage of - and it will. You don't try to rationalize evil. You kill it, and move on. That worked very well for the cowboys.
Christian Graus wrote:
Here is an exerpt...
:zzz: (EDIT - Besides, why is the media source this is from any more trustworthy than any other. Seems to me that you are far more trusting of media sources than am I)
Christian Graus wrote:
Surely this sounds like terrorism to you ? What skills do you bring to bear in assuming that this story is a lie, but the stories you're told of attacks on Israel are completely unbiased and true ?
I'm sure it is true. That is sure as hell what I would be doing if I were Israel. -- modified at 8:47 Thursday 27th July, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because terrorism is evil. That which opposes evil is good.
I wish I was able to live in a world as juveline as yours, it must be comforting. I don't disagree with either statement, in theory. It doesn't prove that the only possible situation in the world is one of good and evil, white and black hats.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is sure as hell what I would be doing if I were Israel.
OK, now we're getting somewhere. Your definition of 'good' is the side for which you're able to rationalise evil acts.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because terrorism is evil. That which opposes evil is good.
I wish I was able to live in a world as juveline as yours, it must be comforting. I don't disagree with either statement, in theory. It doesn't prove that the only possible situation in the world is one of good and evil, white and black hats.
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is sure as hell what I would be doing if I were Israel.
OK, now we're getting somewhere. Your definition of 'good' is the side for which you're able to rationalise evil acts.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Christian Graus wrote:
Your definition of 'good' is the side for which you're able to rationalise evil acts.
Its the side which has a reason for resorting to evil deeds for the greater good, and not merely being evil for the sake of being so. For example, hizbollah does not care about the people in the prisons, they are just a means to an end, a way to rationalize their objective of destroying Israel. They don't wish to live in harmoney with anyone or anything, they merely wish to destory for the sake of destroying. Say what you wish about Israel, its purpose is the protection of its own existence,the protection of its own citizens, and, in a very real sense, the defense of those western liberal values that they introduced into that region from Europe. I can accept and support violent and cruel actions down for that purpose.
Thank God for disproportional force.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Your definition of 'good' is the side for which you're able to rationalise evil acts.
Its the side which has a reason for resorting to evil deeds for the greater good, and not merely being evil for the sake of being so. For example, hizbollah does not care about the people in the prisons, they are just a means to an end, a way to rationalize their objective of destroying Israel. They don't wish to live in harmoney with anyone or anything, they merely wish to destory for the sake of destroying. Say what you wish about Israel, its purpose is the protection of its own existence,the protection of its own citizens, and, in a very real sense, the defense of those western liberal values that they introduced into that region from Europe. I can accept and support violent and cruel actions down for that purpose.
Thank God for disproportional force.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I can accept and support violent and cruel actions down for that purpose.
Whereas I can recognise that those on the other side would have their own rationalisations and that this just points to what I said, your desire for a white hat/black hat world does not gel with reality. Evil is evil.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I can accept and support violent and cruel actions down for that purpose.
Whereas I can recognise that those on the other side would have their own rationalisations and that this just points to what I said, your desire for a white hat/black hat world does not gel with reality. Evil is evil.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Christian Graus wrote:
Whereas I can recognise that those on the other side would have their own rationalisations and that this just points to what I said, your desire for a white hat/black hat world does not gel with reality. Evil is evil.
If good and evil truly exist it should be extrodinarily easy to distinquish between them. If every act that good does to defend itself against evil is evil, than good simply cannot exist. I do not believe that it is evil for good to defend itself, even if it is forced by evil to match the methods used by evil. To beleive otherwise is to doom yourself to exist in a world where evil always wins, and good slinks into the shadows to hide away in order to survive. -- modified at 19:38 Thursday 27th July, 2006