exactly my point, only you can defend the indefensible.. I agree with your sentiment what a moron indeedlowing wrote:
lol, yeah ok. I condone Israel killing civilians because I point out the fact that OF COURSE civilians are going to die if shield known military targets with civilians....IG-Calibre wrote:
lowing wrote:
I defy you to tell me where I justify killing any innocent civilians by anyone.It's write pretty fucking large there palIsrael is trying to take out terrorist targets thsat[sic] are hiding among civilan populations. Are you really surprised that civilians are getting killed by Israeli strikes?
what a moron, jesus christ.
If you think Arabs are going to defend Israel then you have issues. A cold peace, where their right to exist is acknowledged, is about the best that will ever be achieved. My personal belief however is that Israel will never have peace with all of its neighbours and will eventually crumble when one or other of them becomes militarily strong enough, by strength of numbers alone, the enormous landmass their enemies occupy and the fact that the land of Israel itself is cripplingly reliant on imports. That's just being realistic, not condoning it or expressing a desire to see it, but that's what I think will happen.lowing wrote:
well it would pretty much have to be unanimous wouldn't it? Since Egypt or Jordan would not run to the defense of Israel if Iran attacked them.Peace in the ME has to start with acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist. NOT, by appeasing terrorists.CameronPoe wrote:
The PLO/Fatah can live with that. Egypt and Jordan can live with that. Maybe others could too, in time.lowing wrote:
and where is the condemnation of the killing of Israeli civilians by anyone.? Other than the US I guess.
bottom line is, Israel is here to stay, unless you condone its destruction. Now, what Islamic country can live with that?. Answer that question and you will know what the problem is.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-15 03:53:49)
Civilian shielded targets are not the issue Calibre is talking here. The issue is this: they have killed medical personnel, UN personnel and destroyed apartment buildings! They make mistakes and have acknowledged that. Known military targets my ass.lowing wrote:
lol, yeah ok. I condone Israel killing civilians because I point out the fact that OF COURSE civilians are going to die if shield known military targets with civilians....IG-Calibre wrote:
lowing wrote:
I defy you to tell me where I justify killing any innocent civilians by anyone.It's write pretty fucking large there palIsrael is trying to take out terrorist targets thsat[sic] are hiding among civilan populations. Are you really surprised that civilians are getting killed by Israeli strikes?
.
We were and are specifically talking about the terrorists - not the ordinary Iraqi citizens. The terrorists do not want our way of living - they want the whole world to live, as lowing has correctly pointed out, to live under sharia law. By fighting a war against those terrorists we are trying to force them to live the way we want them to live. Can you not see that these two possitions are essentially the same? We want the terrorists to accept democracy. The terrorists want the world to accept sharia law.Spark wrote:
Disagree. Many of them want to live in a democracy per se (as in where they get a say in how their country is run - by shariah law or otherwise), but terrorism is bred out of hatred of the west and israel. (won't comment on whether this hatred is justified).Scorpion0x17 wrote:
So we're not trying to turn the whole of the middle east into western style democracies?lowing wrote:
Ahhhhh once again my fault............by all means, don't go to war with the US, kill YOUR OWN MEN WOMEN AND CHILDREN....now I completely understand...boy once you think like a liberal it all makes sense, I do not know how I coulda missed it. And no, we are not trying to force our opinions on them we are telling them Islamic radicalism will not be entertained. That is of course until now.
They do not want to live in a western style democracy. That is why they commit acts of terrorism - because they see what we are doing as an act terrorism against them.
I don't need to because you've already provided all the information you need to see that that is exactly what we are doing.lowing wrote:
Well, first of all, I asked you to post articles to back up your posts, that we are there to shove our way of life down their throats.
And had we not made such a bad job of it in the first place, creating a power vacuum, the terrorists would not have flooded in.lowing wrote:
second, the killing of innocent civilians will not be tolerated, the Iraqi people are in no position to protect themselves now, so we stay. If the terrorists had not flooded in to make sure peace and prosperity did not befall on the Iraqis then we would have been gone years ago.
See above and below.lowing wrote:
Waiting on your articles ( not your blogs) that tell how the US postion is to force our way of life on the Iraqis.
I don't need to see them. I know what the terrorists want. You know what the terrorists want. We all know what the terrorists want. That's what undertsanding them is all about - knowing what it is that they want.lowing wrote:
Let me know if you want those articles that specifically call out for the world rule of Islam.
Now, I'm going to repeat this again to make it absolutely clear exactly what and whom it is I'm talking about - THE TERRORISTS want to impose sharia law. We want to impose democracy on THE TERRORISTS. That is established fact. You have even stated as much yourself (in not so many words). That is why we are there. That has been spelt out by the chief engineers of the war (Bush and Blair) on numerous occasions. Those two stances (we want them to accept democracy, they want us to accept sharia law) are functionally identical.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-11-15 04:13:50)
That's a little broad. I'm sure there are non-religiously motivated militias inside Iraq, composed of Iraqi citizens, who are just fighting to drive the occupation forces out of their country. There are probably secular Ba'athist and Kurdish independence militias also.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
We were and are specifically talking about the terrorists - not the ordinary Iraqi citizens. The terrorists do not want our way of living - they want the whole world to live, as lowing has correctly pointed out, to live under sharia law. By fighting a war against those terrorists we are trying to force them to live the way we want them to live. Can you not see that these two possitions are essentially the same? We want the terrorists to accept democracy. The terrorists want the world to accept sharia law.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-15 04:05:20)
well then I don't have issues since I said Egypt or Jordan would NOT defend Israel. and than a unanomous acknowldgement of Israel is the only way for peace.CameronPoe wrote:
If you think Arabs are going to defend Israel then you have issues. A cold peace, where their right to exist is acknowledged, is about the best that will ever be achieved. My personal belief however is that Israel will never have peace with all of its neighbours and will eventually crumble when one or other of them becomes militarily strong enough, by strength of numbers alone, the enormous landmass their enemies occupy and the fact that the land of Israel itself is cripplingly reliant on imports. That's just being realistic, not condoning it or expressing a desire to see it, but that's what I think will happen.lowing wrote:
well it would pretty much have to be unanimous wouldn't it? Since Egypt or Jordan would not run to the defense of Israel if Iran attacked them.Peace in the ME has to start with acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist. NOT, by appeasing terrorists.CameronPoe wrote:
The PLO/Fatah can live with that. Egypt and Jordan can live with that. Maybe others could too, in time.
Now since we both agree on this, and you admit that the fact that the Islamic nations, will REFUSE to let Israel exist in peace. Who are the bad guys again??
Ummmmm the fact that these civilians do shield military targets seems to me is a big issue with civilian death rates. Unless I am missing something.SpaceApollyon wrote:
Civilian shielded targets are not the issue Calibre is talking here. The issue is this: they have killed medical personnel, UN personnel and destroyed apartment buildings! They make mistakes and have acknowledged that. Known military targets my ass.lowing wrote:
lol, yeah ok. I condone Israel killing civilians because I point out the fact that OF COURSE civilians are going to die if shield known military targets with civilians....IG-Calibre wrote:
It's write pretty fucking large there pallowing wrote:
I defy you to tell me where I justify killing any innocent civilians by anyone.
.
well I am looking at it from the point of view that we are fighting to keep them from carrying out their threats to convert or kill. Don't be so upset that the fight is there and not in your country.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
We were and are specifically talking about the terrorists - not the ordinary Iraqi citizens. The terrorists do not want our way of living - they want the whole world to live, as lowing has correctly pointed out, to live under sharia law. By fighting a war against those terrorists we are trying to force them to live the way we want them to live. Can you not see that these two possitions are essentially the same? We want the terrorists to accept democracy. The terrorists want the world to accept sharia law.Spark wrote:
Disagree. Many of them want to live in a democracy per se (as in where they get a say in how their country is run - by shariah law or otherwise), but terrorism is bred out of hatred of the west and israel. (won't comment on whether this hatred is justified).Scorpion0x17 wrote:
So we're not trying to turn the whole of the middle east into western style democracies?
They do not want to live in a western style democracy. That is why they commit acts of terrorism - because they see what we are doing as an act terrorism against them.
None of you would be talking understanding or appeasing terrorists if the war was dragged to your country. Forgive us for being on the offensive in this and doing our best to keep them pinned in the ME.
Yes lowing you are - you're missing the point that you're a fucking hypocrite, you post things like " the killing of innocent civilians will not be tolerated" or "I defy you to tell me where I justify killing any innocent civilians by anyone"lowing wrote:
Ummmmm the fact that these civilians do shield military targets seems to me is a big issue with civilian death rates. Unless I am missing something.SpaceApollyon wrote:
Civilian shielded targets are not the issue Calibre is talking here. The issue is this: they have killed medical personnel, UN personnel and destroyed apartment buildings! They make mistakes and have acknowledged that. Known military targets my ass.lowing wrote:
lol, yeah ok. I condone Israel killing civilians because I point out the fact that OF COURSE civilians are going to die if shield known military targets with civilians....
.
then when you are challenged about Israel you post shit like Oh those civilians shield military targets so it's OK for them to be slaughtered, were there any military targets under the beds of the 18 slaughtered the other day? no I don't think fucking so, but, as long as the IDF say "we were firing on military targets" you accept that and it's then all OK to you, obviously innocent civilians weren't killed
Too broad and too childish a term - 'bad guys' (!?). I can appreciate why the nations of the middle east do not want Israel to exist. In other threads you have been given a detailed explanation of why I personally believe the state of Israel should not have been founded in the middle east but rather on German territory. I now believe that Israel is a reality, is here to stay (for as long as it can survive) and needs to hammer out some sort of peaceful solution to the mess they are in. Recent generations of Israelis are hostages to the crimes of their zionist parents/grandparents: travelling to Palestine to give birth to their children in such a hostile environment and exposing them to endless persecution and misery. I feel sorry for them because these generations really are completely blameless: prisoners of circumstance (the behavious of some of though is deplorable as we have mentioned).lowing wrote:
well then I don't have issues since I said Egypt or Jordan would NOT defend Israel. and than a unanomous acknowldgement of Israel is the only way for peace.CameronPoe wrote:
If you think Arabs are going to defend Israel then you have issues. A cold peace, where their right to exist is acknowledged, is about the best that will ever be achieved. My personal belief however is that Israel will never have peace with all of its neighbours and will eventually crumble when one or other of them becomes militarily strong enough, by strength of numbers alone, the enormous landmass their enemies occupy and the fact that the land of Israel itself is cripplingly reliant on imports. That's just being realistic, not condoning it or expressing a desire to see it, but that's what I think will happen.lowing wrote:
well it would pretty much have to be unanimous wouldn't it? Since Egypt or Jordan would not run to the defense of Israel if Iran attacked them.Peace in the ME has to start with acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist. NOT, by appeasing terrorists.
Now since we both agree on this, and you admit that the fact that the Islamic nations, will REFUSE to let Israel exist in peace. Who are the bad guys again??
Those middle eastern nations who want to annihilate all of Israel and everyone in it are bad guys but the fact of the matter is that there are NO good guys, except those small segments of society on each side of the divide who want to achieve peace and justice and are willing to take a gamble on concessions. Ariel Sharon, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad are all bad guys to me to varying degrees.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-15 04:22:59)
When the IRA were bombing british cities that was very much in my country - very close to where I grew-up in fact (near Birmingham). I did then and still do think that understanding and appeasment was the right approach and the ceasefire and peace in northern ireland has proven me correct.lowing wrote:
well I am looking at it from the point of view that we are fighting to keep them from carrying out their threats to convert or kill. Don't be so upset that the fight is there and not in your country.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
We were and are specifically talking about the terrorists - not the ordinary Iraqi citizens. The terrorists do not want our way of living - they want the whole world to live, as lowing has correctly pointed out, to live under sharia law. By fighting a war against those terrorists we are trying to force them to live the way we want them to live. Can you not see that these two possitions are essentially the same? We want the terrorists to accept democracy. The terrorists want the world to accept sharia law.Spark wrote:
Disagree. Many of them want to live in a democracy per se (as in where they get a say in how their country is run - by shariah law or otherwise), but terrorism is bred out of hatred of the west and israel. (won't comment on whether this hatred is justified).
None of you would be talking understanding or appeasing terrorists if the war was dragged to your country. Forgive us for being on the offensive in this and doing our best to keep them pinned in the ME.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2006-11-15 04:23:07)
Yes it is an issue, and I'm not dismissing the responsibility of those doing the shielding. What I was talking about are these common events where Israelis shoot first and go "oops" later, when the target wasn't legit. That happens way too often, for it to be just dismissed too.lowing wrote:
Ummmmm the fact that these civilians do shield military targets seems to me is a big issue with civilian death rates. Unless I am missing something.
fair enough Cam, nothing I can/will dispute there. except I still think the Jews have every right to exist in the ME as much as anyone else native to the region. and I am willing to agree to disagree on that one.CameronPoe wrote:
Too broad and too childish a term - 'bad guys' (!?). I can appreciate why the nations of the middle east do not want Israel to exist. In other threads you have been given a detailed explanation of why I personally believe the state of Israel should not have been founded in the middle east but rather on German territory. I now believe that Israel is a reality, is here to stay (for as long as it can survive) and needs to hammer out some sort of peaceful solution to the mess they are in. Recent generations of Israelis are hostages to the crimes of their zionist parents/grandparents: travelling to Palestine to give birth to their children in such a hostile environment and exposing them to endless persecution and misery. I feel sorry for them because these generations really are completely blameless: prisoners of circumstance (the behavious of some of though is deplorable as we have mentioned).lowing wrote:
well then I don't have issues since I said Egypt or Jordan would NOT defend Israel. and than a unanimous acknowledgment of Israel is the only way for peace.CameronPoe wrote:
If you think Arabs are going to defend Israel then you have issues. A cold peace, where their right to exist is acknowledged, is about the best that will ever be achieved. My personal belief however is that Israel will never have peace with all of its neighbours and will eventually crumble when one or other of them becomes militarily strong enough, by strength of numbers alone, the enormous landmass their enemies occupy and the fact that the land of Israel itself is cripplingly reliant on imports. That's just being realistic, not condoning it or expressing a desire to see it, but that's what I think will happen.
Now since we both agree on this, and you admit that the fact that the Islamic nations, will REFUSE to let Israel exist in peace. Who are the bad guys again??
Those middle eastern nations who want to annihilate all of Israel and everyone in it are bad guys but the fact of the matter is that there are NO good guys, except those small segments of society on each side of the divide who want to achieve peace and justice and are willing to take a gamble on concessions. Ariel Sharon, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad are all bad guys to me.
Only thing that is left to discuss is what to do with the EXISTING terrorists. You seem to favor amnesty for them in the name of peace ( bury the hatchet so to speak) and I say they must be punished.
Both CP and I have both pointed that Northern Ireland clearly demostrates that punishment doesn't work. Burying the hatchet does.lowing wrote:
fair enough Cam, nothing I can/will dispute there. except I still think the Jews have every right to exist in the ME as much as anyone else native to the region. and I am willing to agree to disagree on that one.CameronPoe wrote:
Too broad and too childish a term - 'bad guys' (!?). I can appreciate why the nations of the middle east do not want Israel to exist. In other threads you have been given a detailed explanation of why I personally believe the state of Israel should not have been founded in the middle east but rather on German territory. I now believe that Israel is a reality, is here to stay (for as long as it can survive) and needs to hammer out some sort of peaceful solution to the mess they are in. Recent generations of Israelis are hostages to the crimes of their zionist parents/grandparents: travelling to Palestine to give birth to their children in such a hostile environment and exposing them to endless persecution and misery. I feel sorry for them because these generations really are completely blameless: prisoners of circumstance (the behavious of some of though is deplorable as we have mentioned).lowing wrote:
well then I don't have issues since I said Egypt or Jordan would NOT defend Israel. and than a unanimous acknowledgment of Israel is the only way for peace.
Now since we both agree on this, and you admit that the fact that the Islamic nations, will REFUSE to let Israel exist in peace. Who are the bad guys again??
Those middle eastern nations who want to annihilate all of Israel and everyone in it are bad guys but the fact of the matter is that there are NO good guys, except those small segments of society on each side of the divide who want to achieve peace and justice and are willing to take a gamble on concessions. Ariel Sharon, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad are all bad guys to me.
Only thing that is left to discuss is what to do with the EXISTING terrorists. You seem to favor amnesty for them in the name of peace ( bury the hatchet so to speak) and I say they must be punished.
You have, but I hold their acts as so deplorable, forgiveness, and living on the same proverbial block with them is out of the question.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Both CP and I have both pointed that Northern Ireland clearly demostrates that punishment doesn't work. Burying the hatchet does.lowing wrote:
fair enough Cam, nothing I can/will dispute there. except I still think the Jews have every right to exist in the ME as much as anyone else native to the region. and I am willing to agree to disagree on that one.CameronPoe wrote:
Too broad and too childish a term - 'bad guys' (!?). I can appreciate why the nations of the middle east do not want Israel to exist. In other threads you have been given a detailed explanation of why I personally believe the state of Israel should not have been founded in the middle east but rather on German territory. I now believe that Israel is a reality, is here to stay (for as long as it can survive) and needs to hammer out some sort of peaceful solution to the mess they are in. Recent generations of Israelis are hostages to the crimes of their zionist parents/grandparents: travelling to Palestine to give birth to their children in such a hostile environment and exposing them to endless persecution and misery. I feel sorry for them because these generations really are completely blameless: prisoners of circumstance (the behavious of some of though is deplorable as we have mentioned).
Those middle eastern nations who want to annihilate all of Israel and everyone in it are bad guys but the fact of the matter is that there are NO good guys, except those small segments of society on each side of the divide who want to achieve peace and justice and are willing to take a gamble on concessions. Ariel Sharon, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad are all bad guys to me.
Only thing that is left to discuss is what to do with the EXISTING terrorists. You seem to favor amnesty for them in the name of peace ( bury the hatchet so to speak) and I say they must be punished.
once we figured out why Timothy Mcviegh carried out his attack, should we have forgiven him and let him go?
I already admitted to NEEDING to understand why people hate the Israel and the US, but once they cross that line of terrorism, they should be doomed.
Last edited by lowing (2006-11-15 04:42:26)
Let me tell you something, with death threats being leveled against the Sinn Fein leadership if they sign up for policing, along with accusations of them being traitors being bandied about, don't kid yourself that everything is hunky dory here in N.Ireland. The continued intransigence of the Ulster-Israels to not share power with Catholics is in serious danger of shattering the republican family. About 25 million pounds worth of damage has been done to British business around the border area this year alone, by militant factions, who will probably attract more disenfranchised republicans who viewed the decommissioning of the IRA's weapon arsenal as surrender. Also not one Loyalist gun has ever been decommissioned The question is can Gerry Adams really deliver? or will he be viewed as a Micheal Collins for the 21 century & suffer the same fate.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Both CP and I have both pointed that Northern Ireland clearly demostrates that punishment doesn't work. Burying the hatchet does.lowing wrote:
fair enough Cam, nothing I can/will dispute there. except I still think the Jews have every right to exist in the ME as much as anyone else native to the region. and I am willing to agree to disagree on that one.CameronPoe wrote:
Too broad and too childish a term - 'bad guys' (!?). I can appreciate why the nations of the middle east do not want Israel to exist. In other threads you have been given a detailed explanation of why I personally believe the state of Israel should not have been founded in the middle east but rather on German territory. I now believe that Israel is a reality, is here to stay (for as long as it can survive) and needs to hammer out some sort of peaceful solution to the mess they are in. Recent generations of Israelis are hostages to the crimes of their zionist parents/grandparents: travelling to Palestine to give birth to their children in such a hostile environment and exposing them to endless persecution and misery. I feel sorry for them because these generations really are completely blameless: prisoners of circumstance (the behavious of some of though is deplorable as we have mentioned).
Those middle eastern nations who want to annihilate all of Israel and everyone in it are bad guys but the fact of the matter is that there are NO good guys, except those small segments of society on each side of the divide who want to achieve peace and justice and are willing to take a gamble on concessions. Ariel Sharon, Binyamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad are all bad guys to me.
Only thing that is left to discuss is what to do with the EXISTING terrorists. You seem to favor amnesty for them in the name of peace ( bury the hatchet so to speak) and I say they must be punished.
interesting. so not all beds of roses in Ireland huh??IG-Calibre wrote:
Let me tell you something, with death threats being leveled against the Sinn Fein leadership if they sign up for policing, along with accusations of them being traitors being bandied about, don't kid yourself that everything is hunky dory here in N.Ireland. The continued intransigence of the Ulster-Israels to not share power with Catholics is in serious danger of shattering the republican family. About 25 million pounds worth of damage has been done to British business around the border area this year alone, by militant factions, who will probably attract more disenfranchised republicans who viewed the decommissioning of the IRA's weapon arsenal as surrender. Also not one Loyalist gun has ever been decommissioned The question is can Gerry Adams really deliver? or will he be viewed as a Micheal Collins for the 21 century & suffer the same fate.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Both CP and I have both pointed that Northern Ireland clearly demostrates that punishment doesn't work. Burying the hatchet does.lowing wrote:
fair enough Cam, nothing I can/will dispute there. except I still think the Jews have every right to exist in the ME as much as anyone else native to the region. and I am willing to agree to disagree on that one.
Only thing that is left to discuss is what to do with the EXISTING terrorists. You seem to favor amnesty for them in the name of peace ( bury the hatchet so to speak) and I say they must be punished.
Hasn't been for a thousand years. And then, it was a bed of cabage.lol.lowing wrote:
interesting. so not all beds of roses in Ireland huh??IG-Calibre wrote:
Let me tell you something, with death threats being leveled against the Sinn Fein leadership if they sign up for policing, along with accusations of them being traitors being bandied about, don't kid yourself that everything is hunky dory here in N.Ireland. The continued intransigence of the Ulster-Israels to not share power with Catholics is in serious danger of shattering the republican family. About 25 million pounds worth of damage has been done to British business around the border area this year alone, by militant factions, who will probably attract more disenfranchised republicans who viewed the decommissioning of the IRA's weapon arsenal as surrender. Also not one Loyalist gun has ever been decommissioned The question is can Gerry Adams really deliver? or will he be viewed as a Micheal Collins for the 21 century & suffer the same fate.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Both CP and I have both pointed that Northern Ireland clearly demostrates that punishment doesn't work. Burying the hatchet does.
I'm sorry I didn't read the 4 pages written since last night, but I have to address this. So point by point:lowing wrote:
I don't tell you what you believe, I tell you how you come across.
1. YOU bash Bush and the US 10 times more than terrorists.
2. YOU post threads that say the US actually attacked itself so we could go to war in the ME.
3. YOU call Bush a war criminal, which is bullshit, but I neverread anywhere from you that the terrorists are war criminals.
4. YOU blame Bush for ALL the deaths in Iraq, you do not blame the terrorists.
5. YOU think terrorists should be negotiated with and understood.
6. YOU have even post topics debating who is the bigger terrorist Bin Laden or Bush.
7. hell, you have even blamed BUSH for the fuckin weather. (Katrina)
So don't preach to me about my "black and white view on the world" the topics posted in this forum by you all reeks of black and white. It is all Bushes fault, it is all Israels fault. Never mind the ME was all screwed up and violent long before Bush OR Israel. YOur black and white view on the world is, get rid of Bush and get rid of Israel and we will all be running throw the fields holding hands feeding unicorns and shit. DOn't talk to me about BLACK AND WHITE. And the funny thing is. most of you talking shit still live with your parents and don't really even have a clue as to the "REAL WORLD " is all about.
1. True. Why? Because like you said, Al-Queda cannot be reasoned with. They are a small group of people that have been so infused with religious bullshit, that their view of the world is totally different than yours, mine, and most other peoples'. I criticize Bush because I think that a western type of government, no matter how opposite to my personal agenda, CAN be reasoned with. Also, the US gov. has 1000 times the power these terrorists do, so having the former acting all stupid is much much worse than having to deal with a bunch of lunatics up in some mountains in the middle of nowhere.
2. Unlike you, I keep an open mind after having seen proof that this has been implemented in the past. You ignore facts because you do not like them. You label me as a "conspiracy theory freak" even before you look into proof. If you want to talk about this further, I can provide all the proof you want via PM.
3. A war criminal... well now that I think about it, yeah... Abu Graib, Gitmo etc. The terrorists? Well... some of them surely. Then again some others could be said to fight for their country's freedom so their being labeled war criminals in the context of that war would have to entail some kind of evidence. Basically, I don't care: Where there's a war, there will be war criminals on both sides. What interests me is who started the war and on what grounds.
4. If you think that Bush is to blame for starting this war, then yes you could say that. A matter of perspective really...
5. Negotiated with, I really don't know whether that is possible with some. Understood? Hell yeah! A wise man once said: Know your enemy.
6. Maybe some ignorant 16-year olds. The rest of us know quite well that Bin Laden is a creation of the US gov. originally meant to counter the Russians in Afghanistan. Ever seen Rambo III?? LOL
7. I bet its sunny where you live...
ƒ³
I have a new Universal truth!
People that debate the Israel vs Anyone debate have small a penis. jk
Please for the love of Satan stop talking about this, you guys are never gunna agree, so just agree to disagree and get back on topic.
People that debate the Israel vs Anyone debate have small a penis. jk
Please for the love of Satan stop talking about this, you guys are never gunna agree, so just agree to disagree and get back on topic.
It all hangs in the Balance TBH.. Personally I reckon Sinn Fein can deliver, or should I say, I pray they can deliver, but there is an old Buddhist saying "Failure happens when we are closest to succeeding"lowing wrote:
interesting. so not all beds of roses in Ireland huh??IG-Calibre wrote:
Let me tell you something, with death threats being leveled against the Sinn Fein leadership if they sign up for policing, along with accusations of them being traitors being bandied about, don't kid yourself that everything is hunky dory here in N.Ireland. The continued intransigence of the Ulster-Israels to not share power with Catholics is in serious danger of shattering the republican family. About 25 million pounds worth of damage has been done to British business around the border area this year alone, by militant factions, who will probably attract more disenfranchised republicans who viewed the decommissioning of the IRA's weapon arsenal as surrender. Also not one Loyalist gun has ever been decommissioned The question is can Gerry Adams really deliver? or will he be viewed as a Micheal Collins for the 21 century & suffer the same fate.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Both CP and I have both pointed that Northern Ireland clearly demostrates that punishment doesn't work. Burying the hatchet does.
Well, I really don't know what to say........cept maybe...............thanks for proving my point by agreeing wit heverything I accuse you liberals of doing??oug wrote:
I'm sorry I didn't read the 4 pages written since last night, but I have to address this. So point by point:lowing wrote:
I don't tell you what you believe, I tell you how you come across.
1. YOU bash Bush and the US 10 times more than terrorists.
2. YOU post threads that say the US actually attacked itself so we could go to war in the ME.
3. YOU call Bush a war criminal, which is bullshit, but I neverread anywhere from you that the terrorists are war criminals.
4. YOU blame Bush for ALL the deaths in Iraq, you do not blame the terrorists.
5. YOU think terrorists should be negotiated with and understood.
6. YOU have even post topics debating who is the bigger terrorist Bin Laden or Bush.
7. hell, you have even blamed BUSH for the fuckin weather. (Katrina)
So don't preach to me about my "black and white view on the world" the topics posted in this forum by you all reeks of black and white. It is all Bushes fault, it is all Israels fault. Never mind the ME was all screwed up and violent long before Bush OR Israel. YOur black and white view on the world is, get rid of Bush and get rid of Israel and we will all be running throw the fields holding hands feeding unicorns and shit. DOn't talk to me about BLACK AND WHITE. And the funny thing is. most of you talking shit still live with your parents and don't really even have a clue as to the "REAL WORLD " is all about.
1. True. Why? Because like you said, Al-Queda cannot be reasoned with. They are a small group of people that have been so infused with religious bullshit, that their view of the world is totally different than yours, mine, and most other peoples'. I criticize Bush because I think that a western type of government, no matter how opposite to my personal agenda, CAN be reasoned with. Also, the US gov. has 1000 times the power these terrorists do, so having the former acting all stupid is much much worse than having to deal with a bunch of lunatics up in some mountains in the middle of nowhere.
2. Unlike you, I keep an open mind after having seen proof that this has been implemented in the past. You ignore facts because you do not like them. You label me as a "conspiracy theory freak" even before you look into proof. If you want to talk about this further, I can provide all the proof you want via PM.
3. A war criminal... well now that I think about it, yeah... Abu Graib, Gitmo etc. The terrorists? Well... some of them surely. Then again some others could be said to fight for their country's freedom so their being labeled war criminals in the context of that war would have to entail some kind of evidence. Basically, I don't care: Where there's a war, there will be war criminals on both sides. What interests me is who started the war and on what grounds.
4. If you think that Bush is to blame for starting this war, then yes you could say that. A matter of perspective really...
5. Negotiated with, I really don't know whether that is possible with some. Understood? Hell yeah! A wise man once said: Know your enemy.
6. Maybe some ignorant 16-year olds. The rest of us know quite well that Bin Laden is a creation of the US gov. originally meant to counter the Russians in Afghanistan. Ever seen Rambo III?? LOL
7. I bet its sunny where you live...
Last edited by lowing (2006-11-15 05:33:25)
don't know whether I should laugh or cry... 10 minutes wasted...lowing wrote:
Well, I really don't know what to say........cept maybe...............thanks for proving my point by agreeing wit heverything I accuse you liberals of doing??
ƒ³
Surely the onus is on the DUP to deliver at this stage? I reckon Gerry will push through support for the policing having come so far.IG-Calibre wrote:
It all hangs in the Balance TBH.. Personally I reckon Sinn Fein can deliver, or should I say, I pray they can deliver, but there is an old Buddhist saying "Failure happens when we are closest to succeeding"lowing wrote:
interesting. so not all beds of roses in Ireland huh??IG-Calibre wrote:
Let me tell you something, with death threats being leveled against the Sinn Fein leadership if they sign up for policing, along with accusations of them being traitors being bandied about, don't kid yourself that everything is hunky dory here in N.Ireland. The continued intransigence of the Ulster-Israels to not share power with Catholics is in serious danger of shattering the republican family. About 25 million pounds worth of damage has been done to British business around the border area this year alone, by militant factions, who will probably attract more disenfranchised republicans who viewed the decommissioning of the IRA's weapon arsenal as surrender. Also not one Loyalist gun has ever been decommissioned The question is can Gerry Adams really deliver? or will he be viewed as a Micheal Collins for the 21 century & suffer the same fate.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-15 05:41:21)
As IG-Calibre says. A lot of republicans have such a ingrained distrust for the police RUC or PSNI that they see signing up to policing as one concession too far. I know some people with these views and they are all people who's family have been targeted by special branch over the years through generations for no reason. Gerry's problem is that if he signs up to policing the hardcore republicans may run to the dissident paramilitary groups like The Real IRA.CameronPoe wrote:
Surely the onus is on the DUP to deliver at this stage? I reckon Gerry will push through support for the policing having come so far.
lol, totally off topic I know, and usually I would refrain, but seriously this topic needs to be killed off somehow.
Did anyone see strictly come dancing the other night?