A lot of stuff there Pug! Good work. So let's see:
It is as you say, Israel is under no pressure to change its policy, and that angers me the most, because at the moment they are the only ones in a position to do so, since the Palestinians are governed by worthless incompetent extremists.
1)passports: The ones that magically flew out of the burning towers remember? That's how they could tell who were the hijackers...
2) Well not entirely ok, but in the context of a war which they didn't initiate it might be... Again though, I doubt they did it for many reasons (a whole different conversation this...) that's why I'm just going along with you on this to prove my point: which is that ever since 9/11 everyone's been focusing on this event turning a blind eye to entire war campaigns that are completely unjustified.
3) So: the non-muslims attack, and then the victims of that attack are supposed to come up with some sort of reconciliation plan at the same time when GWB openly and shamelessly claims that he will continue to attack pre-emptively? Why would anyone have such an expectation of them? Generally speaking, the west is coming up with preposterous demands (about Iran dropping its entire nuclear program for example) and then when Ahmadinejad or whoever refuses to comply we cry out about how intransigent they are etc. It's the same thing everywhere: Turkey for example, being in a position of power, wants to join the EU without recognizing Cyprus, and we are just supposed to go along with that.
And extremist groups would not exist, at least not in the form we know them today, were it not for this selective intervention policy.
As for the question, I will answer and I hope you will do the same after.
It makes no sense to attack a superior force. So they didn't. This whole "war on terror" is a pretext created by the US government (and specifically its neo-conservative branch*) so that 1) they can get the people to support military operations and a general hostile foreign policy which would never happen unless a "Pearl Harbor incident" were to occur within the USA and 2) to persuade the American people to give up their liberties and thus facilitate the formation of a police state.
This makes a whole lot more sense to me than a bunch of Arabs deciding suddenly to embark on a large scale attack against the only superpower in the world because they "hate the westerners' way of life" and BS like that.
Now your turn to answer: Why would they embark on a war they can never win?
* If you want proof there's plenty of false flag incidents I could cite.
Moving on... I think I made my point earlier about the nature of the offers made for negotiations.
2) The extremist organizations are supported by their enemies. Al Queda - CIA etc etc
3) Their goals vary from infusing fear to a said population so that the latter can be stripped of their freedom to fighting for the liberation of their land.
4) Most of the times they are a pawn (if you're referring to Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Queda etc) but sometimes they are not (IRA, ETA, 17N, Brigate Rosse etc).
Move beyond fault and blame huh? Maybe you could pm me on your theory, it's interestingly vague. No joke.
If you look at it superficially then you're right. There's attacks by both sides. But if you look more closely you'll see who is the aggressor. Have you seen the maps of the region that go around in this forum? They tell the story as it is. Israel is relentlessly attacking the Palestinians and they respond the only way they can. Yes, the extremists have found a place to prosper amongst the Palestinians, but if you lived there you would know why that is justified. Their entire race is being erased off the map. Israel's attacks are of genocide proportions, it's been going on for decades, and here we are debating whether suicide bombers are justified or not. It is quite simple: If Israel had agreed to grant the Palestinians a viable state then the extremists who want Israel wiped off the map would find it very difficult to recruit amongst prospering Palestinians. But that is not Israel's intention. Their government prefers to sacrifice a few hundred people every year so that they can justify their actions against the Palestinians, until they have been totally erased.Pug wrote:
Frankly the failure lies at BOTH the Palestinian and Israeli feet. At the same time there has been relentless attacks on Palestine, there's been attacks on Israeli's. The bottom line - each are upping the "we are defending ourselves" bandwagon. Plus there's the other players supporting both sides, two of which the Hamas and the Hezbollah have been formed with the basic idea of "Israel needs to be removed from the Middle East....period". So let me ask you a very simple question - how does one satisfy that goal? Second, there is absolutely no pressure on Israel to change their policy...they dominate the region. And third, the same diplomatic branch has been passed around and stomped on by both sides. So again...why are you so one sided?
It is as you say, Israel is under no pressure to change its policy, and that angers me the most, because at the moment they are the only ones in a position to do so, since the Palestinians are governed by worthless incompetent extremists.
I'll use your phrase to come to the conclusion that no logical person or government would have brought this on themselves (having to shoot at aircraft carriers with pistols). So there's something else going on here... know what I mean?Pug wrote:
Use logic here. One man with a pistol shoots at an aircraft carrier. Isn't that suicide as well? At least it's more honorable.
1)passports: The ones that magically flew out of the burning towers remember? That's how they could tell who were the hijackers...
2) Well not entirely ok, but in the context of a war which they didn't initiate it might be... Again though, I doubt they did it for many reasons (a whole different conversation this...) that's why I'm just going along with you on this to prove my point: which is that ever since 9/11 everyone's been focusing on this event turning a blind eye to entire war campaigns that are completely unjustified.
3) So: the non-muslims attack, and then the victims of that attack are supposed to come up with some sort of reconciliation plan at the same time when GWB openly and shamelessly claims that he will continue to attack pre-emptively? Why would anyone have such an expectation of them? Generally speaking, the west is coming up with preposterous demands (about Iran dropping its entire nuclear program for example) and then when Ahmadinejad or whoever refuses to comply we cry out about how intransigent they are etc. It's the same thing everywhere: Turkey for example, being in a position of power, wants to join the EU without recognizing Cyprus, and we are just supposed to go along with that.
Last time I checked Israel was Palestine... but for some reason no intervention was needed there.Pug wrote:
And the last time I checked, ISRAEL was not part of Iran.
And extremist groups would not exist, at least not in the form we know them today, were it not for this selective intervention policy.
See now you're being selective: Like I said above, you disregard the pre-emptive wars carried out by the US. If suicide bombers were the only aspect of the problem the solution would have been very easy. A police matter really, no need for an army. And again, its not that I agree with the bomb practice, but look at the alternatives here: there are none! The native Americans tried the negotiation route and it was an obvious mistake because the US government never intended to seriously converse with these people. It was quite clear then as it is now. At least if they blew themselves up maybe they would have drawn some more attention to the injustices against them.Pug wrote:
Killing innocents will not bring anyone to the table. It's actually a pretty clear concept - stop blowing yourselves up for a second and let's have a chat. There's a whole system set up to indoctinate the next generation of suicide bombers.
I don't understand the Jordan thing, though I'm familiar with the pornstar.Pug wrote:
Really? So like can I buy Jordan. I've always wanted to buy Jordan....no not the porn star...the country.
Seriously, answer the question. It wasn't rhetorical, and nice try reversing it.
As for the question, I will answer and I hope you will do the same after.
It makes no sense to attack a superior force. So they didn't. This whole "war on terror" is a pretext created by the US government (and specifically its neo-conservative branch*) so that 1) they can get the people to support military operations and a general hostile foreign policy which would never happen unless a "Pearl Harbor incident" were to occur within the USA and 2) to persuade the American people to give up their liberties and thus facilitate the formation of a police state.
This makes a whole lot more sense to me than a bunch of Arabs deciding suddenly to embark on a large scale attack against the only superpower in the world because they "hate the westerners' way of life" and BS like that.
Now your turn to answer: Why would they embark on a war they can never win?
* If you want proof there's plenty of false flag incidents I could cite.
Moving on... I think I made my point earlier about the nature of the offers made for negotiations.
1) IF trained, then it is by extremist organizations.Pug wrote:
The main fact you are missing here about all of the "desperate" people blowing themselves up. 1) Who are they trained by? 2)What country supports them? 3) What are the goals? 4) Are they fulfilling their own agenda or are they a pawn? 5) And most importantly, is blowing themselves up doing anyone any good?
2) The extremist organizations are supported by their enemies. Al Queda - CIA etc etc
3) Their goals vary from infusing fear to a said population so that the latter can be stripped of their freedom to fighting for the liberation of their land.
4) Most of the times they are a pawn (if you're referring to Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Queda etc) but sometimes they are not (IRA, ETA, 17N, Brigate Rosse etc).
Move beyond fault and blame huh? Maybe you could pm me on your theory, it's interestingly vague. No joke.
ƒ³
