Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Logic · Mar 22, 2004, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Because he doesn't agree with you that Israel is just as evil.
It's not.

You must have not read his post. There was many shades of gray. And he didn't paint Israel out to be innocent.

He said they were not equal. And they are not. [/B]

Because on one side you have arabs and on the other side white people.

Because on one side you have jews and on one side you have muslims.

Because you do not value the lives of people equally.

Because you don't think both should follow international laws.

Because.

They are equals in every aspect. It takes two to tango. There can be no fight without two parties willing to fight. and so on and so on.........

Zimphire · Mar 22, 2004, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Well, we agree then!

Of course, if you believed what you wrote, you'd condemn this murder.

I see this as Israel defending itself with murder. I condemn it because I don't think any man has that right. Not because I think it's equal with terrorism. It's not.

When Jesus comes back and wipes out a few million people. You can talk to him too about murder.

Logic · Mar 22, 2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In comparison to shooting your way in to a heavily defended area surrounded by civilians? Almost certainly so.

It was heavily defended? Got anything to back up that claim? Ever heard of snipers? Ever heard of special forces that can do their jobs at night? Ever heard of waiting for the time when the target is not surrounded by civilians? Ever heard of ..........................

phoenixboy · Mar 22, 2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
And using F-16's to assasinate one man minimises civilian casualties?

very good point. i mean, how easy would it have been to simply go in there, drug the guy, take him to court and then sentence him to whatever.

no, they have to fire missles at a car...

Spliffdaddy · Mar 22, 2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
very good point. i mean, how easy would it have been to simply go in there, drug the guy, take him to court and then sentence him to whatever.

no, they have to fire missles at a car...

"...go in there.."

^
explain how that would have resulted in few casualties?

phoenixboy · Mar 22, 2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I see this as Israel defending itself with murder.

that's such complete BS! typical personification scam. by killing him israel has NOT DONE A SINGLE FU<KING thing to prevent or deter terrorism. quite to the contrary, as the next 36 hours will definetly show.

Zimphire · Mar 22, 2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Because on one side you have arabs and on the other side white people.

Oh, your playing the silly race card. That doesn't work here.

Because on one side you have jews and on one side you have muslims.

neither believe in Jesus. Where is my bias?

Because you do not value the lives of people equally.

I do not value the lives of people out to purposely kill innocent people.

Because you don't think both should follow international laws.

Because.

They are equals in every aspect. It takes two to tango. There can be no fight without two parties willing to fight. and so on and so on.........

If Israel didn't defend itself the other would topple it. You know this.

Again it's not about what side you are on. It's about being honest with yourself.

phoenixboy · Mar 22, 2004, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"...go in there.."

^
explain how that would have resulted in few casualties?

pfffff. the mossad has accomplished far more dangerous tasks. it's by a longshot the best secret service in the world...

Zimphire · Mar 22, 2004, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
that's such complete BS! typical personification scam. by killing him israel has NOT DONE A SINGLE FU<KING thing to prevent or deter terrorism. quite to the contrary, as the next 36 hours will definetly show.

I don't know. Some would be terrorists might see that as a deterrent. Will all of them? No.

But to say NOT A SINGLE THING without knowing what the minds of all the people there are thinking is a bit foolish.

Lerkfish · Mar 22, 2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In comparison to shooting your way in to a heavily defended area surrounded by civilians? Almost certainly so.

I don't think ANY group that deals in retaliation is interested in peace. I'm being honest.

Lerkfish · Mar 22, 2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I see this as Israel defending itself with murder. I condemn it because I don't think any man has that right. Not because I think it's equal with terrorism. It's not.

When Jesus comes back and wipes out a few million people. You can talk to him too about murder.

??

Jesus is going to commit mass murder? where does it say that in the bible?

Zimphire · Mar 22, 2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I don't think ANY group that deals in retaliation is interested in peace. I'm being honest.

But if Israel did not, it would still be going on regardless.

If Israel did not defend itself. They would push it's people into the sea.

"Force can never be the first answer," he emphasized, "but sometimes it's the only answer."
Bill Clinton.

Zimphire · Mar 22, 2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
??

Jesus is going to commit mass murder? where does it say that in the bible?

Have you ever read revelations? And heard about the armies of God doing battle with the forces of evil?

Isn't that what the final conflict is all about?

Lerkfish · Mar 22, 2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"...go in there.."

^
explain how that would have resulted in few casualties?

Explain how it was attempted and how it failed....oh wait, that's right. You can't.

phoenixboy · Mar 22, 2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't know. Some would be terrorists might see that as a deterrent.

read my lips.

"_not_a_single_one_!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Lerkfish · Mar 22, 2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Have you ever read revelations? And heard about the armies of God doing battle with the forces of evil?

I'm familiar with revelations, but I think you must have a different version.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 22, 2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I see this as Israel defending itself with murder. I condemn it because I don't think any man has that right. Not because I think it's equal with terrorism. It's not.

When Jesus comes back and wipes out a few million people. You can talk to him too about murder.

You can bet your ass I will.

But seeing that Dubya has already claimed to be acting in the name of God (well, because God "told him to"), I fear that time may be a lot closer than you think.

Oh, and Muslims DO believe in Jesus.

-s*

Zimphire · Mar 22, 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
read my lips.

"_not_a_single_one_!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Have you asked everyone?

Zimphire · Mar 22, 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I'm familiar with revelations, but I think you must have a different version.

Would you like me to post some scriptures?

I can if you wish. We played this game before Lerk.

Lerkfish · Mar 22, 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't know. Some would be terrorists might see that as a deterrent. Will all of them? No.

But to say NOT A SINGLE THING without knowing what the minds of all the people there are thinking is a bit foolish.

the first statement is wrong, the second statement you should read to yourself.....repeatedly....until it sinks in.

Lerkfish · Mar 22, 2004, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Would you like me to post some scriptures?

I can if you wish. We played this game before Lerk.

LOL...sure if you want to.

Then I'll point out how Bush fits the description of the Antichrist a little too eerily for comfort.

phoenixboy · 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
When Jesus comes back and wipes out a few million people. You can talk to him too about murder.

uhhhh fun! will i have to learn aramaic?

Logic · Mar 22, 2004, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

If Israel didn't defend itself the other would topple it. You know this.

Again it's not about what side you are on. It's about being honest with yourself.

What other are you talking about?

And I'm being completely honest with myself. I want both sides to stop, and I don't want either side to do something that will incite yet another attack.

That's why I would support what macvillage brought up but you pro-Israelis completely ignore. Why do you ignore it? I'll tell you. You ignore it because that would treat both as equals.

Zimphire · Mar 22, 2004, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
the first statement is wrong, the second statement you should read to yourself.....repeatedly....until it sinks in.

So what you are saying is, no matter what is done, these people are going to be terrorists regardless.

I understand.

See I too can play that game.

Wiskedjak · Mar 22, 2004, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And it has nothing to do with what HE would do.

Really? Aren't we all supposed to aspire to do what "He" would do?

Zimphire · Mar 22, 2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL...sure if you want to.

Then I'll point out how Bush fits the description of the Antichrist a little too eerily for comfort.

Ahahaha nevermind Lerk.

You've fallen off the wagon.

Why does it always seem that you are a Democrat first, Christian second.

I am not saying that is the case. You just come off that way.

Troll · Mar 22, 2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
Because on one side you have arabs and on the other side white people.

This is the bottom line for me. Israel is a racist state that practices apartheid in the Occupied Territories. Just as I think the violent resistance to apartheid in South Africa was unfortunate but justified, I'm leaning more and more in favour of the Palestinians. I detest violence, but there comes a time when it's the only solution. I think the time has come for a violent solution to Sharon.

phoenixboy · Mar 22, 2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Have you asked everyone?

oh, sorry i forgot abdullah abdallah. put he seemed to be pretty pissed and determined. so it's a fair guess he wasn't too impressed...

Zimphire · Mar 22, 2004, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
What other are you talking about?

And I'm being completely honest with myself. I want both sides to stop, and I don't want either side to do something that will incite yet another attack.

But one side will never stop till the other is gone.

That's why I would support what macvillage brought up but you pro-Israelis completely ignore. Why do you ignore it? I'll tell you. You ignore it because that would treat both as equals.

Read above.

Logic · Mar 22, 2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

But one side will never stop till the other is gone.

Read above.

The first is wrong.

The second is just exactly what I said above.

Zimphire · Mar 22, 2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
The first is wrong.

The second is just exactly what I said above.

Nonsense. There have been many many many terrorists groups, like the one below in my sig that doesn't want equal rights. They don't want their own land.

They want Israel and they want the Jews out. At any cost.

If you are denying this, you are not being honest with yourself.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 22, 2004, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Troll:
This is the bottom line for me. Israel is a racist state that practices apartheid in the Occupied Territories. Just as I think the violent resistance to apartheid in South Africa was unfortunate but justified, I'm leaning more and more in favour of the Palestinians. I detest violence, but there comes a time when it's the only solution. I think the time has come for a violent solution to Sharon.

This is the action that overstepped the line, it would seem. And international response appears to reflect just that.

I strongly suspect that this change in attitude is precisely what was intended by the murder, though. I'm not sure what exactly Sharon is scheming for, or if he's just completely insane, but he appears to be moving deliberately towards an all-out civil war.

-s*

Wiskedjak · Mar 22, 2004, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
But one side will never stop till the other is gone.

So, what is the solution, then? Supporting one side in the annihilation of the other?

Zimphire · Mar 22, 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
So, what is the solution, then? Supporting one side in the annihilation of the other?

There is no solution. It's going to be happening till the end of time.

Fasten your seat belts.

Wiskedjak · Mar 22, 2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I'm not sure what exactly Sharon is scheming for, or if he's just completely insane, but he appears to be moving deliberately towards an all-out civil war.

I agree. You can kill alot more civilians in a civil war than through targetted air strikes.

Logic · Mar 22, 2004, 01:36 PM

I stumbled upon this speech a while ago and read it today again.

It really makes you think, and it does apply very well to the current situation in Palestine.

Especially this bit:

Neutrality is impossible

Neutrality toward the existing and coming struggles in southern Africa is impossible. Between the exploiters and the exploited there is no middle ground. We cannot escape the question: Whose allies do we want to be? Which side are we?

This conference is dealing with speeches, documents, resolutions, programmes of action. Behind these words and papers lies the reality of people. Human beings who suffer the indignities of apartheid, men and women who are imprisoned as political prisoners or mental detainees, children who are deprived of food and shelter, who see their parents constantly humiliated, who have known only resentment, rejection and violence.

The people here in Mozambique suffered their Wiriyama and their Mucumbura. The people of South Africa suffered their Sharpeville and Soweto. The people of Zimbabwe suffered their Nyadzonya and Dawn Krael and Ndanga. The people of Namibia suffered their Katatura and their Sialola.3 How many more names like this must be added to the list, before southern Africa has finally been liberated?

This is a daily reality of people, but it is also the reality of this conference. We must not fail in our support of human dignity, in our solidarity with the struggle for liberation. This conference is important as an expression of this solidarity and, hopefully, as a basis for concerted action.

The longing for peace is common to all people. But so long as there is apartheid and racism, there can be no peace.

lil'babykitten · Mar 22, 2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
This is the action that overstepped the line, it would seem. And international response appears to reflect just that.

I strongly suspect that this change in attitude is precisely what was intended by the murder, though. I'm not sure what exactly Sharon is scheming for, or if he's just completely insane, but he appears to be moving deliberately towards an all-out civil war.

-s*

Indeed.

Logic · Mar 22, 2004, 01:56 PM

from the same speech as I posted above:

We all obviously prefer peaceful solutions to violent ones. But those of us who are privileged and who have had the good fortune of peaceful change should never moralize about it, never try to appear virtuous in relation to those who have been forced to take up arms to liberate themselves. If we do, we have forgotten our own past.

Zimphire · Mar 22, 2004, 02:12 PM

Two different situations.

Logic · Mar 22, 2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Two different situations.

What is so different about them?

Troll · Mar 22, 2004, 02:24 PM

I think Nelson Mandela's speech at the Rivonia Trial is more relevant:

Originally posted by Nelson Mandela:
"I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Israelis."

[W]e believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence."

Replace "African" with "Palestinian" and "Government" with "Israeli Government" and it makes perfect sense!

Originally posted by Chief Lutuli, President of the ANC in 1952, and later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize:
"who will deny that thirty years of my life have been spent knocking in vain, patiently, moderately, and modestly at a closed and barred door? What have been the fruits of moderation? The past thirty years have seen the greatest number of laws restricting our rights and progress, until today we have reached a stage where we have almost no rights at all"."

Logic · Mar 22, 2004, 02:25 PM

And it took just a fewl hours for the first retaliation to being

ghost_flash · Mar 22, 2004, 02:26 PM

Welcome to the Zim v. Logic v. Lerk show....

I gotta get some more popcorn, this is entertaining.

Zimphire · Mar 22, 2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
And it took just a several hours for the first retaliation to being

If they want a Civil war, I am pretty sure I know what side is going to come out on top.

fizzlemynizzle · Mar 22, 2004, 02:38 PM

But seeing that Dubya has already claimed to be acting in the name of God (well, because God "told him to"), I fear that time may be a lot closer than you think.

That again? Unless you have more insight on the accuracy of that statement than an Arabic to English to Arabic translation of a conversation from a non-English speaker's memory.. then I call ********.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

edit - and if you do, please use a credible source. IE - no whackjob blogs.

and just for you, here's a left slanted news org also dispelling this oft-repeated myth. just in case the washington post isn't liberal enough for you.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm

Logic · Mar 22, 2004, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If they want a Civil war, I am pretty sure I know what side is going to come out on top.

Hamas? Islamic Jihad? Hizbollah? Please tell me who will win.

itai195 · Mar 22, 2004, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Troll:
This is the bottom line for me. Israel is a racist state that practices apartheid in the Occupied Territories. Just as I think the violent resistance to apartheid in South Africa was unfortunate but justified, I'm leaning more and more in favour of the Palestinians. I detest violence, but there comes a time when it's the only solution. I think the time has come for a violent solution to Sharon.

I disagree with this statement entirely, but I'll go through the perfunctory motions of mentioning that the current intifada began before Sharon was even PM. I'd also argue that if Palestinian violence is 'understandable,' then so is Israeli violence -- the government is trying to protect its citizens from harm. Personally, I agree with Logic, I'd like all of the violence to stop. Arguing about who is the instigator and whose actions are 'justified' just adds more fuel to the fire...

For those of you advocating regime change in Israel, oh how ironic! You are, after all, the same people who argued that Iraq's totalitarian regime, responsible for tens- if not hundreds- of thousands of civilian deaths, should NOT have been forcibly changed through military means. You're the same people who constantly criticize the US for seeking regime change in other countries. And yet, you support regime change in a nation with a democratically elected government because you disagree with the current administration's policies. All I have to say is "interesting" ...

I also don't seriously think that Yasin could have been arrested with less casualties. You've got to be kidding if you honestly believe that Hamas' supporters would just turn him over without a fight. Do you want another Jenin? I thought that was a massacre?

I think my primary opinion about this event is that, at the very least, I highly doubt it will bring about the results that the Sharon administration was hoping for.

itai195 · Mar 22, 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Logic:
And it took just a fewl hours for the first retaliation to being

The funny part is you don't realize that this happens regularly...

lil'babykitten · Mar 22, 2004, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by itai195:
The funny part is you don't realize that this happens regularly...

Perhaps an even funnier part is that you don't realise what is about to happen......

(though maybe that's not a 'funny' part, rather a 'sad' part)

Wiskedjak · Mar 22, 2004, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If they want a Civil war, I am pretty sure I know what side is going to come out on top.

Yes, the side with Weapons of Mass Destruction.