New Middle Eastern War

[padren]

A "can't we all just get along" post:

 

I think we can all agree that life is sacred, we all agree that people need to defend themselves from the aggressions of others - when you boil it down I think we all have very similar philosophies.

 

What is in question from what I can read, is a difference of opinion on the facts of this case.

 

So lets discuss the facts and, in the event that the facts we hold as solid are viewed as conjecture to others and visa versa, then we can agree to disagree on the facts, but lets not get too personal and attack each other's underlying philosophies and intelligence.

 

Its an emotional topic, and I know how emotional it can feel at times when you see people you feel are being very heroic die, and others feel that their actions are criminal. The emotional reaction is understandable and should be directed to the fact that "anyone could make that negative view" but that is still a fact of life that such things occur, and you can't really blame the person making the view - its just part of the fog of war and life in general.

 

Lets take a deep breath and step back, and assume the opposing points of view are based on an intelligent assesment of facts that differ from the facts we hold to be evident, return to a more civil level of discourse. (insert flower-power smiley here)

[PhDP]

In fact, shame on you all[/b'] who place more importance on the lives of certain people simply because of the race and country and lifestyle to which they belong. All death is horrible - all life is sacred.

 

Amen ! Terrorists would have to find very destructive weapons if they want to compete against famine, poverty and illness. It would take them a couple of well-placed nuclear attack just to do "as good" as the massacres in Sudan (nearly half a millions lives lost). They're not worth a medal in a "what's Earth worst problem" contest. Yet, we're brought to believe every dollar spent in security is a dollar well spent, because "the war on terror" is the main international problem of this new millenium. I'm sure they enjoy the attention. Newsmedia are only interested in the middle east, terrorists, or the lastest beautiful woman kidnapped or killed.

[Jim]

Most Americans, like myself, are not going to become experts in the history of these cultures. For me, how we got to this point is irrelevant and I judge the intentions of the parties and ask who is acting in good faith.

 

Israel's objective is to continue to exist. This objective seems completely understandable given Jewish history.

 

Iran and their proxies' stated objective is to cause Israel to cease to exist. I'm not sure what wiping Israel off of the map would entail but it sounds really really bad.

 

 

Warning: Now I am going to say something controversial (people seem to think I already have, even though I really haven't, so may as well be hung for a sheep as hung for a lamb, as they say). I don't really care about what happened to the WTC. Oh I care that people died - I always care when people die. But I didn't care more for the people in the WTC who died than the people who die horribly every day all over the world. In fact, shame on you all who place more importance on the lives of certain people simply because of the race and country and lifestyle to which they belong. All death is horrible - all life is sacred.

 

I agree that the 9/11 deaths do not matter more than deaths on the highway but there was more than a loss of life on that day. We lost the largest office towers in our leading commercial center, a chunk of the pentagon and almost lost the nation's capitol. Even if we disregard the human, financial and symbolic losses, we cannot disregard what the event forewarns. In an alternate reality where Americans had not reacted so strongly to 9/11 (and dare I say where Bush had not reacted as aggressively, particularly in Afghanistan), we might be talking about considerably more losses.

[Bettina]

Amen ! Terrorists would have to find very destructive weapons if they want to compete against famine, poverty and illness. It would take them a couple of well-placed nuclear attack just to do "as good" as the massacres in Sudan (nearly half a millions lives lost). They're not worth a medal in a "what's Earth worst problem" contest. Yet, we're brought to believe every dollar spent in security is a dollar well spent, because "the war on terror" is the main international problem of this new millenium. I'm sure they enjoy the attention. Newsmedia are only interested in the middle east, terrorists, or the lastest beautiful woman kidnapped or killed.

 

I disagree. Terrorists DO have destructive weapons and their being taught how to use them every day. The middle east IS the breeding ground and even today their children are still being taught to hate and kill Jews and infidels. Iran IS the biggest problem that the world faces today and to put nukes in the hands of religious mullahs who wish Israel destroyed is something that cannot be allowed.

 

The "war on terror" is very real. Its just that people like Severian choose to ignore it. He seems to be trying to smooth over his remarks now, but his earlier posts tell me all I have to know about his mindset. He's very good at what he does and that mindset appears in many countries who wish to stand idle and let some other country worry about fighting terrorism.

 

Bee

[Pangloss]

Severian' date=' I respect you as a person dearly, but you are utterly ignorant in the matter. Before you make utterly ignorant claims, I would suggest you check and cross refference your information.

 

[/quote']

 

This is borderline ad hominem; please be more respectful in the future. I think this has been a productive thread and I'd hate to see it degrade to name-calling. Thanks.

[PhDP]

In an alternate reality where Americans had not reacted so strongly to 9/11 (and dare I say where Bush had not reacted as aggressively, particularly in Afghanistan),

 

Still, it's an allergic reaction. Throwing billions, thousands of soldiers, waging two wars, because of one terrorist act. BTW, I can't believe you still defend the Iraq war

 

Iran IS the biggest problem that the world faces today and to put nukes in the hands of religious mullahs who wish Israel destroyed is something that cannot be allowed. [...'] The "war on terror" is very real. Its just that people like Severian choose to ignore it.

 

Biggest problem ? To who ? To the West, and Israel ? Perhaps ! But it's not killing thousands of people right now, and we have a chance to do something about it, no need to panick. But at the scale of the world ("world > occident", and not "world = occident"), those problems are outrageously "overcovered". You'll need to enumerate a lot of terrorist attacks just to match the number of people dying of hunger in one day (~30 000). Nobody is waging wars for them, and they would never have the chance to worry about what Iran could, eventually, do in years to come...

[ecoli]

Well, you seem to be letting your imagination run away with you. Why don't you go back and read my posts? I said that the state of Iran didn't want me dead - I think that is quite reasonable, I don't understand why you would have such an adverse reation to that.

 

Well, Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map. And I'm sure he's not too fond of other westeners either.

 

The other point I was making was that any terrorist who wants to kill me, doesn't really want me dead. He wants the people who support his enemies dead, or indeed just to make a political statement.

Either way, you are dead. Surely you must have some sense of self-preservation.

 

 

Warning: Now I am going to say something controversial (people seem to think I already have, even though I really haven't, so may as well be hung for a sheep as hung for a lamb, as they say). I don't really care about what happened to the WTC. Oh I care that people died - I always care when people die. But I didn't care more for the people in the WTC who died than the people who die horribly every day all over the world. In fact, shame on you all who place more importance on the lives of certain people simply because of the race and country and lifestyle to which they belong. All death is horrible - all life is sacred.

You have a point. Unfortunately for you, it's also a strawman. It was never my (nor Mooey's) position that some life was more sacred than others. I can even see how you could erect that particular strawman, given our actual positions.

 

 

Make up your mind. You just criticised me for saying that I was not at any serious risk from terrorists (which ironically I didn't even say). You can't have it both ways you know. And just to let you in on a secret - you are not in much risk in New York either (How many people died in the WTC? What is the population of NY?)

about 2,000 died out of a population of about 7 million. Statistically your safe... unless you work in high profile areas. But, what is your point, exactly?

 

I am slightly amused by this in the light of ecoli's comments about media brainwashing. I mean, who needs media brainwashing when you can read anything you like into my posts and believe it? Would you care to point out where I called you a 'murderer'?

 

I must admit, I am rather bemused by how rabid this post has become.

 

Now who's acting condescending, severian?

 

Amen ! Terrorists would have to find very destructive weapons if they want to compete against famine, poverty and illness. It would take them a couple of well-placed nuclear attack just to do "as good" as the massacres in Sudan (nearly half a millions lives lost). They're not worth a medal in a "what's Earth worst problem" contest. Yet, we're brought to believe every dollar spent in security is a dollar well spent, because "the war on terror" is the main international problem of this new millenium. I'm sure they enjoy the attention. Newsmedia are only interested in the middle east, terrorists, or the lastest beautiful woman kidnapped or killed.

 

So we should allow people get killed by terrorists just because they are also dying of hunger?

 

I'm not sure sure you'd be saying that if it was you who was being threatned. But, idk perhaps you would.

[mooeypoo]

This is borderline ad hominem; please be more respectful in the future. I think this has been a productive thread and I'd hate to see it degrade to name-calling. Thanks.

Maybe I was misunderstood. By saying ignorant, I didn't mean as an ignorant person, but as a specifically not knowing THIS subject. Which is why I said I respect Severian dearly, which I do. I also wrote that in THIS case, he is ignorant. It's far from being name calling, but if it sounded like it, it wasn't my intention.

 

~moo

[ecoli]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/739900.html

 

^ Things are getting crazy.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5180202.stm

 

^ The BBC lays out the situation quite neatly.

[GutZ]

The "war on terror" is very real. Its just that people like Severian choose to ignore it. He seems to be trying to smooth over his remarks now' date=' but his earlier posts tell me all I have to know about his mindset. He's very good at what he does and that mindset appears in many countries who wish to stand idle and let some other country worry about fighting terrorism. [/quote']

 

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)

n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

 

Fighting terrorism isn't all about guns and bombs. This is what I was trying to explain. As long as people feel the need to join in the terrorist group, you will always have problems. The ideology is limitless. If you fight them, they will fight back harder, you give them reason to exist. In that case the violence is justified.

 

I am not saying just let it go either, but you have to understand too that by interfering you could and most likely will be putting people at risk, peoples families. In chao, it's natural to want to jump in to save something. It's very hard to sit an watch a situation that you can not change alone, but there are other solutions.

 

Say the US does go in, it stops for maybe a few months, then they leave. What in our history tell us that they wont just go at it again?

 

The best solution is to get the two to stop fighting on their own. If not how are you going to stop them without going in and possibly killing not only people from the middle east, but people from NA/europe/etc.

 

People are going to die. It's a really hard fact to swallow. I think rash thoughts and actions can be as dangerous as waiting it out.

 

This is why I hate the lack of power of the UN. It's so pointless to have it if the one thing it was created for, it can't even do.

[ecoli]

the problem is Gutz, that these people will not stop until their 'cause' is fufilled. And that cause is the complete irradication of the state of Israel. That is simply not an option, and we shouldn't appease the radical groups just because they never learned how to play nice.

[Jim]

Still, it's an allergic reaction. Throwing billions, thousands of soldiers, waging two wars, because of one terrorist act. BTW, I can't believe you still defend the Iraq war

 

If you want to start a thread on the issue and keep an open mind, I'd be happy to explain my position.

[Bettina]

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)

n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments' date=' often for ideological or political reasons.

 

Fighting terrorism isn't all about guns and bombs. This is what I was trying to explain. As long as people feel the need to join in the terrorist group, you will always have problems. The ideology is limitless. If you fight them, they will fight back harder, you give them reason to exist. In that case the violence is justified.

 

I am not saying just let it go either, but you have to understand too that by interfering you could and most likely will be putting people at risk, peoples families. In chao, it's natural to want to jump in to save something. It's very hard to sit an watch a situation that you can not change alone, but there are other solutions.[/quote']

 

I understand what your saying but terrorists have an agenda that is offensive.... not defensive. Like Gutz said, they want Israel out of the middle east or destroyed altogether and no amount of cease fire will cure that. Then when Israel is gone, they will seek other infidels.

 

Say the US does go in, it stops for maybe a few months, then they leave. What in our history tell us that they wont just go at it again?

 

Libya for one.

 

The best solution is to get the two to stop fighting on their own. If not how are you going to stop them without going in and possibly killing not only people from the middle east, but people from NA/europe/etc.

 

People are going to die. It's a really hard fact to swallow. I think rash thoughts and actions can be as dangerous as waiting it out.

 

This is why I hate the lack of power of the UN. It's so pointless to have it if the one thing it was created for, it can't even do.

 

What you must do is stop the literal teachings of Islam to young people but I don't know how that can be done without invading the country and changing the government. Like you said, the UN is a pointless organization that has no real power, so to me, its the responsibility of the civilized nations..... all of them.... to fight it. What bothers me are the countries (and people) who bury their head in the sand and wait for it to go away. It won't.

 

Bee

[MM]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/739900.html

 

^ Things are getting crazy.

 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5180202.stm

 

^ The BBC lays out the situation quite neatly.

 

Yet after reading that you don't realize that Israels actions are counter productive ?

[MM]

I understand what your saying but terrorists have an agenda that is offensive.... not defensive. Like Gutz said' date=' they want Israel out of the middle east or destroyed altogether and no amount of cease fire will cure that. Then when Israel is gone, they will seek other infidels.

 

 

 

Libya for one.

 

 

 

What you must do is stop the literal teachings of Islam to young people but I don't know how that can be done without invading the country and changing the government. Like you said, the UN is a pointless organization that has no real power, so to me, its the responsibility of the civilized nations..... all of them.... to fight it. What bothers me are the countries (and people) who bury their head in the sand and wait for it to go away. It won't.

 

Bee[/quote']

 

Why stop there, ban religions all together. It's the root of all evil isn't it.

[5614]

Why should I care more about an Israeli citizen being killed by a suicide bomber than I should care about someone being murdered in Darfur? I genuinely don't understand why you percieve one as a problem and not the other.

I didn't say I did. Although if where you said "you" you meant "one" (ie. not me specifically) then the response is simple. Maybe you have a child, maybe you do not, but there is (I hope) someone in this world who you love dearly. A parent, partner, child or any member of family. If I had to chose between (if I had one) my child's life and some randomer off the street I would obviously chose to save my child's life.

 

Now if you don't feel that way then fair enough (bit weird, but anyway), this would be the most popular response to the scenario. Similarly some people feel somewhat "in love" with Israel. This is a different kind of love, but still a valid type. Maybe it's the religion, the ideology, the hatred of surrounding countries,the way it is similar to the West or just about any reason. Similarly many people (for many similar reasons) are in love with the Arab countries.

 

Maybe you don't even want to call it love. Maybe just calling it a bond, or some form of connection that one feels with someone or something else. It is this connection that make people value the lives they feel connected with over someone else's they are not connected with.

 

Why should you care? You shouldn't, or should I say you don't, personally, seem to have a reason to. But many people do feel some sort of connection towards Israelis, or if not an anti-connection to Islamic/Arabic extremists who have flown into American buildings, blown up British trains and buses etc.

 

Also no one says the other (as referred to in the quote) is not important. It's just people consider one more of a problem, because of this connection thing. It makes the other seem less important, but no one would ever say it's not a problem.

 

Severian: On a seperate note I am sorry that you seem to have such a bad experience in Israel. I don't know who you ran into or what the situation was, but there are people in all countries who would spit at someone. They are anomalies and do not represent the country, so do not base your views of a country on one indivdual. Especially not one like that. But do remember there are, sadly, people like that in all countries. It's not an "Israeli problem".

 

Well, I have never had a terrorist point a gun at me, but I have had the IDF point a gun at me.

Again, I don't know the circumstances. But the IDF would only have actually shot you if you were considered a serious security breach who would not comply with commands. Whereas a terrorist would probably shoot you for being a Westerner.

[5614]

Yet after reading that you don't realize that Israels actions are counter productive ?

And you suggest what? The Israelis let these people kidnapp soldiers and build up support and weapons?

 

Remember many of these groups are founded purely on various anti-Israel beliefs. If Israel let them build up, become stronger and bigger then in the end they will pose a threat. Their existance (a group like Hezbollah) is purely for destructive purposes. It is the Israelis who they want to destroy. The Israelis will not sit down and let them build a force so they can destroy Israel. Do you see the reasoning there?

 

They want to destroy Israel. If Israel leaves them then they build up an army/weapons to destroy Israel then it's not good for Israel. Israel doesn't want this. Note this is the Israeli view point. But then that is what I am trying to portray right here right now.

 

Why stop there, ban religions all together. It's the root of all evil isn't it.

She didn't say that. And it is off topic. Maybe she feels that way, maybe she doesn't... but it is not the purpose of this thread and it is not being discussed here. She was talking about a specific religion in specific circumstances. They are circumstances which are being discussed in this thread. What you said is not. Don't change the subject.

 

And you put a full stop at the end of the sentence, as if it is a statement. Maybe you feel that way. Or maybe your grammar is bad.

[GutZ]

the problem is Gutz, that these people will not stop until their 'cause' is fufilled[/b']. And that cause is the complete irradication of the state of Israel. That is simply not an option, and we shouldn't appease the radical groups just because they never learned how to play nice.

 

I agree with that. I Don't think I would enjoy having Canada wiped off the map, whether or not it's an attack against the Government or the People.

 

I do understand where you are coming from though. Just different ways of reaching the goal or what is believed to be the most effieicent way of ending it. I think we both want minimal causalities. I really do hope it stops.

 

@Bettina

 

I was more referring to the area specifically

 

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

[5614]

Bettina and Phil:

 

Just something you were discussing earlier about if the Middle East is the bigger problem in the world.

 

Phil, you cannot judge the "biggest problem" based solely on how many people die there each day, which is what you were/are doing.

 

If Iran will make multiple nukes and wipe out most of America tomorrow, then surely that would make them the "biggest problem" today, even though they have not yet killed anyone. See, your 'rating' system is flawed.

 

You are only dealing with how many people die in the present. Not past. Not future. Not potential. Not possibilities. Only the present. The system is fundementally flawed.

[PhDP]

So we should allow people get killed by terrorists just because they are also dying of hunger?

 

I said that ? I'm perhaps a little naive, but I think all human life are equally valuable. Focusing all our energy on a particular region and a particular problem that is killing a few people while dozens of thousand humans life are lost each day without any mention, that's unjustifiable. A really small part of human suffering is given a disproportionate amount of attention, why ?

 

If you want to start a thread on the issue and keep an open mind, I'd be happy to explain my position.

 

Go ahead ! I'm curious to see why you're defending the Iraq war with such vigor...

[5614]

See my post above yours, I'm guessing it wasn't there when you started replying.

 

but I think all human life are equally valuable

See my post #116. Where I replied to Severian when he said about valuing different lives. In theory a human life is a human life, but read the post.

 

(Have fun in your new thread regarding the Iraq war!)

[MM]

And you suggest what? The Israelis let these people kidnapp soldiers and build up support and weapons?

 

Remember many of these groups are founded purely on various anti-Israel beliefs. If Israel let them build up' date=' become stronger and bigger then in the end they will pose a threat. Their existance (a group like Hezbollah) is purely for destructive purposes. It is the Israelis who they want to destroy. The Israelis will not sit down and let them build a force so they can destroy Israel. Do you see the reasoning there?

 

 

 

They want to destroy Israel. If Israel leaves them then they build up an army/weapons to destroy Israel then it's not good for Israel. Israel doesn't want this. Note this is the Israeli view point. But then that is what I am trying to portray right here right now.[/quote']

 

Yes I see the reasoning and frankly it scares me to see people this evil to suggest the preemptive murder of women and children. Which is the decision it comes down to.

 

Sane people would initiate peace talks regardless and if they had this much hatred inside them they would find it in their hearts to resign.

 

She didn't say that. And it is off topic. Maybe she feels that way' date=' maybe she doesn't... but it is not the purpose of this thread and it is not being discussed here. She was talking about a specific religion in specific circumstances. They are circumstances which are being discussed in this thread. What you said is not. Don't change the subject.

 

And you put a full stop at the end of the sentence, as if it is a statement. Maybe you feel that way. Or maybe your grammar is bad.[/quote']

 

Then I suggest refraining from posting islamaphobic posts.

[5614]

Sane people would initiate peace talks

How can you initiate peace talks when both sides want the other eliminated? What could you say, the only offer you could make they'd accept would include destruction of the other party.

 

Having said that political pressure will play a big role in this and eventually maybe the kidnapped soldiers will be returned, Israel will leave Lebanon alone and Hezbollah stop shooting rockets into Israel. But the problem will not have been solved. Only temporarily put on hold.

 

Then I suggest refraining from posting islamaphobic posts

I don't think she meant it in an Islamaphobic sense. I think she was referring to fundementalist or extremists interpretation of Islam, which is of course quite different from how it was intended to be interpreted. And even is she was Islamaphobic you needn't have brought in all other religions. Nor such a big (and off topic) issue such as "religion is the root of all problems".

 

-----

 

Severian: I await your (as always) interesting point of view. And may I add; under what circumstances did the IDF point a gun at you?

[PhDP]

Hi 5614,

 

You are only dealing with how many people die in the present. Not past. Not future. Not potential. Not possibilities. Only the present. The system is fundementally flawed.

 

How many people died in the past because of terrorism ? How many are dying now ? Perhaps the number of people killed by terrorists will indeed rise, it's possible, but how the hell could they do, on average, 30 000 deaths a day ? How many nuclear weapons would they need ? And it's likely Iran will never have nuclear weapons. Iran is a serious problem, I don't think it's a very big one, but still, the US and Europe are working hard to solve it.

 

As the name imply, the best tool of terrorists is fear, while they are obviously not threatening many people on earth, the actions of occident is clearly showing them how effective they are. But I guess the first politician to say "stop panicking" will get politically burned in this post-9/11 politcal era. How could we let them shape our political landscape so dramatically ?

 

Phil, you cannot judge the "biggest problem" based solely on how many people die there each day, which is what you were/are doing.

 

Well, in term of suffering and deaths, both in past and in the future, poverty (and its consequences) is clearly #1. How could Iran compare to this ? I'm not ignoring the treat of terrorism, or the political instability of the middle east, I'm only denouncing the exaggerations, worse things are happening right now, nobody cares, and it makes me sick.

 

Also, I read your post #116. If something was putting the life of a loved one in serious danger, I would care a lot more than what's happening is another hemisphere. But I don't think there's any rational or emotional justification to care more about a stranger 50 meters away or 10 000 kilometers aways.

[MM]

How can you initiate peace talks when both sides want the other eliminated? What could you say' date=' the only offer you could make they'd accept would include destruction of the other party.

 

Having said that political pressure will play a big role in this and eventually maybe the kidnapped soldiers will be returned, Israel will leave Lebanon alone and Hezbollah stop shooting rockets into Israel. But the problem will not have been solved. Only temporarily put on hold.[/quote']

 

I disagree Lebanon's Prime Minister did offer a cease fire from the beginning.

As these soldiers are valuable to the Hezbollah guerrillas they would be perfectly safe for time being leaving time for negotiations under cease fire. Bottom line is that you don't fight terrorism with terrorism.