Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Did Dean actually say this???
Rhett
(Not even a monkey)
in Zocalo v2.0
I'm of course talking about Howard Dean, one of our 10 some Democrat canadites for president here in the US (and by far the most liberal).
[quote]Asked what he meant, Mr. Kerry said Dr. Dean had asserted that the United States should not take sides in the Middle East conflict and that suicide bombers from Hamas were "soldiers."[/quote]
This was taken from the nytimes.com ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/20/politics/campaigns/20KERR.html?ex=1064635200&en=61107c509440e7eb&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE[/url])
Now if he really said this, I am disgusted. No matter hwat your stance may be on the Middle East, there is no way that you can say that suicide bombers (no, just plain murderers) are soldiers. Soldiers do not go out trying to kill innocent women and children. Soldiers do not purposely slaughter people without reason. Dean, you should be shot for that comment you sick son of a bitch. I feel very strongly about the Israili situation (as I have a friend who lives there) but even if I didnt, I would still find this sick. How can you provide some sort of justification to cold blooded murder (of women and children no less)?
[quote]Asked what he meant, Mr. Kerry said Dr. Dean had asserted that the United States should not take sides in the Middle East conflict and that suicide bombers from Hamas were "soldiers."[/quote]
This was taken from the nytimes.com ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/20/politics/campaigns/20KERR.html?ex=1064635200&en=61107c509440e7eb&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE[/url])
Now if he really said this, I am disgusted. No matter hwat your stance may be on the Middle East, there is no way that you can say that suicide bombers (no, just plain murderers) are soldiers. Soldiers do not go out trying to kill innocent women and children. Soldiers do not purposely slaughter people without reason. Dean, you should be shot for that comment you sick son of a bitch. I feel very strongly about the Israili situation (as I have a friend who lives there) but even if I didnt, I would still find this sick. How can you provide some sort of justification to cold blooded murder (of women and children no less)?
Comments
If you can't see how the enemy thinks, you can't fight them. Don't critisize me for the arguments I am making: I don't support their conclusion, but only believe that they are equally valid to the standardly held view in the US that Palistinians are terrorists and should be stopped.[/i]
-----------------
But I ask you: How does this differ from civilian casualties when we invaded Iraq?
The Isreal region has been at war, as far as Arabs are concened, for close to 1000 years, trying to repel Christianity (Crusades) and Judaism (Isreal) and quite a few wars in between. I believe that the Palistinians do believe that they are at war, and they do believe that Hamas are soldiers. Becuase the rest of the world sees them as Terrorists does not make them so in the eyes of their own people.
If you consider them terrorists, then how were the Indians not terrorists? They attacked frotier families in the US in the 1700's and 1800's. They did so becuase they saw them as invaders. Yes they had women and children. They were still invaders. In Isreal, Jewish settlements can easily be linked to the frotier families in the US. Sure the Palestinians do far more damage when they blow themselves up. Thank goodness the Indians didn't have explosives when we colonized the US!
-----------------------
The war in the middle east between Christianity/Judism and Muslim cultures has not been solved in 1000 years. I see little chance of it being solved in our lifetime.
"I'm sorry boys and girls but you cant play nice, so I'm going to take away all your sharp pointy toys until you can."
or we drop an air fuel bomb on the lot and start from scratch...
or everyone converts to Buhdism, or Libertarianism or....
~~~~
it really gets to the point were the entire middle east conflict looks very childish... I just wish they werent children armed with Merkava tanks and plastic explosive.
To be a soldier, you have to be part of an organized army under the flag of a recognized nation. "Palestine" is not officially a nation or independent state. Thusly, suicide bombers cannot be recognised as "soldiers".
Also, soldiers morally should not endeavour to purposely seek out and destroy civillians or civillian targets, which suicide bombers routinely do.
Regards,
Morden
A suicide bomber is a rouge contingent. There is no limit to whom he/she may target and can just as easily turn upon their own people (see bombings in Saudi Arabia and of the Jordanian embassy). This, in a very dangerous manner, begins to unravel the threads of society, allowing the will of a small group of individual to drive the direction of the whole. A suicide bomber is attempting to drive a society and government, whereas a soldier is driven by society and government.
Now this is purely supposition on my part, but I'd be willing to bet that if you asked Palestinians there opinion of the suicide bombings, they'd feel they did not serve the betterment of Palestine, but the power base of a small group of individuals.
If a suicide bomber where to target only military personnel and installation, it would be, while still in violation of the Geneva convention, a bit more justified to call them soldiers. While it’s an extreme form of guerilla warfare, at least they are attack those who can defend themselves, and are willing to defend others. Remember much of the US's revolutionary campaign against the British was based upon guerilla style fighting.
Now don't get me wrong, I am not trying to justify suicide bombing in any manner, I think it is a significant threat to society. I am just making a distinction between those that attack civilians and those that attack soldiers.
Jake
[B]But I ask you: How does this differ from civilian casualties when we invaded Iraq?[/B][/QUOTE]
[i]We didn't intentionally target civilians.[/i]
That is the true mark of distinction between an army and a terrorist organization. Whatever the merits of the reasons for the Iraq war may or may not be, it was cleanly fought, with clear regard for the civilians involved, even to the point of losing the lives of some of our soldiers so that their civilians would be saved. [i]That[/i] is how wars are honorably fought.
[B]Morden: Palistinians and Arabs don't recognize Isreal as a nation either... [/B][/QUOTE]
And considering the actions the Israeli military are taking, perhaps they should also be considered terrorists.
Jake
I do too.
[B]Morden: Palistinians and Arabs don't recognize Isreal as a nation either... [/B][/QUOTE]
But the rest of the world does. To wit, they are wrong.
Regards,
Morden
[B][i]We didn't intentionally target civilians.[/i]
That is the true mark of distinction between an army and a terrorist organization. Whatever the merits of the reasons for the Iraq war may or may not be, it was cleanly fought, with clear regard for the civilians involved, even to the point of losing the lives of some of our soldiers so that their civilians would be saved. [i]That[/i] is how wars are honorably fought. [/B][/QUOTE]
Back during the settlement of the US, American Indians targeted civilian homesteads and farms.
Do you mean to say that the Indians were terrorists by defending what they saw as their own land?
[B]I believe dr. Franklin said something along the lines of: Its like if you have cancer, you cut it out, and if any healthy tissue is also removed, its ok because at least you removed the tumor. This was in responce to an EA general suggesting that Franklin should give him the info he had on Minbari physiology, to create biological weapons. Needless to say, Franklin said no.
I do too. [/B][/QUOTE]
Nice quote. As the military normally sees things, the only way to remove an enemy is to bomb them. With the Palestinians that is not true. They have been fighting the west for 1000 years. A few bombs isn't going to change a thing. The only things that might are:
1. We get out of there. (give in essentially)
2. We give them the representation they deserve.
3. We stop bombing them in responce becuase that only makes MORE terrorists. Now what we do in responce...I have no idea.
[B]Back during the settlement of the US, American Indians targeted civilian homesteads and farms.
Do you mean to say that the Indians were terrorists by defending what they saw as their own land? [/B][/QUOTE]
In those specific instances? Coming in and slaughtering or holding hostage those who personally had nothing to do with pushing the Indians off their land, those who relied on separate military forces for their own defense?
Yes, absolutely.
But that's not the whole story of that conflict. The settlement of the US took place over a great deal of time with many warring factions (Spain, France, England) involved. For every atrocity committed by the natives, you can find ten more just like it committed by the invading "soldiers."
Atrocities are still atrocities, no matter who commits them.
[B]Its not like the Isreali's are that discriminate in their actions either, flattening whole blocks in the search for one man [/B][/QUOTE]
Never said they were.
Two I believe that this situation can be fixed now, The Israeli's wont leave but maybe we can move the Palestinians to Antartica. Sure its a little cold but they burn the ice & make Igloos. No one has claims on Antartica why not give them the whole thing. Theres more then enpough room for procreation & though food might be sparingly you can always trade, perhaps export ice!
[B]Two I believe that this situation can be fixed now, The Israeli's wont leave but maybe we can move the Palestinians to Antartica. Sure its a little cold but they burn the ice & make Igloos. No one has claims on Antartica why not give them the whole thing. Theres more then enpough room for procreation & though food might be sparingly you can always trade, perhaps export ice! [/B][/QUOTE]
I give 50-50 odds on whether Cabl3 Guy is being serious or not. Any takers?
It's easy to blame Hitler, but then again, there's that whole school of thought that Hitler wasn't even responsible for the Holocaust, and that it was just instigated by Heidrich and other members of the SS and Nazi inner circle for their own personal adjendas.
Regards,
Morden
You never can tell!
[QUOTE]It's easy to blame Hitler, but then again, there's that whole school of thought that Hitler wasn't even responsible for the Holocaust, and that it was just instigated by Heidrich and other members of the SS and Nazi inner circle for their own personal adjendas. [/QUOTE]
Possibly, but then again Hitler wasnt exactly fond of the Jews either. At the very least he wouldnt of prevented it. Personally I think he encouraged it
[B]Well if you know anything about Hitler then you know when he was a vagabond(bum) in Vienna he grew increasingly angry & needed something to lash out at. "& there in the darkness I saw it, what could this creature be? I would later learn it was a Jew & from then on I hated the Jew." Hitler had one friend in Austria who he told his stories & ideas. He told him about his hatred of Jews long before he met any of the Nazi upper staff. he also subscribed to an antisemitic newspaper. All im saying is If it weren't for Hitler causing a holocaust there would be no reason for a Jewish homeland. Now im not saying ohh the holocaust was good thing im just putting A+B=C. [/B][/QUOTE]
Or we could blame some random inhabitant of Vienna who kicked a rock one day, which Hitler was doomed to trip and smash his head open on.
[B]Maybe I get a rock & smash your school open the n you can be just SHitler. [/B][/QUOTE]
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :rolleyes: