Subject:
|
Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:06:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
505 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> > > I can't help but to wonder if this person's opinion would be different had
> > > OBL leveled a different target-- namely Toronto's First Canadian Place.
>
> > Perhaps it should not take a bloody nose for anyone to see the truth about
> > terrorism?
>
> But there's nothing like a Pearl Harbor or 9-11 to jolt one's senses. The sad
> truth is that a bloody nose is *exactly* what it takes.
Why is that? Do you not care unless you are the victim?
>
> > > What I'd like to hear are some
> > > alternate solutions to deal with terrorism that don't include a dependence
> > > upon the naive solution of diplomacy (because I've seen how well that
> > > strategy has worked in the ME)
>
> > I feel sorry for you. What do you do if you disagree with your wife? Does she
> > beat you until you do agree, or do you talk the problem over?
>
> And what if she does? What the hell does that have to do with anything?
My point is that talk is better than violence.
>
> > What the ME shows is how violence does not work and diplomacy can work.
> > Diplomacy in the ME brought peace far closer than violence ever has.
>
> Please. Diplomacy has *not* worked in the ME, no matter how "close" it ever
> appeared.
It has worked better than violence - that is my point.
> There are fundamental issues at play, namely the very *existence* of
> the State of Israel.
The "right" will be happy that you think that is what the problem is.
> There are some who will not relent until there is no
> Israel, and no amount of negogiation will change that.
...and there are some that will not relent until there are no Palestinians.
>
> > The
> > problem is that the diplomatic solution meant that Israel had to give back
> > land that did not belong to it.
>
> Israel *has* returned land in the past.
All of it?
> What did it get her? The promised
> peace?
Are they at war with Egypt?
> The fact is that every condition that was ever negogiated has been
> violated.
By only the Palestinians?
> One could argue that negogiation has actually *prolonged* the
> conflict.
If I thought war was the answer, I would agree.
>
> > The nationalists in Israel [and their supports further a field] could not
> > countenance that. We see the resultant bilateral terrorism today. Indeed, I
> > read over the weekend that Israel murdered a UN worker.
>
> And here is where the conversation ends, because we are so apart on this that
> further discussion is pointless. If you are willing to equate an accidental
> killing of a UN worker (for which Israel has apologized)
Did they apologise for not letting the ambulance through? Will the soldiers be
charged? Have they apologised for all the civilians they have killed [they shot
another 8 year old kid dead on Monday]? IS SHARON IN JAIL YET?
IDF version of events has been questioned:
UN rejects Israeli account of British official's killing
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=355562
"Our preliminary findings are completely contrary to what the Israeli army
said. The compound is quite small. At no point did we lose control of the site.
There were no militants on the site. I am very sad and angry that the man was
shot dead while working in a clearly marked UN compound."
> to the results of a
> homicidal bomber (which was very deliberate, and I mean the deliberate murder
> of women and children),
lol. And the IDF has not done the same? Wake up John!
> then we have nothing to talk about, because I find it
> offensive.
>
> > Conversely, Israel?s history also shows how belligerence and terrorism can
> > work. Do you deny that?
>
> "Can work"? To what end? If you mean that it has preserved their existence,
> yes, but not much else beyond that.
Terrorism helped bring about its existence. Ever heard of the King David Hotel
[1946: >90 dead] or the Cinemas and American Libraries Israel bombed in Egypt?
>
> > A war on terror will never stop terrorism. I war on injustice has a better
> > chance.
>
> I doubt it.
That's sad.
> There will always be injustice, and thus there would always be
> war. A war terror has a better chance of stopping terrorism than doing
> nothing.
That is not my point! Is it anyone's?
Scott A
> Inaction and negogiation merely emboldens terrorists.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
|
| (...) I am saying that I care *more* *because* it happened to me, as you would if OBL had leveled Buckingham Palace and 1,000s of *your* countrymen were murdered. You just don't get it. If not for the courageous actions of a handful of Americans, (...) (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
|
| (...) But there's nothing like a Pearl Harbor or 9-11 to jolt one's senses. The sad truth is that a bloody nose is *exactly* what it takes. (...) And what if she does? What the hell does that have to do with anything? (...) Please. Diplomacy has (...) (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
