Subject:
|
Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:24:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
567 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:
> > > 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?
>
> 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.
The UK has already lost 1000's to terrorists. Much of it supporeted by *your*
countrymen:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2517377.stm
> You just don't get it.
You don't. OBL has been a terrorist for quite a while. You country trained him.
None of that was a problem until he bit the hand that fed him.
> If not for the courageous actions of a handful of
> Americans, the fact is that we could quite possibly not have our National
> Capital or White House standing (depending which was the intended target).
>
> Yeah, it's personal, so walk a mile.
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> Not always. Review Chamberlain. Hitler laughed behind his back, as muslim
> terrorists laugh behind yours.
What response do "Muslim terrorists" want? I suspect they want just what you
suggest be given to them. Do you ever stop to think why that is? Has
anti-Americanism grown or subsided since 911? Why is that?
>
> > > > 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.
>
> How so? There is *still* violence in the ME, so *neither* have worked so far.
I said "worked better". If Netanyahu had not messed things up, things would be
a lot better today.
>
> > > 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.
>
> And those who secretly wish Israel gone thank you for your obfuscation to
> conceal *their* ultimate goal.
You are delusional. You are branding the masses with the views of the few. It's
like assuming all Americans are as foolish as your “elected” President.
>
> > > 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.
>
> Really? Who might they be?
Do you deny that view exists?
> >
> > >
> > > > 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?
>
> Even if they had, do you think there would be peace today?
Given that the PA only wants a return to the '67 borders - yes!
>
> > > What did it get her? The promised
> > > peace?
> >
> > Are they at war with Egypt?
>
> Ha, where do you think all of the Palestinian armaments come from? Through
> Gaza via Egypt. They certainly aid her enemies....
Really? Can you prove that? Who gives the IDF the bullets they use to shoot
kids? The pixies?
>
> > > The fact is that every condition that was ever negogiated has been
> > > violated.
> >
> > By only the Palestinians?
>
> No, and I did not say so.
Who destroyed Oslo / Oslo II?
>
> > > One could argue that negogiation has actually *prolonged* the
> > > conflict.
> >
> > If I thought war was the answer, I would agree.
>
> By the time you'd think war was necessary, the point would be moot.
That's your view. I'm just not trigger-happy.
>
> > > > 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)
>
> > 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?
>
> Since you attribute terrorism as helping Israel come into existence, do you
> hold that their right to exist is somehow in question?
No - don't be a fool. Answer my question:
Ever heard of the King David Hotel [1946: >90 dead] or the Cinemas and American
Libraries Israel bombed in Egypt?
Are you proud of those acts?
>
> > > > A war on terror will never stop terrorism. I war on injustice has a better
> > > > chance.
> > >
> > > I doubt it.
> >
> > That's sad.
No answer. Fighting "terror" only tackles the symptoms - not the cause. Typhoid
is not eradicated by building hospitals, cleaning up water supply is the
answer. If you ignore the cause, the symptoms will keep on coming.
> >
> > > 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?
>
> what exactly *was* your point?
Answer my question.
>
> > > Inaction and negogiation merely emboldens terrorists.
>
> Respond to this, please.
You are wrong. Take a look at NI.
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
