UN is unable to recognize terrorism

[XyZspineZyX]

Sep. 20, 2003
The UN is unable to recognize terrorism, By Anne Bayefsky


On Tuesday, September 23, President Bush will address the UN General Assembly. His speech will mark the opening of the 58th session's General Debate.

At this pivotal moment in the war against terrorism, what does the world body need to hear?
Recent UN actions indicate that the role of the UN is to encourage terrorism rather than to fight it.
It begins with the UN refusal to define terrorism. Even today it is unable to produce a comprehensive international treaty against terrorism that would identify universal standards of behavior. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has the UN working group on the subject in a choke-hold.

The OIC claims there is a difference between murder in the name of self-determination and terrorism. As an OIC treaty claims, terrorism is not "armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination." Or as the Arab terrorism convention puts it, "all cases of struggle by whatever means" for approved causes are exempt.

In April 2002 in Kuala Lumpur the OIC adopted a "Declaration on International Terrorism," in which they made the point even plainer: "We reject any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism."

These formal declarations are not an abstraction. In the UN they find a willing partner. Free from the constraints of a definition of terrorism, on September 3 and 4, UN Headquarters hosted a conference called "End the Occupation!". UN officials went on a spending spree: 10 hours of webcast, films in the lunch break, a photo exhibit in the official UN conference room, and multiple publications from nongovernmental organizations.

EXAMPLES OF the information flow under UN auspices: criticism that the "Zionism is racism" General Assembly resolution was revoked, a large map describing "the Zionist Invasion of 1948," various documents describing the "catastrophe/Al Nakba" of the creation of the state of Israel as "the largest planned ethnic cleansing in modern history," an advertisement for "The Killing Zone... a documentary about... occupied Palestine," discussions of an invited participant's proposal for a "one-state solution" in which the Jewish population would be outnumbered within a short space of time. The final "plan of action" painted Israelis as the "brutal" villains, accountable for their own bloodshed.

For his part, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan thanked the responsible UN committee "for organizing this event."

The UN's inability to recognize terrorism makes it equally incapable of recognizing self-defense against terrorism, or of distinguishing a "cycle" from cause and effect.

On September 8, the secretary-general "condemn[ed] [the] attempt by Israel to assassinate the Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin." Annan said it was an "extrajudicial killing" "in violation of international law."

On September 10, a few hours after Israelis were butchered in a Jerusalem caf in a suicide-bombing perpetrated by Hamas, Israel attempted to kill senior Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar. UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Terje Roed-Larsen, said he "deplores Israel's bombing of a Hamas leader's house in a densely populated Gaza neighborhood, which killed three and injured at least 30."

On August 21, two days after Hamas massacred 23 people, from age three months, and mutilated 115 others on the streets of Israel's capital, Israel killed Hamas leader Ismail Abu Shanab. Annan said: "Israel does not have the right to resort to extrajudicial measures, as it used today in the Gaza Strip... The secretary-general calls upon the government of Israel to... halt its current military actions."

THE UN role in the war against terrorism? While the terrorists take aim, Secretary-General Annan pins the victims' arms behind their backs.
Israel targeted Yassin, al-Zahar and Shanab because they were a central part of the command and control structure of a terrorist organization. They were combatants in a war. They were therefore not entitled to a judicial process before an attempt to kill them. Their deaths would therefore not be "extrajudicial killings."

Israel grants such combatants greater protection by holding back when arrest is possible, or when the Palestinian Authority is willing to arrest. Each case is examined individually. In these cases, Israel was unable to arrest these individuals and the Palestinian Authority made it clear it had no intention of doing so. In such circumstances international law makes them legitimate targets.

The UN's denial of the necessities of self-defense when it comes to Israel takes another form. The key international rule governing the use of force against terrorists is the requirement of proportionality. The Geneva Conventions say an attack on a military target "which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life" is prohibited if "excessive." Only in Israel's case does the UN apply this rule to mean zero civilian deaths.

On September 9, Israel targeted and killed two senior Hamas military-wing terrorists, Ahmed Uthman Muhammad Badr and Izzedin Hadr Shams-Edin Misq, in Hebron. At the time the two were "ticking bombs." They were engaged in planning suicide attacks in Israel in the very short term. Weapons and ammunition were found on their bodies.

The response from the UN? Roed-Larsen "expressed serious alarm over the latest violence in the Middle East... after an Israeli operation yesterday in Hebron, in which a 12-year-old boy was killed... Israel has an obligation under international humanitarian law to protect civilians and refrain from the use of disproportionate force."

THIS IS a complete fabrication of the tenets of international humanitarian law.

The Geneva Conventions say the presence of "civilians shall not be used to render... areas immune from military operations... in attempts to shield military objectives from attack."
It is the Palestinian Authority that violates international humanitarian law by putting civilians, deliberately and directly, in harm's way. Permitting killers to live, socialize, and plot freely in densely populated civilian neighborhoods is the violation of international law.

The UN's refusal to deplore the Palestinian Authority's cold-blooded complicity in the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields encourages terrorism.

As for the kingpin, Yasser Arafat, the Security Council convened immediately in response to Israel's suggestion that Arafat is a terrorist deserving of concomitant treatment. On September 16, the US was forced to exercise its veto, as 11 of 15 members voted in favor of the draft resolution. The resolution expressed grave concern about "extrajudicial killings and suicide-bombing," objected to any threat to remove Arafat, and made no mention of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades and company.

Israeli officials have repeatedly given hard evidence: the Karine A arms shipment from Iran to the Palestinian Authority, the checks for the Palestinian Preventive Security Services' terrorist weapons manufacturing operations, the money flowing to the Tanzim and Aksa Martyrs Brigades from the Palestinian Authority, the speeches in Arabic encouraging martyrdom.
But at the UN, in Israel's case, smoking guns do not a terrorist make.

President Bush needs to tell it to the General Assembly straight. In the war against terrorism the UN is now part of the problem, not the solution. Without radical change, those pointing weapons at the occupying power in Iraq will find in the UN a ready-made partnership.

The writer is an international lawyer and professor at York University, Toronto, Canada. She represented the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists at the Durban NGO Forum, and UN Watch at the World Conference Against Racism.


"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

[XyZspineZyX]

Sep. 20, 2003
The UN is unable to recognize terrorism, By Anne Bayefsky


On Tuesday, September 23, President Bush will address the UN General Assembly. His speech will mark the opening of the 58th session's General Debate.

At this pivotal moment in the war against terrorism, what does the world body need to hear?
Recent UN actions indicate that the role of the UN is to encourage terrorism rather than to fight it.
It begins with the UN refusal to define terrorism. Even today it is unable to produce a comprehensive international treaty against terrorism that would identify universal standards of behavior. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has the UN working group on the subject in a choke-hold.

The OIC claims there is a difference between murder in the name of self-determination and terrorism. As an OIC treaty claims, terrorism is not "armed struggle against foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism, and hegemony, aimed at liberation and self-determination." Or as the Arab terrorism convention puts it, "all cases of struggle by whatever means" for approved causes are exempt.

In April 2002 in Kuala Lumpur the OIC adopted a "Declaration on International Terrorism," in which they made the point even plainer: "We reject any attempt to associate Islamic states or Palestinian and Lebanese resistance with terrorism."

These formal declarations are not an abstraction. In the UN they find a willing partner. Free from the constraints of a definition of terrorism, on September 3 and 4, UN Headquarters hosted a conference called "End the Occupation!". UN officials went on a spending spree: 10 hours of webcast, films in the lunch break, a photo exhibit in the official UN conference room, and multiple publications from nongovernmental organizations.

EXAMPLES OF the information flow under UN auspices: criticism that the "Zionism is racism" General Assembly resolution was revoked, a large map describing "the Zionist Invasion of 1948," various documents describing the "catastrophe/Al Nakba" of the creation of the state of Israel as "the largest planned ethnic cleansing in modern history," an advertisement for "The Killing Zone... a documentary about... occupied Palestine," discussions of an invited participant's proposal for a "one-state solution" in which the Jewish population would be outnumbered within a short space of time. The final "plan of action" painted Israelis as the "brutal" villains, accountable for their own bloodshed.

For his part, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan thanked the responsible UN committee "for organizing this event."

The UN's inability to recognize terrorism makes it equally incapable of recognizing self-defense against terrorism, or of distinguishing a "cycle" from cause and effect.

On September 8, the secretary-general "condemn[ed] [the] attempt by Israel to assassinate the Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmad Yassin." Annan said it was an "extrajudicial killing" "in violation of international law."

On September 10, a few hours after Israelis were butchered in a Jerusalem caf in a suicide-bombing perpetrated by Hamas, Israel attempted to kill senior Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar. UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Terje Roed-Larsen, said he "deplores Israel's bombing of a Hamas leader's house in a densely populated Gaza neighborhood, which killed three and injured at least 30."

On August 21, two days after Hamas massacred 23 people, from age three months, and mutilated 115 others on the streets of Israel's capital, Israel killed Hamas leader Ismail Abu Shanab. Annan said: "Israel does not have the right to resort to extrajudicial measures, as it used today in the Gaza Strip... The secretary-general calls upon the government of Israel to... halt its current military actions."

THE UN role in the war against terrorism? While the terrorists take aim, Secretary-General Annan pins the victims' arms behind their backs.
Israel targeted Yassin, al-Zahar and Shanab because they were a central part of the command and control structure of a terrorist organization. They were combatants in a war. They were therefore not entitled to a judicial process before an attempt to kill them. Their deaths would therefore not be "extrajudicial killings."

Israel grants such combatants greater protection by holding back when arrest is possible, or when the Palestinian Authority is willing to arrest. Each case is examined individually. In these cases, Israel was unable to arrest these individuals and the Palestinian Authority made it clear it had no intention of doing so. In such circumstances international law makes them legitimate targets.

The UN's denial of the necessities of self-defense when it comes to Israel takes another form. The key international rule governing the use of force against terrorists is the requirement of proportionality. The Geneva Conventions say an attack on a military target "which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life" is prohibited if "excessive." Only in Israel's case does the UN apply this rule to mean zero civilian deaths.

On September 9, Israel targeted and killed two senior Hamas military-wing terrorists, Ahmed Uthman Muhammad Badr and Izzedin Hadr Shams-Edin Misq, in Hebron. At the time the two were "ticking bombs." They were engaged in planning suicide attacks in Israel in the very short term. Weapons and ammunition were found on their bodies.

The response from the UN? Roed-Larsen "expressed serious alarm over the latest violence in the Middle East... after an Israeli operation yesterday in Hebron, in which a 12-year-old boy was killed... Israel has an obligation under international humanitarian law to protect civilians and refrain from the use of disproportionate force."

THIS IS a complete fabrication of the tenets of international humanitarian law.

The Geneva Conventions say the presence of "civilians shall not be used to render... areas immune from military operations... in attempts to shield military objectives from attack."
It is the Palestinian Authority that violates international humanitarian law by putting civilians, deliberately and directly, in harm's way. Permitting killers to live, socialize, and plot freely in densely populated civilian neighborhoods is the violation of international law.

The UN's refusal to deplore the Palestinian Authority's cold-blooded complicity in the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields encourages terrorism.

As for the kingpin, Yasser Arafat, the Security Council convened immediately in response to Israel's suggestion that Arafat is a terrorist deserving of concomitant treatment. On September 16, the US was forced to exercise its veto, as 11 of 15 members voted in favor of the draft resolution. The resolution expressed grave concern about "extrajudicial killings and suicide-bombing," objected to any threat to remove Arafat, and made no mention of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades and company.

Israeli officials have repeatedly given hard evidence: the Karine A arms shipment from Iran to the Palestinian Authority, the checks for the Palestinian Preventive Security Services' terrorist weapons manufacturing operations, the money flowing to the Tanzim and Aksa Martyrs Brigades from the Palestinian Authority, the speeches in Arabic encouraging martyrdom.
But at the UN, in Israel's case, smoking guns do not a terrorist make.

President Bush needs to tell it to the General Assembly straight. In the war against terrorism the UN is now part of the problem, not the solution. Without radical change, those pointing weapons at the occupying power in Iraq will find in the UN a ready-made partnership.

The writer is an international lawyer and professor at York University, Toronto, Canada. She represented the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists at the Durban NGO Forum, and UN Watch at the World Conference Against Racism.


"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

[XyZspineZyX]

Not surprised at all Geist. In my opinion the UN building in NYC is a waste of valuable space. Diplomats here constantly break our laws because they are protected by the UN. I can never understand that reasoning. If they have no respect for the law why would they defend or make an International terrorism laws. Define terrorism? ask them to define a PARKING VIOLATION.
The U.S should get out of the UN because it's obvious that the weak wants to lead the strong.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

[XyZspineZyX]

Let's not forget that many of those nations are despotisms where the concept of democracy is a threat. And of course, we also have nations like Syria on the Security Council, Libya and Sudan on the Human Rights Council and Iraq as head of the disarmement council.

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

[XyZspineZyX]

Like I said, the UN is nothing more then a bad joke and a big waste of our money. How can you make Lybia and Sudan head of the Human rights council and Syria head of the Security council? It's like making a street drug dealer head of the correction facility. But then again wasnt Iraq head of the dissarmament committee?

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

[XyZspineZyX]

Don't be to harsh on the UN.

After all, they are going to clean up the mess that the US made in Iraq.



<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

[XyZspineZyX]

buccaneer wrote:
- Don't be to harsh on the UN.
-
- After all, they are going to clean up the mess that
- the US made in Iraq.


....which if they had any balls before the war it could have been avoided. But that is ok because under the US command they will look strong again.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

[XyZspineZyX]

The problem with finding a final definition for terrorism is that it suffers greatly from cultural relativism. A terrorist for one group usually means a freedom fighter, rebel or separarist for the other.

So all nations seem to have their own preferences and agendas. Before the war started there were several Kurdish orginastions fighting for a common goal. A sovereign state of their own. Interestingly, one group was labled a terrorists orginasation whilst the other received US funding. One final definition on terrorism would make such actions illegal and therefor undesireable for virtually all nations.

The situation before the war in Iraq was quite interesting.

Among the separatist groups, the Kurdistan Workers Party - active in Turkey is labled "terrorist", but not the KDP or PUK, which are Kurdish organisations active in Iraq fighting Saddam. Among opposition groups, the Iranian People's Mujahedeen is banned, but not its Iraqi equivalent, the INC, which happens to be financed by the United States.





<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

[XyZspineZyX]

buccaneer wrote:

- The problem with finding a final definition for
- terrorism is that it suffers greatly from cultural
- relativism. A terrorist for one group usually means
- a freedom fighter, rebel or separarist for the
- other.

If they are freedom fighters how come their people are not free?
-
- So all nations seem to have their own preferences
- and agendas. Before the war started there were
- several Kurdish orginastions fighting for a common
- goal. A sovereign state of their own. Interestingly,
- one group was labled a terrorists orginasation
- whilst the other received US funding.

One was killing inocent civilians and their children and the other was killing the terrorists.

One final definition on terrorism would make such actions
- illegal and therefor undesireable for virtually all
- nations.

If the UN stop playing games and say all members of Hamas, Al quada, Mujahadeen fighters etc, that target civilians purposely should be taken out of deplomatic avenues and should be terminated.and then go out and actually do it, that should take care of that.

buc you sound like Clinton, in his sex scandle with Monica, he was trying to play with words like depends what alone means or what is.....is, or that a B.J is not realy sex so it is not cheating/adultery on your wife.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

[XyZspineZyX]

Hornet57 wrote:

- If they are freedom fighters how come their people
- are not free?

Because if they were free they wouldn't have to fight for it, now would they.

- One was killing inocent civilians and their children
- and the other was killing the terrorists.

Which one?

- If the UN stop playing games and say all members of
- Hamas, Al quada, Mujahadeen fighters etc, that
- target civilians purposely should be taken out of
- deplomatic avenues and should be terminated.and then
- go out and actually do it, that should take care of
- that.

Oh but I agree. The problem is that you can't include individual groups into one solid definition of terrorism. The mujahadeen, for instance, was of great importance to the US to fight of the Russians in Afghanistan. They were financed by the US, trained by the US (including that scumbag Osama) and the US wouldn't even consider to lable them terrorist. now their new friends are the Northen Alliance which by any definition are a terrorist group. Same goes for the KDP or PUK in Iraq (the ones that opened the northen front in Iraq in may)





<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

[XyZspineZyX]

Buc wrote:
"Because if they were free they wouldn't have to fight for it, now would they."

Buc, you're talking with the assumption that these terrorist groups are being terribly oppressed by the group they are terrorizing. The fact is, Palestinians, Muslims, and Jewish people live together, do business together, party together, every day and every night peacefully, and can do so. They are not "kept" from going into Israel or living there. Many times Israel have offered to give huge chunks of land in exchange for the violence to stop, and every time it's turned down and the violence level increases. Palestinians want the terrorist bombings to stop just as much as the Isrealis. The people that make up the command structure of these terrorist organizations enjoy the power of being able to get people to go blow themselves up on their command. Why do you think they never do these things themselves? They are not fighting for a cause like some people think, get real.



The main problem with defining terrorism is that even within the United States, it is hard to have a universal definition of terrorism. The State department have made one official, but many still consider the definition of terrorism fluctuates with the changes in society.

Coming up with an international definition of terrorism is difficult. Common sense would say that the deliberate targetting of civilians would automatically constitute an act of terrorism, but unfortunately the definition needs to be a lot more specific than that, since occassionally terrorist groups target some military personell.



Buc wrote:
"great importance to the US to fight of the Russians in Afghanistan. They were financed by the US, trained by the US (including that scumbag Osama) and the US wouldn't even consider to lable them terrorist."

We can all thank President Carter for that one...



But Geist, I have noticed that as well, it seems when a palestinian civilian is killed while there is a raid on a HAMAS target or some other terrorist organization, it's all over the news and the UN is all openly opposing Israel's actions. But when an Israeli bus is blown up killing nothing but civilians inside, that gets pushed to the back-burners. It's quite ridiculous.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

Demon_Mustang wrote:
- But Geist, I have noticed that as well, it seems
- when a palestinian civilian is killed while there is
- a raid on a HAMAS target or some other terrorist
- organization, it's all over the news and the UN is
- all openly opposing Israel's actions. But when an
- Israeli bus is blown up killing nothing but
- civilians inside, that gets pushed to the
- back-burners. It's quite ridiculous.

It's well beyond ridiculous. It shows the hypocrisy in the UN and clearly illustrates the fact that the UN does not care about Israeli or Jewish lives. Based on their track record, the UN would not have stopped the Holocaust. But they would have condemned the partisans and the Allies as "terrorists" and "agressors" respectively. The UN is anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

[XyZspineZyX]

Hornet57 wrote:
-
- buccaneer wrote:
-
-- The problem with finding a final definition for
-- terrorism is that it suffers greatly from cultural
-- relativism. A terrorist for one group usually means
-- a freedom fighter, rebel or separarist for the
-- other.
-
- If they are freedom fighters how come their people
- are not free?
--

That's a dumb response if i ever read one. Not ALL are freedom fighters meathead! And besides, if their people were free they would not need to fight, would they. IDIOT!

terrorsist are usually driven by political agendas, and depending on what side of that agenda you stand, your defintion of terrorism will differ.

No-one can defne terrorism fully. In every nation it is different. So a council of almost every nation how can they define terrorism.

And the whole middle east thing is completely even sided on who is good and bad, and that article is highly biased.

http://webhome.idirect.com/~nkirv/ASHcom%205%20alone3%20copy.jpg

Shut up when you talk to me.

[XyZspineZyX]

MDS_Geist wrote:
-The UN
- is anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.
-

Considering they helped create Isreal, recognised it as a state, did not intervene when Isreal attacked and conquered land set aside for the Palstinians, allowed them to keep it even though actions violated agreements, and made it a clear Mandate to help the Jews after the events of ww2, that statements seems completely laughable.

Also, yes, the partisans would and SHOULD be considered terrorists. because that is what they did. No negative conotations. yes, it was a good thing and a good fight, but don't blind yourself with moral garbage spewing forth from what appears to be an intellectual mind. That is WHY the statement that one persons terrorist is anothers freedom fighter makes sense. Because they are your enemy they are 'bad' Terrorists. if they are your ally they are not.

Terrorsts are not the only people who kill innocent civilians. Many armies do aswell. But for some reason state sponsored murder is more palatable.





http://webhome.idirect.com/~nkirv/ASHcom%205%20alone3%20copy.jpg

Shut up when you talk to me.

[XyZspineZyX]

ASHcom wrote:
- Considering they helped create Isreal, recognised it
- as a state, did not intervene when Isreal attacked
- and conquered land set aside for the Palstinians,
- allowed them to keep it even though actions violated
- agreements, and made it a clear Mandate to help the
- Jews after the events of ww2, that statements seems
- completely laughable.

"Land set aside for the palestinians [sic]." You must be joking. What mythical land would that be? If you are referring to the territory illegally occupied from 1947 to 1967 by Egypt and Jordan, you would be quite mistaken.

And let's look at the UN record since then shall we? There are more resolutions condemning Israel than any other nation. This includes Security Council (over 100) and General Assembly (around 450 or so).

The UN has formed an agency to "deal with" the "arab refugee problem" from over fifty years ago. A "problem" that continues due to the actions of the UN and Arab world. The UN did not form any special agency or do anything to assist the equal number of Jews expelled from Arab lands.

The UN was silent when Jewish holy sites were desecrated or destroyed, such as the 58 synagogues destroyed by Jordan, the Jewish cemetaries in Israel or the Western Wall being used as a latrine. In Israel, Muslim and Christian sites are protected as well as Jewish ones.

The UN was silent when the Jordanian enforced an apartheid like policy of forbidding Jews access to their holy sites. There are no similar restrictions (barring security concerns) on Christian or Muslim holy sites in Israel.

The UN also did not intervene in any of the Arab attempts to annihilate Israel including in 1947 when the partition plan was rejected by the entire arab world, or in 1967 when the UN troops allowed the Egyptians to cross the Sinai to attack Israel - even though they were there expressly to stop such action.

The UN's record on Israel is deplorable and clearly indicates that Israel is held to a different standard than any other nation in the world. Israel is the ONLY nation in the UN that cannot hold a seat on the security council.

The only logical explanation is anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel. Otherwise there is no reason for a democracy to occupy so much of the UN's time in light of barbaric practices such as slavery in Sudan or mutilation in Saudi Arabia.

- Also, yes, the partisans would and SHOULD be
- considered terrorists. because that is what they
- did. No negative conotations. yes, it was a good
- thing and a good fight, but don't blind yourself
- with moral garbage spewing forth from what appears
- to be an intellectual mind. That is WHY the
- statement that one persons terrorist is anothers
- freedom fighter makes sense. Because they are your
- enemy they are 'bad' Terrorists. if they are your
- ally they are not.

The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is the the freedom fighters aren't setting out to murder civilians. Don't project "garbage" on someone based on your own ideas of moral relativism. Some of the partisans engaged in terrorist actions. Many others did not and fought the German war machines - not German, French or Polish civilians.

- Terrorsts are not the only people who kill innocent
- civilians. Many armies do aswell. But for some
- reason state sponsored murder is more palatable.

No, it is not any more palatable. But collateral damage is not the same as murder. Setting out to kill innocent civilians is murder. That is what terrorists like Hamas and the PLO do. Accidentally killiing civilians because the enemies has illegally entrenched among a civilian population is an unfortunate accident and a consequence of the terrorist's actions in hiding amongst a civilian populace.

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

[XyZspineZyX]

your right ash it doens't make one bit of sense that if my nextdoor neighbor down the street I go to jail but if I kill my nextdoor neighbor in another country it's A-OK!

hey if I kill enough of them I get a medal but if I kill enough in around my house I get the chair/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


well any-who what chaps me about this whole deal is didn't the jews at least try to live in peace with the muslims when they came over here trying not to be killed in europe?

I mean it seems kinda funny. Thousands move away from europe thanx to some idiot we call hitler running around gassing a few million of them. So they need a place to stay and they choose palistein. Some muslims don't like it so the jews stand up for once and kick some butt. And then they complain about it.

I think ash got it right. It's just a small group of *******es that take their religion a bit to serious and want to find a way to justifiy their obession with killing people and bossing them around.

It's those type of people we need to lock up in a cell in every country./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

________________________________________

http://www.unfetteredmind.com/images/starve.jpg


"It is your fault, you have forced me to say what I think." - Plato/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[XyZspineZyX]

MDS_Geist wrote:
--
- The difference between a terrorist and a freedom
- fighter is the the freedom fighters aren't setting
- out to murder civilians. Don't project "garbage" on
- someone based on your own ideas of moral relativism.
- Some of the partisans engaged in terrorist actions.
- Many others did not and fought the German war
- machines - not German, French or Polish civilians.
-


But according to US defintions of Terrorism it is not always against civilians, as with the USS Cole. Under your arguement that is not terrorism and is therefore a legitimate action of a freedom fighter because it is against a military force.


you people all assume that because some factions use tactics that to us 'civilized' (I use that term lightly) nation seem criminal. yet many people fail to look at the WHY not the how. Obviously there is a reason behind the tactics and that cannot be ignored.



As for the UN being Anti-Jewish, its simply a load of garbage. Look at who wrote the article in the first place, of course they will have biased views. Most of the Jewish people I know and that includes close family do not believe all that codswaddle. It is the American jew and the American sponosred Jew who perpetuate this view of racial intolerance. In a nation hardly known and still not known for racial equality.

most of the arguements here are politiced opinions that use a selection of facts, not a broad range, to support their arguements. i do debating and Politics as I am sure many of you do and I have learnt that you can passionatly argue successfully on any side of any debate or arguement simply by careful selection of facts and interpretation of such.

My language or use of arguement on these forums is never of a high quality but that is because I do not take such an interest in debating here. it's just a quick type up of views, not evidence.



As for the metaphor of the neighbours, hardly the same situation. A better metaphor would be..


Your neighbour invades your house and claims a religeous right to live there because their house got burnt down, then kills some of your family. You fight back and kill one of their family. And then when they try and kill you, outsiders object because trying to get you they kill more of your family instead.

using a gunship to assassinate someone you don'
t even know is there hours after an attack is NOT a very legitimate tactic. Instead it is state sanctioned terrorism using the excuse of political assassination to justify it. The UN is not Anti-semetic by rejecting Isreali claims of retribution, it is simply not blind, as many here appear to be. They have a lot more information than any of us. We just watch TV, read books and the internet, then think we understand.Don't claim to know the answers. All we have are opinions.





http://webhome.idirect.com/~nkirv/ASHcom%205%20alone3%20copy.jpg

Shut up when you talk to me.

[XyZspineZyX]

ASHcom wrote:
- But according to US defintions of Terrorism it is
- not always against civilians, as with the USS Cole.
- Under your arguement that is not terrorism and is
- therefore a legitimate action of a freedom fighter
- because it is against a military force.

That is certainly not the action of a "freedom fighter" in the case of the USS Cole. "Freedom" from whom? The US was certainly not the oppressing power in that case. I would actually consider the attack on the Cole to be an act of war.

- you people all assume that because some factions use
- tactics that to us 'civilized' (I use that term
- lightly) nation seem criminal. yet many people fail
- to look at the WHY not the how. Obviously there is a
- reason behind the tactics and that cannot be
- ignored.

"You people?" And who are "you people" exactly? And you are wrong. Some things are simply inexcusable.

- As for the UN being Anti-Jewish, its simply a load
- of garbage. Look at who wrote the article in the
- first place, of course they will have biased views.

Then prove otherwise. Ms. Bayefsky makes a number of factual points. You have yet to refute any of them other than to launch a weak ad hominem attack based on who you think she is. What are you basing your assessment on?

- Most of the Jewish people I know and that includes
- close family do not believe all that codswaddle. It
- is the American jew and the American sponosred Jew
- who perpetuate this view of racial intolerance. In a
- nation hardly known and still not known for racial
- equality.

That's nice. It's always nice to say that some of your close friends and family are Jews. And it means absolutely nothing. And argument has presented and you have failed to refute it. You simply attack it in a vaccuum. Because most of the Jewish people you know do not agree with it, that does not negate it in any way. Remarkably enough, in my experience it is ot just American Jews who are aware of the UN's unequal treatment of Israel. So that negates your experience. Any facts to share? I suppose a nation that until recently had government sponsored programs to steal children from their parents and place them with parents of a different race is one with a better record on racial equality.

- most of the arguements here are politiced opinions
- that use a selection of facts, not a broad range, to
- support their arguements. i do debating and Politics
- as I am sure many of you do and I have learnt that
- you can passionatly argue successfully on any side
- of any debate or arguement simply by careful
- selection of facts and interpretation of such.

Actually, the article I posted and the statements I made in response to your first post detailed simple facts. The UN conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa stands forth as a very salient example of UN sponsored anti-Semitism. There really is very little "careful selecteion" or "interpretation" of the facts here. The conference in Durban dedicated the majority of its time ot attacking Israel. Remarkably enough, the issue of slavery in the Sudan was not even mentioned.

- My language or use of arguement on these forums is
- never of a high quality but that is because I do not
- take such an interest in debating here. it's just a
- quick type up of views, not evidence.

Clearly. Then why should you expect anyone else to take the time to read your posts or give them any credence? If you have little interest in "debating here," then why bother? Don't make excuses for having no real arguments.

- As for the metaphor of the neighbours, hardly the
- same situation. A better metaphor would be..
-
-
- Your neighbour invades your house and claims a
- religeous right to live there because their house
- got burnt down, then kills some of your family. You
- fight back and kill one of their family. And then
- when they try and kill you, outsiders object because
- trying to get you they kill more of your family
- instead.

Not even close to an apt analogy. More like you came back to your home to find that otehrs were living there. You Attempt to live alongside them peacefully, and they decide that they have a right to extermiante you and your family. You beat back repeated attempts to murder your entire family, and then outsiders come in and object that you're trying to live.

- using a gunship to assassinate someone you don'
- t even know is there hours after an attack is NOT a
- very legitimate tactic. Instead it is state
- sanctioned terrorism using the excuse of political
- assassination to justify it. The UN is not
- Anti-semetic by rejecting Isreali claims of
- retribution, it is simply not blind, as many here
- appear to be. They have a lot more information than
- any of us. We just watch TV, read books and the
- internet, then think we understand.Don't claim to
- know the answers. All we have are opinions.

Hardly. It is actually illegal for the terrorists to hide in civilian areas, and the deaths that result are on their heads. Israel is not a terrorist state, nor do they engage in terrorism. However, their adversaries freely engage in terrorism and arab states happily sponsor terrorism. The Israelis are doing very little more than defending their citizens, and not responding with the full power and rage that they can muster.

Of course, the Israelis also have far more information that you do, and by your logic that gives them the right to act as they do.

Actually, I use lots of other sources of information than those you listed, and those are all you use then mine are far superior to yours. My opinions are exactly that. However, mine are formulated based in extensive education and experience with the topic. If your are not, then that is your ignorance to correct and not my concern.

The UN has shown itself to be anti-Semitic by doing far more than "rejecting Israeli claims of retribution." Instead they have taken an active role in attacking Israel and strengthening Israel's enemies.

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

[XyZspineZyX]

ASH wrote:
"And besides, if their people were free they would not need to fight, would they. IDIOT!"

Wow, that sounds like buc's response, and it's simply not true. You are the type of people who believe criminals commit crime because they "need" to and because they are being oppressed and forced to do it. The fact is, most of the active cadre in the terrorist structure only perceive that they are not free. This is fed to them by their "religious leader" aka terrorist command structure who continues to feed the people under their spell garbage because they enjoy having the power to order people to their deaths, and sometimes it doesn't seem like they have an end to their means. Like I've said many times already on these forums, Arafat idiot has been given so many offers that are TOO generous in my opinion where basically Sharon has agreed to actually force out any Israelis living in huge sections of land so that the Muslims can move in and have their own state. That's exactly what they claim to be fighting for, but every time, the offer is extended, it is refused and the terrorism level increases. Muslims and Jews do business together every day, nothing is stopping them. Look at the hijackers that came to the USA for the 9/11 acts? They came here, got a nice apartment, I've seen the ones they stayed at, very nice area, very nice buildings, they got into airliner schools, and they traveled freely. Nothing was stopping them from simply living here and possibly making a living flying aircraft. Yet, they did what they did anyway, are you going to say that they were somehow not free? That we were holding them back in some way? It's the fact that they ARE free that allows them to cause so much damage. If they were being oppressed and not allowed to move freely the situation would be contained and not as widespread as it is. There is terrorism on basically every continent.

"terrorsist are usually driven by political agendas, and depending on what side of that agenda you stand, your defintion of terrorism will differ."

Terrorism is driven by power and the desire for power. Political and religious agendas are what they use to justify their means amongst each other to keep all members loyal.

"And the whole middle east thing is completely even sided on who is good and bad, and that article is highly biased."

Are you suggesting that those false statements are true? Somehow the idea of the difference between blowing up a bus full of civilians going to work or school and using military response to kill key members of known terrorist organizations that might result in collateral casualties?

Alrighty then...

"But for some reason state sponsored murder is more palatable."

Actually, you act like it's accepted, it's recognized as terrorism as well. Thus the term "State-sponsored terrorism" and is recognized to be the most prolific kind of terrorism, so no, it's not lacking the attention it needs.

By the way, I think I already mentioned the fact that not all terrorism is against civilian targets. It's kind of like saying all that deliberately target civilians are terrorists, but not all terrorists only target civilians.

So yes, defining terrorism is very complicated.

"Obviously there is a reason behind the tactics and that cannot be ignored."

Again, giving the terrorists excuses for what they do. This rule must also apply to criminals then, something must have "driven" them to commit the crimes they did, so we should just release all of them, it's not their fault, oh yeah...

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

I have the biggest cheeky grin on my face right now....

http://webhome.idirect.com/~nkirv/ASHcom%205%20alone3%20copy.jpg

Shut up when you talk to me.

[XyZspineZyX]

Oh yes, I'm shaking in my boots as we speak now... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

guys remember, people/organizations can change, look at Bush, when he was first elected he met with representatives of Chechen rebells, now him and Putin are acting like best buds.

_______________________________________

"Generals dont run; during peace this prompts laughter, during war this prompts panic."

[XyZspineZyX]

MDS_Geist wrote:

- That is certainly not the action of a "freedom
- fighter" in the case of the USS Cole. "Freedom"
- from whom? The US was certainly not the oppressing
- power in that case. I would actually consider the
- attack on the Cole to be an act of war.

What is a US warship doing in Jemen? Ever considered the fact that some factions may very well see this as a oppressing action by a military force not wanted in their backyard?

Lets assume an Al Qaida warship enters the port of San Fransico. How long do you think it will be there without being shot from the water?



<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

[XyZspineZyX]

Buc wrote:
"What is a US warship doing in Jemen? Ever considered the fact that some factions may very well see this as a oppressing action by a military force not wanted in their backyard?"

Not answering for him, sure he'll have much better responses than this, but, seeing the USS Cole was not seen as an act of aggression as much as it was an opportunity to kill some Americans. Just like the Marine Barracks, it's not like any of them were in any kind of exchange of violence between the US and the terrorist organizations. Most of those Marines died doing things like eating, or sleeping. And same with the Sailors onboard the Cole.

"Lets assume an Al Qaida warship enters the port of San Fransico. How long do you think it will be there without being shot from the water?"

Well, first we'll most likely establish verbal communication with them to ask their intention and to request that they do not get any closer. We'll basically give them warnings and try to let them back off before they get close enough to do any damage. After that point, yes, we'll blow them out of the water.

The difference is that the terrorist organization that did the bombing didn't have jurisdiction over that body of water and don't have a say in whether we were allowed there or not. They never gave any warnings either, it was just an act of opportunity.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

We are right. We are right. Everyone is wrong but we are right.

that's about all i ever hear from the yanks.

BTW, you read my message wrong.

BLURGH

http://webhome.idirect.com/~nkirv/ASHcom%205%20alone3%20copy.jpg

Shut up when you talk to me.

[XyZspineZyX]

Demon_Mustang wrote:
- "Lets assume an Al Qaida warship enters the port of
- San Fransico. How long do you think it will be there
- without being shot from the water?"
-
- Well, first we'll most likely establish verbal
- communication with them to ask their intention and
- to request that they do not get any closer. We'll
- basically give them warnings and try to let them
- back off before they get close enough to do any
- damage. After that point, yes, we'll blow them out
- of the water.

Actually, I think we'd just blow it out of the water. You don't give warnings to a hostile ship before you destroy it. And in case someone is about to say: "but how do you know that it has hostile intentions", I'll say that any military equipment operated by the enemy during war is always considered hostile, and is destroyed. And in case someone wishes to ask how exactly I define a war, I would answer: well, they're trying to destroy us, we're trying to destroy them... If that's not war, then what is?

Your second paragraph is good though. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[XyZspineZyX]

Find passion, grab a pot, and stir.

he he he he he.

Sigh.

http://webhome.idirect.com/~nkirv/ASHcom%205%20alone3%20copy.jpg

Shut up when you talk to me.

[XyZspineZyX]

It is no secret that the UN (and just about every country that doesn't have the letters U, S, and A in it's name) are being unfair to Israel. But I don't think that all of them are doing it because of anti-semitism. I think that some of them speak of Israel as an aggressor because they are trying in vain to make friends with the Arab countries, so that they don't decide to blow up several buildings in THEIR countries. They are willing to sacrifice the Israelis in an attempt to appease the Muslim extremists, and by extention, the rest of the Arab world. It won't work, but they are trying regardless.



<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

To win any confrontation, you need three things. You need the proper equipment, the proper training, and an edge over your opponent. Most of the time, your training is that edge.

[XyZspineZyX]

buccaneer wrote:
- What is a US warship doing in Jemen? Ever considered
- the fact that some factions may very well see this
- as a oppressing action by a military force not
- wanted in their backyard?

Yemen was considered to be a friendly port of call. This may shock you, but we have those all over the world. A US Navy ship there was not unusual, nor was it in a hostile posture. Seeing it as an "oppressing action" would indicate that the viewer is living in a world that is quite divorced from reality.

- Lets assume an Al Qaida warship enters the port of
- San Fransico. How long do you think it will be there
- without being shot from the water?

If an "al qaida warship" (they are estimated to have as many as 300 naval assets) were to attempt to enter the Port of San Francisco it would be interdicted and boarded. Failing that, it would be destroyed before entering the harbor. No state of war existed with Yemen at the time, while al Qaida has declared it will annihilate the US and the US has agreed to return the favor. Not a particularly good analogy there Buc.


Garrum wrote:
- It is no secret that the UN (and just about every
- country that doesn't have the letters U, S, and A in
- it's name) are being unfair to Israel. But I don't
- think that all of them are doing it because of
- anti-semitism. I think that some of them speak of
- Israel as an aggressor because they are trying in
- vain to make friends with the Arab countries, so
- that they don't decide to blow up several buildings
- in THEIR countries. They are willing to sacrifice
- the Israelis in an attempt to appease the Muslim
- extremists, and by extention, the rest of the Arab
- world. It won't work, but they are trying
- regardless.

Not quite every country - Micronesia and the Marshall Islands are fairly friendly to Israel. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif However, seeing Israel as "an agressor" and the arabs as victims indicates a myopia worse than Chamberlain's. Israel has ever been the assailed party, and has taken a number of dangerous steps towards peace, only to find that their enemies remain committed to Israel's annihilation.

And yes, there are countries which are more than willing to sacrifice Israel to appease the arabs. And no, it won't work particularly well. Appeasing and acceeding to blackmail only leads to more blackmail and a weaker position in the future.

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

[XyZspineZyX]

MDS_Geist wrote:
- Yemen was considered to be a friendly port of call.
- This may shock you, but we have those all over the
- world. A US Navy ship there was not unusual, nor
- was it in a hostile posture. Seeing it as an
- "oppressing action" would indicate that the viewer
- is living in a world that is quite divorced from
- reality.

I'm not saying that the US Cole was in hostile posture. But the fact remains that many people in that region consider US military activity in their backyard as a confirmation that the US is backing their oppressive regimes and are nothing more than puppets under US controle.That goes for Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Kuweit aswell. Not surprisingly, the main bulk of Al Qaida terrorists are from those countries.

- If an "al qaida warship" (they are estimated to have
- as many as 300 naval assets) were to attempt to
- enter the Port of San Francisco it would be
- interdicted and boarded. Failing that, it would be
- destroyed before entering the harbor. No state of
- war existed with Yemen at the time, while al Qaida
- has declared it will annihilate the US and the US
- has agreed to return the favor. Not a particularly
- good analogy there Buc.

It is an excellent anology because US military activity in the gulf region is regarded as welcome to many arabs as Al Qaida activity in San Fransico is welcomed by most americans.



<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

[XyZspineZyX]

ASHcom wrote:
-
- Hornet57 wrote:

-- If they are freedom fighters how come their people
-- are not free?
---
-
- That's a dumb response if i ever read one. Not ALL
- are freedom fighters meathead! And besides, if their
- people were free they would not need to fight, would
- they. IDIOT!

The whole point of my response your undisputed moron is that the so called "Freedom fighters" are opressing their own people with lies and wasting much needed money and keeping people from thinking free of fear.....JackAshcom.
-
- terrorsist are usually driven by political agendas,
- and depending on what side of that agenda you stand,
- your defintion of terrorism will differ.

what political agenda is Religion? because most of the terrorists are Religious Fanatics, with political cover
poop head
-
- No-one can defne terrorism fully. In every nation it
- is different. So a council of almost every nation
- how can they define terrorism.

You know something I dont give a flying saucer how other nations define terrorism, I am interested how my country defines it....since they committed terroristm on Americans.
did I mantion you are a Jackashcom
-
- And the whole middle east thing is completely even
- sided on who is good and bad, and that article is
- highly biased.
-
and what unbiased article did you get your information from? smarty pants /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

[XyZspineZyX]

ASH does nothing but patronize everyone who believes in what the USA is doing. If you'll notice he rarely even says anything, it's always some form of mocking as if everything he says is proven to be right and everything we say has been proven wrong and he has the right to mock everyone who doesn't agree.

BTW, name-calling isn't a really effective means of getting your "message" through, MORON! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif j/k man

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

Hornet57 wrote:
-- what political agenda is Religion? because most of
- the terrorists are Religious Fanatics, with
- political cover
- poop head
--


Most? Probably only the ones you read about. The Red Army faction was Communist. Most of the terrorism in the mid 60s and 70s was political. Most of the religeous terrorism is Muslim or Hindu based. they are by far from the only terrorist groups around. But the only ones who really attack the US. and since the US is only interested in the US, that's all you read about.

NARK

keep the insults coming, love to read what people come up with.

http://webhome.idirect.com/~nkirv/ASHcom%205%20alone3%20copy.jpg

Shut up when you talk to me.

[XyZspineZyX]

Hornet57 wrote:
- You know something I dont give a flying saucer how
- other nations define terrorism, I am interested how
- my country defines it....since they committed
- terroristm on Americans.
- did I mantion you are a Jackashcom
--


by the way, the topic of the thread is about the UN. last time I checked the UN was not only the US, but many nations. My point is that the UN cannot define terrorism because every nation has a different defintion. Again, you are ignoring the fact that the US is not the only nation on the planet. I don't see why the insult pertains to this particular statement, as it is relevant to the topic of the thread. the other insults are fine and relevant, but this one was out of place. Please keep things relevant.

thankyou....

http://webhome.idirect.com/~nkirv/ASHcom%205%20alone3%20copy.jpg

Shut up when you talk to me.

[XyZspineZyX]

buccaneer wrote:
- I'm not saying that the US Cole was in hostile
- posture. But the fact remains that many people in
- that region consider US military activity in their
- backyard as a confirmation that the US is backing
- their oppressive regimes and are nothing more than
- puppets under US controle.That goes for Yemen, Saudi
- Arabia and Kuweit aswell. Not surprisingly, the main
- bulk of Al Qaida terrorists are from those
- countries.

The problem is that you're making the assumption that the issue is people are opposed to their "oppressive regimes." Many of these people have no idea that their regimes are oppressive, and are in favor of regimes that would be far more oppressive. They are offended by the presence of non-Muslims - not just "US military activity."

Again, it's an act of war and should be treated as such.

- It is an excellent anology because US military
- activity in the gulf region is regarded as welcome
- to many arabs as Al Qaida activity in San Fransico
- is welcomed by most americans.

No, it remains a poor analogy for a number of reasons. First, US flagged ships, such as the USS Cole, do not try and hide their identity. Second, they do not attack civilian targets. Third, they are more often than not in place for reasons other than destruction. And Al Qaida ship would be none of those things.

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

[XyZspineZyX]

ASHcom wrote:
- by the way, the topic of the thread is about the UN.
- last time I checked the UN was not only the US, but
- many nations. My point is that the UN cannot define
- terrorism because every nation has a different
- defintion. Again, you are ignoring the fact that the
- US is not the only nation on the planet. I don't see
- why the insult pertains to this particular
- statement, as it is relevant to the topic of the
- thread. the other insults are fine and relevant, but
- this one was out of place. Please keep things
- relevant.

The relevancy is that the UN has made it self irrelevent and it is up to the US to protect the US interests, because the UN dont give a crap as it has proven over and over, like 12 resolutions.
Right now we have a big problem with Muslim terrorists and if the UN had any balls among them they would roll up their sleeves and help solve the problem.
You might but I dont care about defining a terrorist action,
we know what is concidered terror and what it is concidered military attack. If the UN wants to try and "understand" what is in those bastards minds when they commit the terrorist acts, then the UN and those countries that follow their lead can wait until the terror comes to their land in a big awakening way. We should not.

I only insult when being insulted /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

[XyZspineZyX]

Hornet57 wrote:
- The relevancy is that the UN has made it self
- irrelevent and it is up to the US to protect the US
- interests, because the UN dont give a crap as it has
- proven over and over, like 12 resolutions.

Of course the UN isn't interested in protecting US interest when they include the invasion of countries that don't need to be invaded.

[XyZspineZyX]

Don't need to be invaded?

We already found and destroyed, since the invasion, illegal ballistic missiles, we found terrorist training camps, many factories that are suspected of either storing or developing chemical weapons with traces or chemical agents found, which cannot be used as evidence since these agents MAY be found from other sources, we have found countless mass graves, mostly muslim by the way, oh yah, they were such a peaceful country until we messed it all up huh?

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

Hornet57 wrote:
If the UN wants to try
- and "understand" what is in those bastards minds
- when they commit the terrorist acts, then the UN and
- those countries that follow their lead can wait
- until the terror comes to their land in a big
- awakening way. We should not.
-


Perhaps. But two points.

The UN is NOT and was never designed to be a military force. it was meant as a mediation and management service for world affairs, and in this sense does an excellent job. The humanity programs, food and health programs, aid, banking, education, all work well.

this is a military problem and one for which the UN is not designed. Why blame the car if it can't fly? It wasn't designed to.

Second point. Any military leader will tell you that you need to know and understand your enemy to destroy him. If you do not, you will not be able to eliminate the threat. This is a war, as many procaim, and therefore you must treat your enemy as such. carlos the Jackal was not defetaed by blind attacks and violence. He was defeated by undermining his interests by UNDERSTANDING his motives and intent. To defeat an enemy who you cannot fight on the ground, this makes the understanding of motivation even more important. Saying you don't care just gives them the upper hand. Intelligence is everything, it is the key weapon.

I only insult to stir the pot. Been far too few flammings this last year.



http://webhome.idirect.com/~nkirv/ASHcom%205%20alone3%20copy.jpg

Shut up when you talk to me.

[XyZspineZyX]

ASHcom wrote:
-
- Hornet57 wrote:
- If the UN wants to try
-- and "understand" what is in those bastards minds
-- when they commit the terrorist acts, then the UN and
-- those countries that follow their lead can wait
-- until the terror comes to their land in a big
-- awakening way. We should not.
--
-
-
- Perhaps. But two points.
-
- The UN is NOT and was never designed to be a
- military force. it was meant as a mediation and
- management service for world affairs, and in this
- sense does an excellent job. The humanity programs,
- food and health programs, aid, banking, education,
- all work well.

The only thing the UN has done is not mediateted or managed anything. The have wasted much time with Saddam and gave him hope that the UN will get the US off his back once again.

- this is a military problem and one for which the UN
- is not designed. Why blame the car if it can't fly?
- It wasn't designed to.

but it should be able to take you from point A to point B right?

Give me an example that the UN did just that. All it did in my opinion is drive you around the block a few (twelve to be exact)times.
-
- Second point. Any military leader will tell you that
- you need to know and understand your enemy to
- destroy him. If you do not, you will not be able to
- eliminate the threat. This is a war, as many
- procaim, and therefore you must treat your enemy as
- such. carlos the Jackal was not defetaed by blind
- attacks and violence. He was defeated by undermining
- his interests by UNDERSTANDING his motives and
- intent. To defeat an enemy who you cannot fight on
- the ground, this makes the understanding of
- motivation even more important. Saying you don't
- care just gives them the upper hand. Intelligence is
- everything, it is the key weapon.

I think you need to know their location to destroy your enemy..but other then that the enemy has to open their eyes and see what reality is.
I said I dont care because we are there to Liberate the Iraqi people and let them have a choice on how to run their country that is a possitive thing. Why do i need to know why exactly these terrorists want us out? what is the purpose of that We know why they want us out because they want to reek havoc with out interference.
-
- I only insult to stir the pot. Been far too few
- flammings this last year.


/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

[XyZspineZyX]

"Not surprised at all Geist. In my opinion the UN building in NYC is a waste of valuable space. Diplomats here constantly break our laws because they are protected by the UN. I can never understand that reasoning. If they have no respect for the law why would they defend or make an International terrorism laws. Define terrorism? ask them to define a PARKING VIOLATION.
The U.S should get out of the UN because it's obvious that the weak wants to lead the strong."

And US diplomats abroad act the very same way, so what is your point?

And yeah, maybe the US should get out of the UN. Its not like the US really cares about the rules, regulations and terms of membership anyway. Why be a member of something you don't respect or intend to cooperate fully with?

[XyZspineZyX]

longinius wrote:
-
- And US diplomats abroad act the very same way, so
- what is your point?

That is what I am talking about.....Diplomats dont follow the laws anywhere so that would make them irelavent with the job they are suppose to be doing.
-
- And yeah, maybe the US should get out of the UN. Its
- not like the US really cares about the rules,
- regulations and terms of membership anyway.

I see your point and it on the top of your hat.
Rules and regulations where broken by Saddam Hussein, the UN wanted to do nothing but wait (until Saddam cleaned house) ok ?

Why be a
- member of something you don't respect or intend to
- cooperate fully with?


Cooperate fully with stupidity and political power strugle? why? to give importance to the UN?

-
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

[XyZspineZyX]

longinius wrote:
- And US diplomats abroad act the very same way, so
- what is your point?

Actually, you're wrong. US Diplomats abroad do not act the same way. They are in fact required by the Department of State to comply with all such laws and pay penalties as appropriate. Failure to comply may result in recall or reassignment.

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

[XyZspineZyX]

MDS_Geist wrote:
-
- longinius wrote:
-- And US diplomats abroad act the very same way, so
-- what is your point?
-
- Actually, you're wrong. US Diplomats abroad do not
- act the same way. They are in fact required by the
- Department of State to comply with all such laws and
- pay penalties as appropriate. Failure to comply may
- result in recall or reassignment.
-
- Thanks for pointing that out Geist, I had no idea as how the US diplomats comply to laws abroad or not. But I am not surprised because most Americans respect Laws.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Rodadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

No worries. Such things are generally not spoken about by the State Department or anyone else because they generally fall into the category of "no kidding" for us. All of our diplomats are expected to fully comply with local laws and regulation when off US soil.

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

[XyZspineZyX]

1. If the formal diplomatic council of the world dares criticize the behaviour of Israel, then clearly it is the world that is anti-Semitic and anti-Israel; it cannot be Israel that is in the wrong. To even consider the contrary; that Israel, by firing anti-tank munitions into an area populated by civilians in an attempt to kill a suspected terrorist, is behaving in a manner unbefitting of a First World Nation, is madness. Anyone that even considers that Israel could do anything wrong is, in my eyes, an anti-Semite. Israel can do whatever it likes.

2. If you don't like this, then consider the following piece of logic: Israel is backed by America. America is good. Therefore Israel must be good, because America is infallible. QED.

3. Terrorists. Difficult one; I propose that anybody we don't like should be branded a terrorist, and should therefore be treated in a less than human manner. Load 'em off to Guantanemo, because they deserve no justice.

Terrorism is hard to define, much more difficult than a group of simpletons like yourselves could ever cope with, so don't try. For example, the French Resistance killed any Frenchman who collaborated with the German occupiers, but clearly they're fighting for freedom, so that does justify assassination of civilians. Likewise, although the original rebellion that caused the Irish War of Independence was sparked off by a wave of assassinations of prominent British civilians, the IRA was largely financed by Irish-Americans, but the Irish are loveable rogues, so they probably weren't real terrorists (see point 2, above).
(Clearly, given that Britain is now an ally of the US in The War Against The Terrorists, the US should perhaps revise its view of Irish Freedom Fighters and reclassify them as terrorists. In any case, I'm sure that nobody in Britain remembers the M60s, Barret .50cal sniper rifles and Armalites (not to mention the Stinger SAMs) that were smuggled in during the 1980s).

Speaking of ex-freedom-fighters-now-turned-terrorists-that-used-to-be-funded-by-Uncle-Sam, honourable mention should be made of the Mujahadeen, of course, but it's gone a bit unfashionable to talk about Muslim guerrillas in a favourable manner. In any case they fought against US troops as they jollied their way across Afghanistan in 2001/2002/2003 (is it really that long?), so that makes them terrorists.

To tell you the truth, I find it all a bit bewildering. I reckon anybody with a beard and an AK-47 is a terrorist. After all, good guys always use M16s. Apart from the IRA. Maybe the best thing to do is let Big Brother handle it all; after all, they have more information than us.

4. Finally, a confession. I'm not American, so my view of the world doesn't really count. But I am Irish, and over 48 million American's claim to be of Irish descent, so maybe that makes me some kind of parallel species. In any case, if you don't believe that American Diplomats break the rules when overseas, don't even concern yourselves with disturbing stories about diplomats being expelled for espionage in the Balkans or Cuba or for illegal arms deals with Argentina. The real truth can be found by anybody with the wit to look at the license plates of cars parked illegally outside pubs on a Friday night anywhere near a US Embassy. Having lived pretty near the embassy in Dublin, and having worked in a few of the pubs nearby, I can honestly say that I never saw any embassy officials getting leathered while their drivers waited on double-yellows outside. Wink wink.

<center>
http://www.guardiansofthesecret.com/Bush5[1).jpg

[XyZspineZyX]

Simon, the only words I can use to describe your post are hackneyed and ignorant. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (again) and assume you get your news from the BBC. Since it still may be a case of honest ignorance, I'll even condescend to address a few points.

Regarding the use of anti-tank rather than anti-personnel weapons. This is a fairly common misconception among people who are ignorant of both munitions and military tactics. Anti-tank weapons are highly focussed weapons with a limited blast radius. Anti-personnel weapons are far less dicriminate and more likely to result in civilian casualties. Furthermore, the use of weapons in civilian areas is the liability of the terrorists who illegally operate and entrench themselves in civilian areas. If the Israelis went in house to house, there would be far more deaths on both sides. The Israelis have no interest in more deaths.

Funding the IRA is and has been illegal for quite some time now. The FBI even used RICO statues in a most creative way to crack down on it. This includes any and all IRA splinter groups. There are some apparent exceptions for "legitimate" IRA political operations, but those are highly questionable to say the least.

Considering the fact that I personally know of two diplomats, one of fairly senior status who were reassigned (the more junior one from the UK as a matter of fact) for fairly to obey local traffic and parking laws, the truth is quite obvious really. But anecdotal evidence remains that.

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

[XyZspineZyX]

MDS_Geist wrote:

- Simon, the only words I can use to describe your
- post are hackneyed and ignorant. But I'll give you
- the benefit of the doubt (again) and assume you get
- your news from the BBC. Since it still may be a
- case of honest ignorance, I'll even condescend to
- address a few points.
-
- * Holsters Flame thrower and gives Geist thumbs up sign *

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Rodadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

Haha, this is amusing

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. This is all we ever seem to hear from you Geist. I've seen you call at least three different people ignorant in the past fortnight.

As per usual, all you can do is accuse those you disagree with of not knowing the facts and having less education than yourself. (In any case, what is a 'Higher Degree'? Do you mean a BA(Hons)? A masters? A PhD? Somebody saying they have a high level of education is the most juvenile way of trying to resolve an argument I can imagine. I've never been to an academic conference where proponents of rival theories have resorted to "my opinions are formulated based in extensive education and experience", nor have I resorted to it myself. It's a little pathetic and a little immature.)

As with any kind of political tete-a-tete, the key is always perspective. You have your perspective; that of a Jewish American with family in Israel, other people have their own perspectives. Neither perspective is wrong in of itself, nor are they definitively correct.

I understand your perspective. You feel aggrieved and indignant that anybody could consider Israel in the wrong, because you've never thought about it yourself. Why should you; Israel is always right. Now I'll condescend to address your patronising critique of my points.

- Regarding the use of anti-tank rather than
- anti-personnel weapons. This is a fairly common
- misconception among people who are ignorant of both
- munitions and military tactics. Anti-tank weapons
- are highly focussed weapons with a limited blast
- radius.

I'm sorry. I forgot it was okay to kill civilians sometimes..


"US President George Bush criticised Israel for a helicopter attack on a senior Hamas leader that killed a bystander and a bodyguard."
(source: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/11/1055220610836.html)
"The US president, George Bush, has joined Britain, the EU, the UN and Arab nations in condemning Israel's missile attack against the leader of Hamas, as the death toll from the strikes rose to at least 15.
The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said: "This heavy-handed action does not contribute to peace . . . this message will be conveyed to Israeli authorities, and the United States regrets the loss of life."
Last night's attack by F-16 warplanes on a densely populated Gaza City neighbourhood killed Salah Shehadeh, 48, a founder and top commander of Hamas's military wing, the group has now confirmed."
(source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,761908,00.html)

- Anti-personnel weapons are far less
- dicriminate and more likely to result in civilian
- casualties.

Do you mean the IDF are not using anti-personnel weapons like this:
"Israeli troops have fired tank shells at Palestinians in a marketplace in the West Bank town of Jenin, killing at least three civilians and injuring more than 20 others. An Israeli army spokeswoman told BBC News Online that the unit in Jenin had "erred in its action". The army has begun an investigation into what it says are accidental killings."
(source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2057847.stm) or maybe like this
"Now fielded and battle proven by Israel Defense Forces (IDF), the APAM (Antipersonnel/Anti-materiel) provides the MBT with a rapid and lethal direct fire capability to support assaulting infantry and for the first time defeating anti-tank squads."
(source http://www.imi-israel.com/imi/doa_iis.dll/Serve/item/English/1.1.4.12.html);
"The three women, Selmiya al-Malalha, 37, Hekmat al-Malalha, 17, and Nasra al-Malalha, 61, were killed, and three other family members wounded when their tents were hit by 120 mm tank shells packed with thousands of steel darts. The al-Malalha clan lived in an area surrounded by populated villages about 1.5 km from the Netzarim settlement"
(source http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/06/isr0616.htm).

- Furthermore, the use of weapons in
- civilian areas is the liability of the terrorists
- who illegally operate and entrench themselves in
- civilian areas. If the Israelis went in house to
- house, there would be far more deaths on both sides.

I noticed that in a previous post you said it was actually illegal for terrorists to operate in civilian areas! Does this mean it is legal for terrorists to operate in non-civilian areas? In what othe conditions is it legal for terrorists to operate? No doubt you'll supply an example later in your post....

It's a good thing the Israelis don't go house to house in order to avoid bloodshed!!!
"The troops were led by undercover units dressed as Arabs. They imposed a curfew and conducted a house-to-house search, arresting five of Mr Arafat's policemen, including three from the intelligence services.
A number of the others arrested are activists in his mainstream Fatah movement, which opposes suicide bombs and attacks in Israel." source http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,624889,00.html)

- Funding the IRA is and has been illegal for quite
- some time now. The FBI even used RICO statues in a
- most creative way to crack down on it. This
- includes any and all IRA splinter groups. There are
- some apparent exceptions for "legitimate" IRA
- political operations, but those are highly
- questionable to say the least.

This must be what you meant about it being illegal for terrorists to do some things, the implication being it's perfectly legal to do other things? And this from a bright boy with a higher degree..

- Considering the fact that I personally know of two
- diplomats, one of fairly senior status who were
- reassigned (the more junior one from the UK as a
- matter of fact) for fairly to obey local traffic and
- parking laws, the truth is quite obvious really.
- But anecdotal evidence remains that.

This is actually my favourite bit of all. You personally know of two diplomats (note you don't know them, you know of them) that were reassigned for traffic violations? Really? Name them and link to a third party confirming it. I'm sure it's possible, but don't expect anybody to take your word for it.

If you intend to respond, have the courtesy of civility. Sarcasm and wit are always welcome, of course, but if you believe I'm factually incorrect, then prove me wrong and provide a link. I'm sure they didn't teach you to flame at debating society, and nobody should expect it here.

[XyZspineZyX]

SimonMcM wrote:
- Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. This is all we ever
- seem to hear from you Geist. I've seen you call at
- least three different people ignorant in the past
- fortnight.

When the shoe fits...

- As per usual, all you can do is accuse those you
- disagree with of not knowing the facts and having
- less education than yourself. (In any case, what is
- a 'Higher Degree'? Do you mean a BA(Hons)? A
- masters? A PhD? Somebody saying they have a high
- level of education is the most juvenile way of
- trying to resolve an argument I can imagine. I've
- never been to an academic conference where
- proponents of rival theories have resorted to "my
- opinions are formulated based in extensive education
- and experience", nor have I resorted to it myself.
- It's a little pathetic and a little immature.)

Your lack of personal knowledge and education about a situation is neither my concern nor my responsibility. Nor does it in any way ennoble you. My perspective is of course influenced by my background, which includes specific education on the subject that most people lack.

- As with any kind of political tete-a-tete, the key
- is always perspective. You have your perspective;
- that of a Jewish American with family in Israel,
- other people have their own perspectives. Neither
- perspective is wrong in of itself, nor are they
- definitively correct.

My perspective is also that of an area specialist who has extensive experience in the area. And sometimes perspective is not the key, but something quite misleading.

- I understand your perspective. You feel aggrieved
- and indignant that anybody could consider Israel in
- the wrong, because you've never thought about it
- yourself. Why should you; Israel is always right.
- Now I'll condescend to address your patronising
- critique of my points.

Actually, you certainly do not understand my perspective, particularly if this is your analysis of it. Don't make such foolish assumptions about what other people have and have not thought, since you clearly have no knlowledge of such things.

- I'm sorry. I forgot it was okay to kill civilians
- sometimes..

They're unfortunately killed unintentionally. Collateral damage is an unfortunate by-product of war. Bear in ind that the US seems to have no problems using these same tactics - it only seems to be a problem when Israel does it. THe F-16 attack was acknowledged to be a mistake, and Israel has been using far smaller munitions since then - which are of course far less effective, but "safer." That is the only reason Hassan Nasrallah is unfortunately still with us.

- Do you mean the IDF are not using anti-personnel
- weapons like this:

I said no such thing. If you inferred it from my post, that was your error and not mine.

- I noticed that in a previous post you said it was
- actually illegal for terrorists to operate in
- civilian areas! Does this mean it is legal for
- terrorists to operate in non-civilian areas? In what
- othe conditions is it legal for terrorists to
- operate? No doubt you'll supply an example later in
- your post....

Hardly. However, the entrenchment of military forces in civilian areas is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Iin all cases, the onus is on the terrorists.

- It's a good thing the Israelis don't go house to
- house in order to avoid bloodshed!!!

At no point did I say this was not a tactic used. Think of Jenin.

- This must be what you meant about it being illegal
- for terrorists to do some things, the implication
- being it's perfectly legal to do other things? And
- this from a bright boy with a higher degree..

Your lack of understanding is again neither my responsibility or concern.

- This is actually my favourite bit of all. You
- personally know of two diplomats (note you don't
- know them, you know of them) that were reassigned
- for traffic violations? Really? Name them and link
- to a third party confirming it. I'm sure it's
- possible, but don't expect anybody to take your word
- for it.

Whether you take my word is not is quite irrelevant. As I said, it is anecdotal evidence. You may not be aware of this, but many things are not on the Internet.

- If you intend to respond, have the courtesy of
- civility. Sarcasm and wit are always welcome, of
- course, but if you believe I'm factually incorrect,
- then prove me wrong and provide a link. I'm sure
- they didn't teach you to flame at debating society,
- and nobody should expect it here.

Which is why I have not flamed you or anyone else. Calling you ignorant of the situation is simply a statement reflecting what you have expressed.

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

[XyZspineZyX]

SimonMcM wrote:

- As with any kind of political tete-a-tete, the key
- is always perspective. You have your perspective;
- that of a Jewish American with family in Israel,
- other people have their own perspectives. Neither
- perspective is wrong in of itself, nor are they
- definitively correct.

Prespective although its personal it could be wrong and in the matters of Israel you were wrong and Geist just pointed it out. Isn't Ignorance the lack of knowledge? well you where wrong claiming that Israel went into Palestine with anti-personel weapons and Geist just corrected you as to the difference.
--
- I'm sorry. I forgot it was okay to kill civilians
- sometimes..
-
Now that is not ignorance that is plain stupidity on your part SimonMcM. Who ever said its ok to kill civilians sometimes?
Geist just pointed out the difference of the two weapons one of which they decided to use so they can limit the civilian casualties. But of course to thinkers like you any civilian death is ok.......unless of course its a Jewish civilian.
-
- "US President George Bush criticised Israel for a
- helicopter attack on a senior Hamas leader that
- killed a bystander and a bodyguard

Bush criticised Israel because he felt it compromised the Peace process. But Israel has got to protect its people like we have to protect ours. Many world leaders critisized Bush for many things, but he did it because that is what he thought was a good response at the time.....so did Sharon.

[b]"The US president, George Bush, has joined
- Britain, the EU, the UN and Arab nations in
- condemning Israel's missile attack against the
- leader of Hamas, as the death toll from the strikes
- rose to at least 15.

We all condemed Palestines suicide bombing of inocent civilians also did they change their tune?
the Peace process works both ways, No?

- Last night's attack by F-16 warplanes on a densely
- populated Gaza City neighbourhood killed Salah
- Shehadeh, 48, a founder and top commander of Hamas's
- military wing, the group has now confirmed."

One less obsticle to the Peace process. Good ridence.
--
- If you intend to respond, have the courtesy of
- civility. Sarcasm and wit are always welcome, of
- course, but if you believe I'm factually incorrect,
- then prove me wrong and provide a link. I'm sure
- they didn't teach you to flame at debating society,
- and nobody should expect it here.


Simmon, I've been visiting this forum now for many months and I have never seen Geist flame anyone, unless correcting someone is the same as flamming to you.
-
-
-
-



<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">[b]STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

simon wrote:
"Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. This is all we ever seem to hear from you Geist. I've seen you call at least three different people ignorant in the past fortnight."

Yah, 3 people, Geist is being very polite in not calling ALL the ignorant people here that, only the really extreme cases. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"Somebody saying they have a high level of education is the most juvenile way of trying to resolve an argument I can imagine."

Oh yah, of course, that's the argument you'll hear from someone WITHOUT a high level of education. Just like someone who says "it's the thought that counts" is the person who bought someone a REALLY crappy gift. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"nor have I resorted to it myself. It's a little pathetic and a little immature"

Well I guess if you lack the credentials, might as well not get into a competition you know you'll lose, that's the first smart thing I've heard all day! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"US President George Bush criticised Israel for a helicopter attack on a senior Hamas leader that killed a bystander and a bodyguard."

That's not a surprise, Bush is yet another president that thinks we can negotiate peace with these terrorist bastards. It hasn't worked for 30+ years, and everytime someone tried, it just results in more terrorist attacks. Bush needs to stop trying to negotiate with the likes of Yassar Arafat, just because Bill Clinton invited him into the White House, does not mean he's a good person. In fact, he's a very very bad person, his mother needs to spank him, make him cry like the crybaby he is.

"It's a good thing the Israelis don't go house to house in order to avoid bloodshed!!!"

Where is it that I remember when the Israelis tried going house to house that terrorists in a building set of charges that were placed all around the building, bringing the entire thing down killing all of the terrorists inside along with all of the Israeli force that went inside, and all the civilians living underneath them? Oh, but I guess this must be an isolated possibility, they must have learned from their mistakes and would never try that again.

"This must be what you meant about it being illegal for terrorists to do some things, the implication being it's perfectly legal to do other things? And this from a bright boy with a higher degree.."

Wow, how smart of you, you do realize that saying it's wrong to do one thing doesn't mean it's ok to do everything else right? If I say that this gang has been illegally selling drugs to kids in an elementary school, does that somehow suggest that it's ok to sell drugs to adults? Right man, good show! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

"I'm sure they didn't teach you to flame at debating society"

debating society, oh no, not another "learned" debator who thinks they know everything about debating, having actual knowledge comes second to knowing how to speak in front of the public...

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

Funny, Simon addressed this post to Geist and what do you know? His Umpa lumpas join in /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

[XyZspineZyX]

buccaneer wrote:
- Funny, Simon addressed this post to Geist and what
- do you know? His Umpa lumpas join in /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
-

I dont know which I am the Umpa or the Lumpa but I know one thing for sure you must be Simmons pupa because this was not addressed to you either but you jumped right in and offered your observation, as weak as it was.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

Oh yes, I'm sure this is the very first time someone else responded to someone's post, I'm sure you would say something about everytime this happens and I haven't seen it yet, so that must mean it's NEVER happened.

I guess when the arguments are swapped then it doesn't count. Way to be fair, like the New York Times. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

[XyZspineZyX]

That's kind of silly Buc, especially since I'm not Willy Wonka, and especially not the very disturbed Gene Wilder version.

But that's the beauty of an open message forum - anyone can respond to anything else. After all - there was nothing here addressed to you and you felt free to comment. So why should others not have the same freedom?

"Theory? Theories are great. But I hope you have more than theory on your side when lives are at stake."

[XyZspineZyX]

- Oh yah, of course, that's the argument you'll hear
- from someone WITHOUT a high level of education. Just
- like someone who says "it's the thought that counts"
- is the person who bought someone a REALLY crappy
- gift.

- Well I guess if you lack the credentials, might as
- well not get into a competition you know you'll
- lose, that's the first smart thing I've heard all
- day!

I have a PhD. Eat crow.

[XyZspineZyX]

MDS_Geist wrote:

So why should others not have the
- same freedom?

Because others dont have the same opinion like Buc has, just like the Iraqi people.
When you think about it the Iraqi people were Free.....Free to agree with Saddam that is.

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

Message Edited on 10/01/03â 09:05AM by Hornet57

Message Edited on 10/01/0310:20PM by Hornet57

[XyZspineZyX]

I will be the first to admit .. I am not all that educated. I have an AAS in criminal justice. So I guess MOST of my education comes from the real world on the streets either as a member of the criminal justice world or as I am now a professional firefighter .. but with all fo my "lack" of education I know this



The UN couldn't pour ... urine (dang forum software) out of a boot if you put directions on the bottom of the heel.




http://www.bpclan.com/Images/dagosig%20copy.jpg

[XyZspineZyX]

MDS_Geist wrote:
- That's kind of silly Buc, especially since I'm not
- Willy Wonka, and especially not the very disturbed
- Gene Wilder version.

- But that's the beauty of an open message forum -
- anyone can respond to anything else. After all -
- there was nothing here addressed to you and you felt
- free to comment. So why should others not have the
- same freedom?

Oh, but I'm not denying anyones freedom to comment. Even if they are not addressed directly. It was just an observation that I wanted to share. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



<center><marquee> *War is Peace* *Freedom is Slavery* *Ignorance is Strength* <marquee><center>

[XyZspineZyX]

Fyredawg wrote:

- The UN couldn't pour ... urine (dang forum software)
- out of a boot if you put directions on the bottom of
- the heel.
-
-
- LOL Fyredawg /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

-
-
-

<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

A Roadblock means <font color="red"><font size="4">STOP<font color="red"><font size="4">

[XyZspineZyX]

Wow Dago, that is actually quite funny, I haven't heard that one before, lol /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Where have I been? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
â â Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell