This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Then they should just let any Palestinian into Israeli lands, if they marry an Israeli. If not, they are racist hateful indefensible bigots.
Post by
Patty
Then they should just let any Palestinian into Israeli lands, if they marry an Israeli. If not, they are racist hateful indefensible bigots.
I get the feeling you're trollbaiting here but I can never be sure.
Post by
MyTie
Hey man, I'm just pointing to the security risk of handing papers to every Palestinian who marries an Israeli, and how that would be exploited. If you don't get that, fine. Let's move on.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Me?
Post by
Magician22773
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22215414
They used IEDs and Suicide bombs too. Try reading Leon Uris "Mila 18", a well researched fictionalized account, that has stood the test of time. Look at the similarities between the Warsaw ghetto, and modern day Gaza. I dare you.
I never realized the Nazi's used suicide bombs and IED's. I must have missed that day in history class.
Post by
MyTie
A Fox News opinion article that aptly describes my issues with
this UN guy
.
Oh, and a
mormon ninja
. Why? Just cause.
Post by
Monday
I actually saw that last article on Facebook a minute ago.
Post by
Magician22773
According to Falk, what happened in Boston was a mere “blowback.” Not only that, it will get “worse” if America does not fundamentally alter its “relations with the Islamic world.”
When I hear things like this it does make me want to "fundamentally alter our relations with the Islamic world"...only not in a good way.
If they want to inflict "blowback", I say we give them a reason to blow. If they want accuse the US of "world domination"...then lets go dominate. There isn't a single Islamic country that we could not conquer. Hell, I am pretty sure if we really were the evil, world dominating, Islam hating, juggernaut that they want to portray us to be, we could have, and would have, invaded and converted the entire Middle East by now.
But, go ahead...keep blowing up your little bombs in our cities, and killing innocent children and women...you are not going to have Obama, and his limp wristed foreign policy, or G.W. Bush's ignorant Rules of Engagement policies in the White House forever. At some point, you are going to piss the US off, and we are going to have the right leader in place...and we are going to "blowback" on you. And its not going to be with pressure cookers filled with BB's and nails.
You can only poke a dog with a stick so many times before he bites you....keep poking, and you are going to bleed.
Post by
432158
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Aimsyr
According to Falk, what happened in Boston was a mere “blowback.” Not only that, it will get “worse” if America does not fundamentally alter its “relations with the Islamic world.”
When I hear things like this it does make me want to "fundamentally alter our relations with the Islamic world"...only not in a good way.
If they want to inflict "blowback", I say we give them a reason to blow. If they want accuse the US of "world domination"...then lets go dominate. There isn't a single Islamic country that we could not conquer. Hell, I am pretty sure if we really were the evil, world dominating, Islam hating, juggernaut that they want to portray us to be, we could have, and would have, invaded and converted the entire Middle East by now.
But, go ahead...keep blowing up your little bombs in our cities, and killing innocent children and women...you are not going to have Obama, and his limp wristed foreign policy, or G.W. Bush's ignorant Rules of Engagement policies in the White House forever. At some point, you are going to piss the US off, and we are going to have the right leader in place...and we are going to "blowback" on you. And its not going to be with pressure cookers filled with BB's and nails.
You can only poke a dog with a stick so many times before he bites you....keep poking, and you are going to bleed.
The only problem is the fact that more innocent civilians die than terrorists when the US gets involved like that.
Not saying the US should not fight back, but recent conflicts of that nature have all been a mess because running in guns ablazing doesn't work against terrorists. It just makes the regular people in those countries extremely pissed off, sometimes to the point of joining the ranks of the real enemy, and worsens the anti-US sentiment that seems to be present in many places worldwide, even outside of Islamic nations.
Post by
Magician22773
Also, you imply that large-scale murder of civilians would be justified,
I am not implying justification. I am sick and tired of being berated and accused of the US being some kind of power-mad juggernaut, that I am saying if these countries want to continue to, not just verbally assault us, but have their terrorist actions somehow justified as just "blowback" from our policies, then I say we give them something to really be pissed about. Or better yet, we wipe them out, so they do not have the option.
Magician, isn't that what the war in Afghanistan was supposed to do?
See the part there about G.W. Bush's flawed military strategy? Afghanistan and Iraq would not have been the quagmire's they became if we had went in there guns ablazing We tried to fight a war against medieval savages in a "civilized" manner, and we failed to do anything but sacrifice thousands of our troops and spend trillions of dollars to only come full circle to where we began. Iraq's democracy will crumble, and Afghanistan will be overrun again as soon as we are gone.
Post by
MyTie
We need a president who would go to these countries, bow to their wishes, apologize to them, and reset relations with the Muslim world. That would fix everything.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
We need a president who would go to these countries, bow to their wishes, apologize to them, and reset relations with the Muslim world. That would fix everything.
I guessing you're being sarcastic, but I can't really tell.
Even so, I'll add that he would also have to cut funding to Israel. Do all that, and there would sure be a lot less children dying at least.
Post by
Magician22773
Even so, I'll add that he would also have to cut funding to Israel. Do all that, and there would sure be a lot less children dying at least.
So, Palestinians use their women and children as human shields because of US funding? Because that is what kills their children. When you set rocket launchers up in schoolyards, don't expect sympathy from me when your school gets bombed.
Cutting funding to Israel would ultimately result in the extinction of the Palestinians. Israel has more than enough military firepower to defend themselves, and destroy Gaza, without US aid. US backing actually helps keep Gaza under control. (if you define randomly lobbing rockets into another country 'under control'). If the US were to suddenly pull its backing of Israel, they would be more likely to respond to the bombing if their country with more force, not less.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
...don't expect sympathy from me when your school gets bombed.
That... that is why I cannot argue with you. Our fundamental believes on the value of innocent human life are radically opposed. Any argument made by one person will fundamentally flawed in the other person's eyes.
Post by
MyTie
We need a president who would go to these countries, bow to their wishes, apologize to them, and reset relations with the Muslim world. That would fix everything.
I guessing you're being sarcastic, but I can't really tell.
Even so, I'll add that he would also have to cut funding to Israel. Do all that, and there would sure be a lot less children dying at least.
AT LEAST suggest that US funding Israel doesn't justify killing children. The absence of a condemnation there is pretty telling. Put blame where it belongs.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Huh? I don't follow.
Post by
MyTie
Huh? I don't follow.
Let's say your neighbor comes into your house, and takes a #$%^ on your floor. You call the cops. The cops come out, and explain that he did so because you threw a bar b q with his mortal enemy the day before. Then, the cops tell you to stop having BBQs with his enemy, and he will stop @#$%ting on your floor. How would you respond?
I respond, that we should keep funding Israel (BBQ with their enemies), if we want to, but killing our children ($%^&ting on our floor), needs to stop anyway, and should never be tolerated. If you can't agree with that, AT LEAST hold them responsible for killing children. Spell that out, and say it. Because, when you say "well maybe we should stop having BBQ with their enemies", it sounds a lot like accepting justification for their $%^&.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The problem with that analogy is that every "side" is killing children. Americans are killing children. Israelis are killing children. Palestinians are killing children. My response? "Well, maybe we
all
should stop killing children." And bombing people. And selling weapons. And funding wars.
I still don't understand what you're trying to say with regards to me. Are you accusing me of supporting the murder of children?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.