Terrorist (namely muslim) cowards

[Mikkel]

Incorrect. If it is enough then he will not want more.
If he wants more, clearly it's not enough.

You're right, you're wrong. There will never be enough for mankind.

[Winston001]

You're right, those Israelis should have the right to protect the land that their families have had for generations...err...um...well, a generation, anyway...shit..

...sorry...I'll try that again...

You're right, those Israelis should have the right to protect the land that they stole at the point of a gun...damn

..opps, that don't work...try again..

You're right, those Israelis should have the right to protect the land that was in their families for generations, before they abandoned it for 2000 years, and then took back (after ejecting the new residents) using some Old Testament hokum and a contradictory UN resolution...bugger

...jeez...the truth is hard...

Oscar, I've enjoyed your posts here but I'm afraid the above is bunkum. You aren't alone of course, this view of the nasty Israelis is perpetuated by our shallow media who don't bother to do any research.

Zionism was a Jewish activist movement which traces back to about 1870, with the stated aim of returning Jewish people to Palestine (as it then was). They did this quietly, bit by bit, buying land from Arabs, who willingly sold it. After all, it was unproductive desert.

The process of buying land in Palestine continued right into the 1940s. In the meantime the Balfour Declaration said that Britain would allow Jewish people to emigrate to Palestine if they wished. Despite that, the British have a long history of supporting the Arabs (TE Lawrence et al) and the army and officials didn't make the Jewish settlers welcome.

After the end of WWII Jewish refugees flooded into Palestine from Europe and the UN declared the new state of Israel in 1948. Immediately Arab armies attacked the new country. They told Palestinian Arabs to move out, promising them that once they had "driven the Jews into the sea" they could come back and seize all the land they wanted.

As we know that David and Goliath war was won against all odds - and that is the genesis of todays Palestinian problem. The poor devils stepped aside thinking they'd reap the rewards of victory and instead found themselves in refugee camps for the past 60 years. I can completely understand their bitterness.

[cold comfort]

[QUOTE=Mikkel;1831732]I completely agree with this. Personally, I'm against organised religion of any kind. No matter what the individual follower may believe organised religion is only about one thing: Power, power through control of thought and behaviour. No matter how beautiful and benevolent the dogma may appear, that power is the only reason behind organised religion."

As the Tube attacks illustrated, it was allegiance to the group rather than dogma that bound the bombers. The desire to be part of a group (or different) seems to be human nature, promoting a belief of idealogical/ moral superiority over the "other guy" . This then is a springboard for posession and control of resources. Organised religion is an unfortunately convenient focus for the warped desire to " convert" and control others and as such would not be missed. Atheism,as has been pointed out, is a lack of religious belief not a lack of morality.

[Winston001]

Yes.. guilty.. i carried a Mossberg 5500 door breaching shotgun..00 buckshot 3" magnum high brass.. loved that gun (incedentllly.. i ALSO carried 40mm buckshot rounds for my M203..nothing says "Welcome to Hell" like 40 00 buck pellets coming through a door..)

Didn't know a 203 could fire buckshot Sarge? Thought it was simply a grenade launcher.

[Sniper]

Lost myself through most the name calling and the thread going off topic somewhere between page 3 and 4.

Finn, bro. Sorry for your loss, never easy losing anyone, regardless of who they are. The attacks were the act of cowards, I do not dispute that. I liken it to the same as kicking someone on the ground who your mate has just knocked out.

I understand certain folk have different veiwpoints. But you cannot argue the fact that each terrorist attack is commited by a certain number of races, 3 who come up very often and that they are often done by a group who attacks targets to inspire terror. That involves killing people who may have just voiced an opinion, but are just taking kids to school, walking with the love of their life or just doing their job. You cannot argue that people who attack folks just living their lives rather than actually go face to face with someone who will fight back are a bunch of cowards. In my opinion.

I've been in situations where a race would rather lay IEDs than come out and face you direct. Those sorts were also dealt to by the same army that they belonged to. Told me that not all are bad, it just takes a few to give them a bad name. Unfortunatly, the extremists in the Middle East have alot of support, and none of it is good.

Give me the Japs anyday....

My opinion, although it might be wrong.

[Sniper]

Didn't know a 203 could fire buckshot Sarge? Thought it was simply a grenade launcher.

Variety of 40mm that go in the M203. HE, Flare, Standard Grenade, Frags, 00 Buck.

[Winston001]

I understand certain folk have different viewpoints. But you cannot argue the fact that each terrorist attack is commited by a certain number of races, 3 who come up very often and that they are often done by a group who attacks targets to inspire terror. That involves killing people who may have just voiced an opinion, but are just taking kids to school, walking with the love of their life or just doing their job. You cannot argue that people who attack folks just living their lives rather than actually go face to face with someone who will fight back are a bunch of cowards. In my opinion.

At first glance, its hard to disagree. The trouble is, what do you do if you are being oppressed? The French Resistance targeted Germans when they could, but also targeted Vichy French. And there are always collateral casualties, civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Ideally the Mumbai bombers should have attacked government buildings, the army and the police. But there were only 10 of them..... So what to do? A tiny terrorist force wanting the maximum effect. Soft targets is the clear answer and has been proven effective by Al Queda time and time again. As a bonus they get a few foreigners too.

Please don't misunderstand - I have an affection for Bombay and am appalled by what has happened. I think I understand the terrorists tactics even while I also abhor them.

[mstriumph]

The only real point I'd make here is that you're comfortable and secure and have not been and probably will never be living in a tent in the desert because men with guns took your home and your city and all the farms around it away so that their friends could live there.

you are right of course - not in my generation ..
... but i think you are probably in the same situation ... as such, you and i are theorising and moralising from similar ground - and my thoughts, theories and morals are as valid as yours are.

Perspective changes based on where you stand.

one of my favourite tru-isms .... and yet seemingly not universally applicable since you and i are standing on roughly similar ground and yet it's obvious from this debate we see things differently?

You're welcome to moralise away to your heart's content, of course. But it won't change anything.

both of us, eh?

Have you ever wondered why a sane young man or woman with an above-average IQ would strap a bomb to themselves and detonate it?

no
i don't wonder about that - i know why ....... as, probably, do you

What could possibly motivate that?

Oh, that's right. They're not 'honourable'.

don't be provocative now - i am treating your arguements thoughtfully, no place, here, for gratuitous naughtiness ?

They do it BECAUSE they are young
BECAUSE they are idealistic
BECAUSE they want to change the world and make a difference

and because scheming, morally-destitute, self-serving governments, elders and leaders KNOW this about the young and ruthlessly and callously manipulate them to serve their own ends ..... telling them they are important in the fight against whomsoever the 'enemy' happens to be at the time ... but using them, discarding them and leaving them spent and crippled like so much rubbish when they have no further use for them ....

in short - today's suicide bomber is similarly motivated - and thereby similarly vunerable - to the same callous exploitation as every young person of any worth right back to the beginning of time and warfare

- or do you think it's by accident that it's primarily people under 25 that are drafted and shipped off to serve as cannon fodder and worse for the 'war-du-jour' by whichever government they happen to fall under??

Riiiiightio.

..... but it isn't, is it .... and the worst thing about it is that so-called grownups like you and i haven't risen up in horror, disgust and revulsion through the ages and butchered those who arrogantly co-opt our children, our future, into a hell of mangled remnants and then have the gall to talk about 'acceptable losses'

You do realise that you can talk to these people if you wish to, don't you? The internet is a big place, and communication technology is a wonderful thing.

tsk tsk - misses the mark i'm afraid ... i've been condesended to by experts

I would encourage you to do that. Find them, talk to them. Present to them your comfortable middle-class Western 'code of honour', and ask why their behaviour does not fit that mold.

oh dear -
i don't have a 'code' of anything much ....
or any expectation that anything useful would be achieved .... as i'm sure you have already found, middle-aged folk know NOTHING as far as your average 20something [of any nationality] is concerned ... and i have no wish to hear, at first hand, their passionate philosophies and contemplate where they may allow them to be led

it would make me weep

[Oscar]

Oscar, I've enjoyed your posts here but I'm afraid the above is bunkum. You aren't alone of course, this view of the nasty Israelis is perpetuated by our shallow media who don't bother to do any research.

Zionism was a Jewish activist movement which traces back to about 1870, with the stated aim of returning Jewish people to Palestine (as it then was). They did this quietly, bit by bit, buying land from Arabs, who willingly sold it. After all, it was unproductive desert.

The process of buying land in Palestine continued right into the 1940s. In the meantime the Balfour Declaration said that Britain would allow Jewish people to emigrate to Palestine if they wished. Despite that, the British have a long history of supporting the Arabs (TE Lawrence et al) and the army and officials didn't make the Jewish settlers welcome.

After the end of WWII Jewish refugees flooded into Palestine from Europe and the UN declared the new state of Israel in 1948. Immediately Arab armies attacked the new country. They told Palestinian Arabs to move out, promising them that once they had "driven the Jews into the sea" they could come back and seize all the land they wanted.

As we know that David and Goliath war was won against all odds - and that is the genesis of todays Palestinian problem. The poor devils stepped aside thinking they'd reap the rewards of victory and instead found themselves in refugee camps for the past 60 years. I can completely understand their bitterness.

My original post was somewhat tongue in cheek, as the truth is more complex. The very media you refer to is responsible - we do get a slanted view of contemporary events. So whereas your summary is generally true, there is no doubt that Jewish settlers took the opportunity to expel local Arabs, and in some cases, simply killed them.

The fact is that during my lifetime I've changed my opinion of the Israelis. There is no doubt that they started out as brave battling heroes resisting the Soviet backed corrupt Arab Dictatorships.

The problem is that they've now changed to a state where it is hard to see who is the bad guy. Why is it necessary for them to allow settlements in occupied lands? Building Walls and requiring passes for people trying to get to work? Cutting off electricity? The occupied territories resemble an Apartheid-era South African Homeland.

Maybe this hardline attitude qualifies as revenge or "to the winner the spoils", but there is no doubt that it is breeding generation after generation of increasingly desperate people and has lead us to events like 9/11.

[mstriumph]

You are indeed the curmudgeonly voice of reason...

praising those whose arguements echo our own validates us

but unfortunately there are no 'sides' in this
whatever happens it is BIG people [generic] that start wars and the LITTLE people [generic] that get hurt.

[Oscar]

praising those whose arguements echo our own validates us

You're good with the obvious - are you related to my wife?
I was actually praising his delivery, sparse yet grumpy.
The fact is, I could happily argue either side of this issue, but it is usually the right wing pro-US and/or "all muslims are terrorists" comments that get me wound up and involved.

but unfortunately there are no 'sides' in this
whatever happens it is BIG people [generic] that start wars and the LITTLE people [generic] that get hurt.

Isn't that a version of what he said?

No side there has clean hands.

[mstriumph]

You're good with the obvious - are you related to my wife?

a] thanks - i'm also good with the devious, backhanded and downright sneaky lol
b] dunno - prolly - i've been here so long i'm pretty much related to EVERYBODY

I was actually praising his delivery, sparse yet grumpy.

........ an easy man to love, i'll grant you ..... i have to recognise him as the master of the 'few, well-chosen, words" even when i find myself in disagreement with the words he's chosen

The fact is, I could happily argue either side of this issue, but it is usually the right wing pro-US and/or "all muslims are terrorists" comments that get me wound up and involved.

... in other words, and as my grandfather used to say "people who generalise should be shot" [of course, no-one did ]

Isn't that a version of what he said?

nah - what HE said has its basis in the 'sides' idea

what i said denies the relevance of 'sides' and goes to the [for me] real issue of who benefits and who gets hurt

[Oscar]

what i said denies the relevance of 'sides' and goes to the [for me] real issue of who benefits and who gets hurt

I agree - and I guess I'll argue with anyone who tries to present an issue like this as a simple good/bad equation (ref. Thread title).

[Mr Merde]

[quote=Oscar;1831874]

Catch 22 Alert.

If you base your faith on fact, then it's not faith anymore.

Notwithstanding that, the only fact you have that can go anywhere near proven is that Christ existed. Most of what he may have done or said is based on accounts written a long time afterward.

I'm not trying to belittle your faith here, I'm just saying that if you claim it's based on fact I'll wanna see some proof.

I have a problem with this statement.

There has not been one piece of documentary or physical evidence from the supposed time of this person that supports the fact that he\she existed

Everything we hold to be evidence of this persons existance comes from a time afterwards.

The Jewish faith was a great keeper of records as was the Roman Empire and still they have no documents that actrually refer to this person that date to the supposed time of his living.

[nodrog:Me]

The Jewish faith was a great keeper of records as was the Roman Empire and still they have no documents that actrually refer to this person that date to the supposed time of his living.

havnt you seen that movie with him in, you can see him quite clearly in it, unless it was CGI.