A simple question...

[Yonivore]

...asked in the context of recent events and prior discussions of the Geneva Accords: Why hasn't the International Committee of the Red Cross demanded access to the Israeli soldiers taken in Gaza and in northern Israel? The same could be asked for any other relevant organizations as well as governments who've recently been concerned with the treatment of non-uniformed combatants.

Certainly the soldier taken into Gaza is the responsibility of the quasi-Palestinian state and surely deserving of Geneva protections. Hezbollah while not a state or quasi-state has at least as much stature as Al Qaeda and it seems that the international community believes that Geneva extends to Al Qaeda's representatives; so, why would it not also extend to uniformed soldiers held by Hezbollah which, I believe, has declared itself to be at war with the state of Israel.

It seems to me that reciprocity is a two-way street. If Geneva coverage is to be extended to insurgent groups under Article 3, then surely reciprocal treatment should be expected from them? Otherwise Geneva is a mockery.

I hope Justice Stevens is paying close attention.

This JPost (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885992990&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) article is enlightening, if unsurprising:


Hizbullah has assured the International Committee of the Red Cross that they will treat the two IDF soldiers they are holding captive humanely, but they have refused to provide information on their condition or even to give their names, according to Dominique Stillheart, the head of the ICRC delegation for Israel and the occupied territories.

The captive reservists have been identified as Ehud Goldwasser, 31, and Eldad Regev, 25.

Stillheart, a Swiss economist who has previously served in areas such as Sudan, the Balkans, Rwanda, Angola and Bosnia, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday that he and his staff were demanding that Hizbullah allow the soldiers to contact their families.

"We are calling on those groups who are holding them to treat them humanely according to international humanitarian law. We keep reminding them to treat the captives humanely and respect their life and dignity. We are pushing to establish family links. We have asked for permission to visit the soldiers, but that has been declined, as in the past," said Stillheart.
The Red Cross is unbelievably charitable in its treatment of Hizbullah, given its past treatment of Israeli captives:


Stillheart said the ICRC was working constantly to reunite captives with their families. "We will never give up. We are still working to help the three missing Israeli soldiers from the [1982] Sultan Yakoub battle and Ron Arad. They are constantly on our mind," he said, while admitting that the ICRC's efforts had been to no avail.

1982. That is ... what? Twenty-four years later? Does M. Stillheart really believe these men are alive? That they are being "humanely treated?" I'm sure they've been on his mind though.

Every day. For twenty-four years.


Outside the Middle East, Stillheart said, "we are often able to visit hostages. I remember a case in Peru when an embassy was occupied for a long time and we were allowed to see them. But in this context here, we have never been allowed to visit Israeli soldiers captured by a group."

The ICRC official said that Israel fully observed international humanitarian law, allowing access to prisoners within 14 days of capture. But, he said - declining to use the word "terrorist" to characterize Hizbullah or Hamas because "that is not what the ICRC calls them" - "it is generally more difficult for us to deal with these armed groups."
Imagine that. Israel fully observes international humanitarian law. But they've never been able to visit an Israeli prisoner captured by Arab terrorists... oops... freedom fighters. Even ones who've now been imprisoned since 1982. But hey... they think about them a whole lot.

Somebody get Justice Stevens on the bat phone! He'll shake the sternly wagging finger of international opprobrium at these guys. A few days of that, coupled with his turgid legal prose, should have them just begging for mercy.

And while he's at it, maybe he could watch this (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/07/ilario_pantano_on_the_daily_show_video). Perhaps then he might understand that our guys have a pretty good understanding of the challenges they're facing over there.

We have good rules in place already without our Supreme Court justices unilaterally and capriciously renegotiating international treaties while they're fighting half a world away. But in any human system, people step over the line. It happens. We see it every day in the news: in schools, in corporate America, in the penal system. Rules are in place, not because we reasonably believe they can prevent wrongdoing, but to enable us to detect and punish wrongdoing once it has occurred.

Human nature has always been fallible, and if there is one thing we have known since the dawn of time, it is that things go wrong. That is precisely why we make rules - to address the problems that occur due to human foibles.

We do not abolish human institutions because abuses occur. We don't close schools when a teacher abuses a student. We don't close police departments or penitentiaries when a cop or a prison guard commits a crime. Reasonable people knew that would happen from the get go. Only malicious trouble makers and the willfully naive pretend otherwise.

We pick up the pieces, resolve to do better, and move on.

[clambake]

Hamas and Hezbollah are not considered legitamate governments, maybe. or why ask if you know it will be refused. or couple of red cross guys would rather not be surrounded by whacknuts. or could be afraid of bombs raining down from the Israelis.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Every Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hamas or Hizbullah has ended up dead in the end. I don't expect it to be any different this time.

[ChumpDumper]

If you are going to steal a "simple question" off a blog, why not just steal the question?

[Yonivore]

If you are going to steal a "simple question" off a blog, why not just steal the question?
Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? Is there a point to your question?

[ChumpDumper]

Absolutely. It was a simple question.

[Yonivore]

Absolutely. It was a simple question.
Because the commentary was relevant? You are stupid, aren't you?

[ChumpDumper]

No.

See, that was a simple question.

You should have titled the thread "long-winded plagiarized blog that says I don't like Hezbollah because it certainly has nothing to do with the Geneva conventions."

You are stupid and a thief.

That is not a question.

[ShackO]

I guess then you could ask the question why doesn’t Israel allow UN observers into the country???

[exstatic]

No.

See, that was a simple question.

You should have titled the thread "long-winded plagiarized blog that says I don't like Hezbollah because it certainly has nothing to do with the Geneva conventions."

You are stupid and a thief.

That is not a question.

Ferris Bueller...you're my hero...

CD takes YoniBore in a TKO in the third round.

[01Snake]

Ferris Bueller...you're my hero...

CD takes YoniBore in a TKO in the third round.

Dude, why don't you stop swinging from CD's nuts for once?

[FromWayDowntown]

Unless Yonivore is "Cassandra," I'll help out in providing a link to the presumably plaigarized thoughts:Villainous Company (7/16/06) (http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2006/07/geneva_only_enf.html)

Resisting the temptation to also allow others to make arguments for me, I'd like to think that the reason that entities like the United States Supreme Court conclude that Geneva should apply to persons in the custody of this nation is that the individuals who comprise that entity believe that this country should be held to a higher standard.

I mean, is the argument, essentially, that if groups like al Queda and Hizbullah are able to ignore Geneva, there's no reason why this country should be held to that standard? If so, the answer would seem to be an easy one -- we're not them and we should demand that official actions taken by this country should adhere to the treaty obligations we've assumed, regardless of whether our enemy has done the same. Otherwise, you're necessarily taking the position that the official actions of the United States of America should be measured against those of a group of terrorists who we've rightly declared to be barbaric. I'd like to think that even in the context of a war that this nation is better than that.

[exstatic]

Dude, why don't you stop swinging from CD's nuts for once?
I admire his patience, and his unwilingness to be put off the track by Yonibore's antics and twisting the truth. CD stays on point and hammers it home.

If Yoni is your hero, you might as well swing from the nuts of the conservative blogosphere. That's where he (self admittedly) steals his material. There's nothing to be admired in that. He's a plagiarist, and CD does a good job of reminding him of that.

[01Snake]

I admire his patience, and his unwilingness to be put off the track by Yonibore's antics and twisting the truth. CD stays on point and hammers it home.

If Yoni is your hero, you might as well swing from the nuts of the conservative blogosphere. That's where he (self admittedly) steals his material. There's nothing to be admired in that. He's a plagiarist, and CD does a good job of reminding him of that.


Sorry, not gonna swing from anyone nuts. Following up every post with a "TKO" or "Owned" doesn't really do it for me.

As far as stealing material..this whole forum is Cut&Paste 101. Do assume that its only Yoni that does this.

[jochhejaam]

I'd like to think that even in the context of a war that this nation is better than that.
Agreed.

Caveat: All bets are off if an enemy of the U.S. ever inflicts massive casualties and or gets the upper hand on us in combat by way of violating the Geneva Convention's Rules of Engagement.

[exstatic]

Sorry, not gonna swing from anyone nuts. Following up every post with a "TKO" or "Owned" doesn't really do it for me.

As far as stealing material..this whole forum is Cut&Paste 101. Do assume that its only Yoni that does this.
People cut and paste here all of the time, and they usually post a link or acknowledge the source. It's not that he uses other people's material, it's that he doesn't attribute it, via a simple acknowledgment of where he got the material or a link. That's what makes it plagiarism. If you are writing a term paper, you use material from sources, and you footnote it. If you don't, and the prof finds out, you're busted.

Using other people's material without attribution is plagiarism.

[FromWayDowntown]

As far as stealing material..this whole forum is Cut&Paste 101. Do assume that its only Yoni that does this.

Speak for yourself on that point. If I get material from another source, I cite my source. Maybe that's just me.

[scott]

Agreed.

Caveat: All bets are off if an enemy of the U.S. ever inflicts massive casualties and or gets the upper hand on us in combat by way of violating the Geneva Convention's Rules of Engagement.

I have to disagree with your caveat, jochhe. I don't think we should ever stoop to the level of barbarianism that these pitiful terrorist organizations do.

[scott]

And plaigarizing blogs? That's pretty lame.

[jochhejaam]

I have to disagree with your caveat, jochhe. I don't think we should ever stoop to the level of barbarianism that these pitiful terrorist organizations do.
Even if it were to mean losing a war and being occupied by the enemy? If so I admire your convictions scott.

[scott]

Even if it were to mean losing a war and being occupied by the enemy? If so I admire your convictions scott.

Well, I have a difficult time imagining a scenario in which abandoning the Geneva Convention Rules of Engagement would prevent us from losing a war - so I guess my take is "go out with dignity." And if we "win" a war by stooping to barbaric tactics... have we really won?

[jochhejaam]

Well, I have a difficult time imagining a scenario in which abandoning the Geneva Convention Rules of Engagement would prevent us from losing a war - so I guess my take is "go out with dignity." And if we "win" a war by stooping to barbaric tactics... have we really won?
I'm not sure scott. Is there a difference between those that initiate the "breaking of the rules" and those that are reciprocative rule breakers for the purpose of self preservation?

[jochhejaam]

And plaigarizing blogs? That's pretty lame.
Keep that up and we're going to end up with another "yonivore is dead" thread.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10762&highlight=yonivore+dead

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm not sure scott. Is there a difference between those that initiate the "breaking of the rules" and those that are reciprocative rule breakers for the purpose of self preservation?

I'm with scott on that point -- the war that we are fighting is one that is directed towards ensuring that our way of life prevails. Among other things, "our way of life" calls for the humane treatment of those who are detained. I can't see that it would ever be consistent with American principle to go away from that notion in some eye-for-an-eye sense. If terrorists are barbaric and terrorists don't treat their prisoners humanely, don't we become barbaric to some degree if we do the same? The answer to that has to be "yes," I would think; if it is, but we say that Geneva can be ignored at times, it seems to me that we're doing nothing more than justifying a retreat from American values in the pursuit of protecting American values.

More importantly, it would suggest that governing priniciples upon which our society is built are subject to contextual changes -- that the treaty obligations our nation undertakes (which are akin to law, in many ways) will be respected until an administration finds some excuse for ignoring them.

[jochhejaam]

I'm with scott on that point -- the war that we are fighting is one that is directed towards ensuring that our way of life prevails. Among other things, "our way of life" calls for the humane treatment of those who are detained. I can't see that it would ever be consistent with American principle to go away from that notion in some eye-for-an-eye sense. If terrorists are barbaric and terrorists don't treat their prisoners humanely, don't we become barbaric to some degree if we do the same? The answer to that has to be "yes," I would think; if it is, but we say that Geneva can be ignored at times, it seems to me that we're doing nothing more than justifying a retreat from American values in the pursuit of protecting American values.

More importantly, it would suggest that governing priniciples upon which our society is built are subject to contextual changes -- that the treaty obligations our nation undertakes (which are akin to law, in many ways) will be respected until an administration finds some excuse for ignoring them.
Actually I thought that the last couple of posts from me and scott were responses to a hypothetical situation and not necessarily the war we're fighting.

Regarding an "eye for an eye". I think that verse addresses revenge, what I'm referring to is self preservation.

[Yonivore]

And plaigarizing blogs? That's pretty lame.
Not as lame as all of us spending our time in here.

[scott]

I'm not sure scott. Is there a difference between those that initiate the "breaking of the rules" and those that are reciprocative rule breakers for the purpose of self preservation?

I basically echo FWD's response.

In my eyes if we resort to barbarianism, then the American values we are fighting for are already dead, and in that regard we have lost the war and the nation that survives will not be The United States as we know them today (in a negative sense).

[FromWayDowntown]

Actually I thought that the last couple of posts from me and scott were responses to a hypothetical situation and not necessarily the war we're fighting.

I understand that. My argument states a general principle that would tend to agree with scott's position. That's all I'm saying.


Regarding an "eye for an eye". I think that verse addresses revenge, what I'm referring to is self preservation.

Ah! The consequences of relying on my own writing prowess!!

You're right -- it's not really an eye-for-an-eye sort of situation. It's more like turnabout being fair play. Regardless, it's still not an acceptable course of conduct IMO.

[Yonivore]

People cut and paste here all of the time, and they usually post a link or acknowledge the source. It's not that he uses other people's material, it's that he doesn't attribute it, via a simple acknowledgment of where he got the material or a link. That's what makes it plagiarism. If you are writing a term paper, you use material from sources, and you footnote it. If you don't, and the prof finds out, you're busted.

Using other people's material without attribution is plagiarism.
I'm not writing a term paper. Oh, and I've been busted before.

None of this makes the content any less valuable, and it doesn't change the fact that I always link to statements of fact. But, if attacking me makes you feel better -- go ahead. It's somewhat entertaining.

[exstatic]

I'm not writing a term paper. Oh, and I've been busted before.

None of this makes the content any less valuable, and it doesn't change the fact that I always link to statements of fact. But, if attacking me makes you feel better -- go ahead. It's somewhat entertaining.

Actually, I'm just kind of sitting back and enjoying watching other people shred your shit. It's somewhat entertaining.

[Yonivore]

Actually, I'm just kind of sitting back and enjoying watching other people shred your shit. It's somewhat entertaining.
That's the beauty. They're not shredding my shit. Besides, why would I possibly care?

[exstatic]

That's the beauty. They're not shredding my shit. Besides, why would I possibly care?
Is that original, or did you shoplift it?

[Yonivore]

Is that original, or did you shoplift it?
Google it.

[FromWayDowntown]

That's the beauty. They're not shredding my shit. Besides, why would I possibly care?

Just the shit you adopt for your own.

It's interesting that you've not seen fit to address the substantive argument that took place above. But I want to be fair -- I'm assuming that there's a response coming once you've found material to co-opt.

[Yonivore]

Just the shit you adopt for your own.

It's interesting that you've not seen fit to address the substantive argument that took place above. But I want to be fair -- I'm assuming that there's a response coming once you've found material to co-opt.
Probably not, this thread is toast.

[scott]

jochhe,

Elaborating the way I feel on the subject... isn't the "fight for survival" the justification that terrorists use for their barbaric actions? Right or wrong, they percieve themselves to be in a battle for survival, which they can't win using traditional ("fair") warfare, so they result to barbarianism and suicide bombings. I would hope the US would never come to that.

[jochhejaam]

jochhe,

Elaborating the way I feel on the subject... isn't the "fight for survival" the justification that terrorists use for their barbaric actions? Right or wrong, they percieve themselves to be in a battle for survival, which they can't win using traditional ("fair") warfare, so they result to barbarianism and suicide bombings. I would hope the US would never come to that.

Unless "jihad by the sword" translates to "fight for survival" then I'm not sure I agree with that as being the main justification for the committing of atrocities by terrorists. I think it's just their warped way of promoting and furthering their main agenda of attempting to convert the world to Islam.
So IMO, their battle is a plan to thrive and conquer rather than one of survival.

I believe the thrust of your post is the hope that we would not, deliberately or by policy, resort to or stoop to the conscience defying and unconscionable tactics used by the terrorists. I concur.

[Kori Ellis]

I'm not writing a term paper. Oh, and I've been busted before.

None of this makes the content any less valuable, and it doesn't change the fact that I always link to statements of fact. But, if attacking me makes you feel better -- go ahead. It's somewhat entertaining.

You aren't writing a term paper, but have some frickin' common sense. If you post someone else's work or writing, just link to it or cite the source. No one thinks you are awesome for starting this thread anyway, so you might as well give the original source it's due.

[MannyIsGod]

Unless "jihad by the sword" translates to "fight for survival" then I'm not sure I agree with that as being the main justification for the committing of atrocities by terrorists. I think it's just their warped way of promoting and furthering their main agenda of attempting to convert the world to Islam.
So IMO, their battle is a plan to thrive and conquer rather than one of survival.

I believe the thrust of your post is the hope that we would not, deliberately or by policy, resort to or stoop to the conscience defying and unconscionable tactics used by the terrorists. I concur.Thats a pretty foolish understanding of what motivates people down to the core. Palestinians do what they do out of desperation, destitution, and a percived hopelessness. They're not trying ton conquer the world.

If you want to see a history of conquering, you need do nothing more than open an American history book. Manifest Destiny anyone?

[jochhejaam]

Thats a pretty foolish understanding of what motivates people down to the core. Palestinians do what they do out of desperation, destitution, and a percived hopelessness. They're not trying ton conquer the world.

Well, if they're desperate, destitute and hopeless then I fully understand why they purposefully target innocent women and children. No doubt that this purposeful slaughtering of innocents is just what the Quran encourages as an antidote for their ills.
You've expressed a <blind> hatred for Israel and have stated that you couldn't care less if the Palestenians and Israelis wipe each out. Who's the fool here Manny?
With that mentality don't expect many to seriously entertain your thoughts regarding anything about the Middle East.
I know I take them with a grain of salt.



"Our flowers are the sword and the dagger:
Narcissus and myrtle are nought.
Our drink is the blood of our foeman;
Our goblet his skull, when we've fought".
-Ali ibn Abi Talib- (one of the most famous and revered "peaceful" Muslims)

[George Gervin's Afro]

...asked in the context of recent events and prior discussions of the Geneva Accords: Why hasn't the International Committee of the Red Cross demanded access to the Israeli soldiers taken in Gaza and in northern Israel? The same could be asked for any other relevant organizations as well as governments who've recently been concerned with the treatment of non-uniformed combatants.

Certainly the soldier taken into Gaza is the responsibility of the quasi-Palestinian state and surely deserving of Geneva protections. Hezbollah while not a state or quasi-state has at least as much stature as Al Qaeda and it seems that the international community believes that Geneva extends to Al Qaeda's representatives; so, why would it not also extend to uniformed soldiers held by Hezbollah which, I believe, has declared itself to be at war with the state of Israel.

It seems to me that reciprocity is a two-way street. If Geneva coverage is to be extended to insurgent groups under Article 3, then surely reciprocal treatment should be expected from them? Otherwise Geneva is a mockery.

I hope Justice Stevens is paying close attention.

This JPost (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885992990&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) article is enlightening, if unsurprising:


The Red Cross is unbelievably charitable in its treatment of Hizbullah, given its past treatment of Israeli captives:



1982. That is ... what? Twenty-four years later? Does M. Stillheart really believe these men are alive? That they are being "humanely treated?" I'm sure they've been on his mind though.

Every day. For twenty-four years.


Imagine that. Israel fully observes international humanitarian law. But they've never been able to visit an Israeli prisoner captured by Arab terrorists... oops... freedom fighters. Even ones who've now been imprisoned since 1982. But hey... they think about them a whole lot.

Somebody get Justice Stevens on the bat phone! He'll shake the sternly wagging finger of international opprobrium at these guys. A few days of that, coupled with his turgid legal prose, should have them just begging for mercy.

And while he's at it, maybe he could watch this (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/07/ilario_pantano_on_the_daily_show_video). Perhaps then he might understand that our guys have a pretty good understanding of the challenges they're facing over there.

We have good rules in place already without our Supreme Court justices unilaterally and capriciously renegotiating international treaties while they're fighting half a world away. But in any human system, people step over the line. It happens. We see it every day in the news: in schools, in corporate America, in the penal system. Rules are in place, not because we reasonably believe they can prevent wrongdoing, but to enable us to detect and punish wrongdoing once it has occurred.

Human nature has always been fallible, and if there is one thing we have known since the dawn of time, it is that things go wrong. That is precisely why we make rules - to address the problems that occur due to human foibles.

We do not abolish human institutions because abuses occur. We don't close schools when a teacher abuses a student. We don't close police departments or penitentiaries when a cop or a prison guard commits a crime. Reasonable people knew that would happen from the get go. Only malicious trouble makers and the willfully naive pretend otherwise.

We pick up the pieces, resolve to do better, and move on.


In regards to your silly question concerning the red cross they do not go in and demand anything because of the very same reason why they could not enter New Orleans immediately following Katrina.. It's a security issue...

so if a party does not play by the Geneva Convention rules then the rules are a mockery? If you use this logic and apply it to anyother situation then every institution and applicable law becomes a mockery. According to Yonivore if everyone does not play by the rules then it, the rule, is by definition a mockery..

[RandomGuy]

A simple answer:

Because we are civilized human beings and better than those we fight.

Morality starts within, and letting terrorists dictate our morality is a surest path to our ultimate defeat.

[xrayzebra]

A simple answer:

Because we are civilized human beings and better than those we fight.

Morality starts within, and letting terrorists dictate our morality is a surest path to our ultimate defeat.

What is your sense of morality? Let them do as they wish and we sit around
and take it. Or do we protect ourselves.

Give me a break and "your" sense of morality. War is breaking things and
killing people. DEFEATING the enemy. Look at history.

[FromWayDowntown]

What is your sense of morality? Let them do as they wish and we sit around
and take it. Or do we protect ourselves.

Give me a break and "your" sense of morality. War is breaking things and
killing people. DEFEATING the enemy. Look at history.

Sure, but when you've agreed that there are certain boundaries that you will not cross in the prosecution of a war -- in the process of breaking things and killing people -- why should you be able to cross that boundary just because the guy on the other side does. It's altogether like a child protesting that his parents won't allow him to do something by arguing that the kid down the block gets to do it.

The rules of a civilized society demand more than barbarism, even in war and even if the enemy is barbaric.

[Yonivore]

Sure, but when you've agreed that there are certain boundaries that you will not cross in the prosecution of a war -- in the process of breaking things and killing people -- why should you be able to cross that boundary just because the guy on the other side does. It's altogether like a child protesting that his parents won't allow him to do something by arguing that the kid down the block gets to do it.

The rules of a civilized society demand more than barbarism, even in war and even if the enemy is barbaric.
The natural law of self-preservation demands that sometimes you have to abandon civility in order to defeat a barbaric enemy that won't be constrained by acceptable social norms, rules of engagement, international law, conventions, etc...

In most previous wars, the United States has established a reputation for being a ruthless killer and a compassionate captor.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't think the statements in the thread have much to do with what occurs on the battlefield. Hamdan certainly doesn't. I think we're talking more about combatants who are in captivity. And, as to that context, I think it's incumbent upon the United States government to comply with Geneva, regardless of how the enemy acts as to those it captures. We've agreed to comply with Geneva and even if there might be some technical argument to avoid its application to those captured in the current hostilities, I think the Supreme Court is right to conclude that the better course is to hold the government to the higher standard - to respect human rights even if our enemies do not.

[Yonivore]

I don't think the statements in the thread have much to do with what occurs on the battlefield. Hamdan certainly doesn't. I think we're talking more about combatants who are in captivity. And, as to that context, I think it's incumbent upon the United States government to comply with Geneva, regardless of how the enemy acts as to those it captures. We've agreed to comply with Geneva and even if there might be some technical argument to avoid its application to those captured in the current hostilities, I think the Supreme Court is right to conclude that the better course is to hold the government to the higher standard - to respect human rights even if our enemies do not.
I would agree that we should treat captives as humanely as they will allow.

And, at some point, it does become a battlefield question though. Our military men are, at some point, going to tire of hearing about how those they capture are coddled and, in some cases, released to re-enter the fray (as has been done by some released from Gitmo).

If I were to encounter an enemy combatant in Iraq or Afghanistan it might take me a bit longer than it used to for me to see the white flag.

[ChumpDumper]

Why do the right wingers here think our soldiers are so mentally fragile?

[xrayzebra]

Sure, but when you've agreed that there are certain boundaries that you will not cross in the prosecution of a war -- in the process of breaking things and killing people -- why should you be able to cross that boundary just because the guy on the other side does. It's altogether like a child protesting that his parents won't allow him to do something by arguing that the kid down the block gets to do it.

The rules of a civilized society demand more than barbarism, even in war and even if the enemy is barbaric.


There are few boundaries in war. Look to the history of WWII. We bombed
the civilian population of every major city of our enemies. We took no
prisoners in the Pacific theater for a long period of time.

No my friend. Don't be fooled by those that say we are better, we were
just the winners. War is hell to all involved. About the only humane
thing we did was with the POW's. And we even in a way circumvented
the Geneva convention on the matter of labor. We used German and
Italian prisoners on farms and ranches and the owners of these farms
and ranches fed them and gave them a few pennies an hour for their
labor.

I repeat there are few boundaries in war. Only winners and losers.

[scott]

No doubt that this purposeful slaughtering of innocents is just what the Quran encourages as an antidote for their ills.

...You've expressed a <blind> hatred for Israel...

You seem to be expressing a <blind> hatred for Muslims based on your faulty interpretation of their holy literature. So seem a bit cavalier in telling other faiths what they believe while becoming quite defensive when someone suggests a different interpretation of your faith.

So, who is the fool?

[xrayzebra]

You seem to be expressing a <blind> hatred for Muslims based on your faulty interpretation of their holy literature. So seem a bit cavalier in telling other faiths what they believe while becoming quite defensive when someone suggests a different interpretation of your faith.

So, who is the fool?

You are Scott. If you think they are such wonderful people, go there and
live with them. Then come back and tell us what a wonderful group of
people they are. Oh, and feel free to call me all those wonderful PC names.

They, the Muslims, are some of the most corrupt, biggotted people on
the face of the earth. You don't have any idea of what discrimination is
all about until you see how they practice it.

And like Mexico, you have all the civil rights in the world, so long as you
can stand the pain.

[ChumpDumper]

I love it when the latent bigotry flares up like so much herpes.

[MannyIsGod]

Well, if they're desperate, destitute and hopeless then I fully understand why they purposefully target innocent women and children. No doubt that this purposeful slaughtering of innocents is just what the Quran encourages as an antidote for their ills.
You've expressed a <blind> hatred for Israel and have stated that you couldn't care less if the Palestenians and Israelis wipe each out. Who's the fool here Manny?
With that mentality don't expect many to seriously entertain your thoughts regarding anything about the Middle East.
I know I take them with a grain of salt.Joch, I'm fairly confident when I say I have no doubts I carry more credibility with the appropriate posters here than you do. Yonivore, Gtown, and Smeagol may find your thoughts intriguing, but I'm not sure how far beyond that sphere that sentiment travels.

But anyhow, I digress.

As for the initial point, I once agian point out that you have a failed understanding of basic human motivation.

[MannyIsGod]

You seem to be expressing a <blind> hatred for Muslims based on your faulty interpretation of their holy literature. So seem a bit cavalier in telling other faiths what they believe while becoming quite defensive when someone suggests a different interpretation of your faith.

So, who is the fool?Hey Joch, case in point.

[jochhejaam]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jochhejaam
No doubt that this purposeful slaughtering of innocents is just what the Quran encourages as an antidote for their ills.





You seem to be expressing a <blind> hatred for Muslims based on your faulty interpretation of their holy literature. So seem a bit cavalier in telling other faiths what they believe while becoming quite defensive when someone suggests a different interpretation of your faith.

So, who is the fool?

My quote that you referred to was sarcasm scott, which you obviously didn't pick up on.
Who's da fool? :lol

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=MannyIsGod]Joch, I'm fairly confident when I say I have no doubts I carry more credibility with the appropriate posters here than you do
Wow. Just Wow! I guess that means you've won...and that would mean that I've lost. No need for me to stick around if that's the case.
Goodbye cruel world. :depressed :lol


Seriously, it sounds like someone's in need of an ego boost here...do you suffer from low self-esteem? I don't post with the intention or expectation of currying the favor of other posters here. I don't get excited or disappointed by whatever reaction my thoughts should generate.
To thy own self be true and let the cards fall where they may.

[jochhejaam]

Hey Joch, case in point.
Oh? Really? :lol

I note that your self esteem and ego were boosted by scott's support for you (although scott misinterpreted my post). I'm genuinely happy for you Manny.

[scott]

My quote that you referred to was sarcasm scott, which you obviously didn't pick up on.
Who's da fool? :lol

Then, I offer my sincere apologies - as we all know, it is hard to pick up on sarcasm sometimes!

:)

[FromWayDowntown]

Then, I offer my sincere apologies - as we all know, it is hard to pick up on sarcasm sometimes!

:)

That's why the blue text can be your friend.

[jochhejaam]

Then, my offer my apologies.
Absolutely no need for an apology scott. Sarcasm isn't always readily discernible.

[jochhejaam]

That's why the blue text can be your friend.

Blue text denotes sarcasm? Didn't know that but sarcasm loses some of it's luster if you have to broadcast it as such.

I've read lots of sarcasm here but haven't seen it blued.

[FromWayDowntown]

Blue text denotes sarcasm? Didn't know that but sarcasm loses some of it's luster if you have to broadcast it as such.

I've read lots of sarcasm here but haven't seen it blued.

It's actually an older reference arising, I think, out of a discussion in the Spurs forum. I agree with you that sarcasm is less effective if it has to be illustrated to be sarcasm.

In a written medium like this one, though, resorting to sarcasm always brings with it a terrific risk that your point will be lost in sarchasm.

[ShackO]

Unless "jihad by the sword" translates to "fight for survival" then I'm not sure I agree with that as being the main justification for the committing of atrocities by terrorists. I think it's just their warped way of promoting and furthering their main agenda of attempting to convert the world to Islam.
So IMO, their battle is a plan to thrive and conquer rather than one of survival.

I believe the thrust of your post is the hope that we would not, deliberately or by policy, resort to or stoop to the conscience defying and unconscionable tactics used by the terrorists. I concur.


I think I agree with your take on Jihad......... Not all ppl that do these acts of terror are in the same position..... Certainly the fools in south Lebanon are not hurting...... They got there house, can come and go as they please..... Were is the desperation in the desperate acts???

The Palestinians on the other hand I think are in much more desperate straights personally…. There grandma getting pushed around @ the boarder cross points… Searched and handled… Houses getting bull dozed.. No freedom of movement, everywhere you turn constant symbols of oppression. Educated and yet no work, no infrastructure and businesses run on a primitive level……

[MannyIsGod]

With that mentality don't expect many to seriously entertain your thoughts regarding anything about the Middle East.
I know I take them with a grain of salt.
I respond to this and I'm in need of a self esteem boost?

:lol

So be it. Anyone want to praise me?