40,000 canadians trapped in lebanon, 7 killed by israeli bombing

Discussion in 'Politics' started by CptStern, Jul 17, 2006.

  1. Ome_Vince

    Ome_Vince Newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its not "go into New York and kill 166 random people", its going into New York and get your people back and punish the terrorist organisation responsible.
    Unfortunatly, considering the size of Hezbollah and their mix with the civilian population, i cant seem how you can effectively get rid of them without hitting civilians :(
     
  2. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46
    only 2 militia members killed ...... at this rate there wont be much of a civilian population left
     
  3. Ome_Vince

    Ome_Vince Newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, never said its an effective of getting rid of Hezbollah. No idea what would be, land force doesnt work, airstrikes obviously only makes matters worse, and Lebannon cant disarm em.
    How to get rid of this terrorist organisation?
     
  4. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46
    well negotiation would be a good start ...clearly their current tactic is not the solution
     
  5. Ome_Vince

    Ome_Vince Newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,383
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your right about that, though negotiation wont end Hezbollah. Perhaps an international force will.
     
  6. gh0st

    gh0st Newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    6,023
    Likes Received:
    0
    we have the means to dispatch terrorist groups in our borders. lebanon does not.
     
  7. DaMaN

    DaMaN Newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    You may have the means, but that does not mean you have the will. Take the example of the Miami terrorist organisations terrorising Cuba. 5 Cuban men went to investigate the causes of terrorism against Cuba, and upon finding evidence supporting their claims and filing them with the U.S. government, they were promptly arrested.
    More about the Case of the Cuban 5:
    http://www.antiterroristas.cu/
    http://www.freethecuban5.com/page3.html

    Also, the means may not be enough to "dispatch" terrorist groups, especially if they are your government. The very definition of Terrorism states that "Terrorism refers to a strategy of using violence, or threat of violence to generate fear, cause disruption, and ultimately, to bring about compliance with specific political, religious, ideological, or personal demands." (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism ).
    On October 12th [2001], a couple of days after the bombing [of Afghanistan] started, [George W.] Bush publicly announced to the Afghan people that we will continue to bomb you, unless your leadership turns over to us the people who we suspect of carrying out crimes, although we refuse to give you any evidence. ...
    Notice that is a textbook illustration of international terrorism, by the US official definition. That is the use of the threat of force or violence, in this case extreme violence, to obtain political ends through intimidation, fear and so on. That's the official definition, a textbook illustration of it.

    Very very much agreed upon.

    I totally disagree with this statement.

    Stating that you support one side or the other does not mean you have been sucked into some sort of media propaganda war. Stating that you support one side or the other is simply that; supporting one side or the other. While your support may be influenced by propaganda, that does not mean your opinion is no less valid. Also, supporting one side or the other does not lessen the amount of sanity present. Indeed, having a clear and concise view of things generally means your sanity is well-endowed. Where your view lands - be it on one side, the other, or in the middle - doesn't matter in the slightest to your sanity.

    However, I personally disagree with staying neutral, though I can fully accept why people prefer it. Staying neutral means that you don't have to constantly prove your point to the other side, and it can sometimes provide insight into both sides. A healthy dose of neutrality is nothing bad.

    Unfortunately, being completely neutral is the same as with voting: if you choose to abstain from choosing a side, the strongest side will win without you. If you choose to pick a side, you have a say in determining which side is the strongest.

    -DaMaN
     
  8. gh0st

    gh0st Newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    6,023
    Likes Received:
    0
    um why do you bring up the cuban 5? that proves my point that we have both the will AND the means to dispatch them. just because castro and his commie pig government wants them released doesnt make them innocent at all.

    and our government is just not a terrorist entity so shut the **** up with that dumb radical liberal talking point. no one wants to hear it.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4137036.stm

    thats enough for me.
     
  9. DreadLord

    DreadLord Guest

    I'm sorry but each Boston civilian = at least 10 New Yorkers.
     
  10. gh0st

    gh0st Newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    6,023
    Likes Received:
    0
    you know, Dread's got a point.
     
  11. Sprafa

    Sprafa Tank

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2003
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    0
    hell yeah bitches.


    why in the **** is the discussion on cubans now ?

    imo, Israel should kill a lot of people. Like millions, man. Millions after millions. Genocide. Massicide. Yeh, bitches, it's gotta happen sometimes, so the arabs get carte blanche into ****ing Israel. Shit yeah. You know what happens then. NUCLEAR WAR BABEH. HELL YEAH.

    Then it's toe to toe, the old, hard way, all the way, hardcore. Oh yeah. Nuclear war. bitches.

    You too gh0st you sechsy bitch. Oh yeah you know how i like it.
     
  12. Mutley

    Mutley Tank

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,698
    Likes Received:
    0
    What... the... f
     
  13. pvtbones

    pvtbones Spy

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    0
    an understatement if I ever heard one :eek:
     
  14. pomegranate

    pomegranate Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    A compelling argument, Mr. Ghost.
     
  15. Tr0n

    Tr0n Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well actually, if we go by the definition of terrorism on the DoD's website:

    "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

    Bush and America's current goverment would be considered terrorist(s).
     
  16. gh0st

    gh0st Newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    6,023
    Likes Received:
    0
    yeah ok we're the terrorists.

    its no wonder we cant win a war with you dumbasses in our country.
     
  17. Tr0n

    Tr0n Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who is we?

    I didn't say the american people is, I said "if we go by the definition of terrorism on the DoD's website Bush and America's current goverment would be considered terrorist(s)."

    I'm just giving an alternative choice to the situation.
     
  18. 15357

    15357 Companion Cube

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    15,217
    Likes Received:
    15

    I disagree. War should never be nuclear. However, they do need to do a full clash in there.
     
  19. dys4iK

    dys4iK Newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regarding neutrality: why do you have to pick one of the two warring sides?

    I don't believe we have to stick to the standard definition of black and white: supporting one side in the annihilation of the other (or simply the defeat of the other).

    I don't consider myself neutral--I am on the side of the civlians. These are the people that suffer from the conflict.

    For that matter, most of the combatants on either side could be considered victims, whether of religion or politics.

    On a seperate note, is it suicide bombing that has destroyed our love affair with terrorism? When I was young, there was a romantic vision of terrorists--they hijacked planes for radical political causes, or what have you. Now, the only thing I hear about them is 'omg suicide bombing!'

    Is suicide bombing just such a violation of something primal in us that we can't stop focusing on it? Can anyone explain why we focus on the suicide bombing over all else?
     
  20. DaMaN

    DaMaN Newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree, you don't have to pick one of the two warring sides. The point I was trying to make was that if you want to make a distinct change to the balance of what's happening, you essentially have to pick a side. In your case, the side of the civilians is an excellent one.

    At this point in time, I feel that the civilians who are suffering the most are those being occupied and bombed, such as those in Lebanon, Palestine, Afghanistan or Iraq. Hence, I choose to side with them and their struggles and give them my solidarity, in the hope that I can swing the balance in their favor.

    It is possible to generate change by simply trying to stop all war everywhere, but throughout history, movements with those demands tended never to accomplish anything major. For example, the 60's era demanding U.S. out of Korea succeeded, but the following demands of "Peace, dude" didn't.

    I'm not sure. Suicide bombing was hyped up quite a bit after 9/11, but then again almost everything else was too.

    It could be that we have an insecurity with death and no real cause, and to see someone so committed to their cause that they would take their own life might make us fearful. But really, I have no idea.

    -DaMaN
     
  21. dys4iK

    dys4iK Newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    You make some very fair points.

    I suppose the reason I am hesitant to support either side in the Isreali/Palestinian conflict is because it is hard for me to see that either side is supporting the civilians trapped in the middle.
     
  22. gh0st

    gh0st Newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    6,023
    Likes Received:
    0
    people dont like suicide bombing because it almost always targets civilians and not military targets.
     
  23. Raziaar

    Raziaar I Hate Custom Titles

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Messages:
    29,759
    Likes Received:
    132
    Yes... you hear more about scores of civilian deaths from suicide bombings than you do military personel deaths.

    Busses... trains, dining establishments... all places where CIVILIANS congregate. Only occasionally have I seen reports of military soldiers and facilities targeted.
     
  24. skarrob

    skarrob Newbie

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you blame the ones who started it not Israelis.
     
  25. skarrob

    skarrob Newbie

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    0
    a couple of nukes in Seria and a couply or 3 in Iran would take care of alot of the problem.
     
  26. 15357

    15357 Companion Cube

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    15,217
    Likes Received:
    15
    No regime and/or nation is insane enough to use nukes on another nation today. They know that it would be the mutually assured destruction of humanity as we know it. Ironically, the most destructive weapon created by mankind is the protector of humanity from annihiliation.

    Even is they grew insane enough, the collective might of the free world would contain the threat to humanity.
     
  27. gick

    gick Newbie

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,104
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that would make the problem considerably worse.
     
  28. pomegranate

    pomegranate Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    Horseshit, if it wasn't for nukes it would be pretty much impossible to wipe out humanity. Yes, a lot of people could be killed with the world's masses of conventional weaponary, but we couldn't be annihilated. With nukes, it's very easy, just let a small proportion of them off and wee no sunshine, irradiated land, no food. Byebye forever.
     
  29. Sprafa

    Sprafa Tank

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2003
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    0

    hell yeah baby.




    STALIN SAYS - "NUKE"
     
  30. Tr0n

    Tr0n Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,934
    Likes Received:
    0
    Drop that bomb like it's hot!
     
  31. Shamrock

    Shamrock Companion Cube

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,367
    Likes Received:
    44
    This is my first post ever in the politic forum..

    Sounds like Canada is going to get involved in some kind of war! This means World War Three! That means the end of mankind as we know it!

    Yay for Armageddon!
     
  32. DaMaN

    DaMaN Newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    0
    This isn't my first post ever in the politic forum ;)

    Actually, Canada is already involved with quite a few current wars:
    - Canada currently has 2,400 troops deployed in Afghanistan supporting the occupation in "Canada's own interests", with plans already in place (and, of course, undebated) to send another 2,000.
    - Canada helped the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Haiti in 2004, and currently has RCMP officers training the oppressive Haitian police
    - Also, despite Canada not officially supporting the Iraq war, Canada is the Number 1 supplier of ammunition to U.S. forces in Iraq. In addition, inserting troops into Afghanistan allows for more U.S. troops to be relocated into Iraq.

    Indeed...

    Though personally I don't think it'll go all the way to total anhilation, if it did, how would the Oil and Arms companies get rich? Since it's in their best interests NOT to kill everything, I don't think they will. (However, I think we can be fairly certain that this trend of invading countries will continue, unfortunately :( )

    -DaMaN
     
  33. Solaris

    Solaris Party Escort Bot

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    10,323
    Likes Received:
    4
    Someone doesn't understand M.A.D.
     
  34. pomegranate

    pomegranate Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    I understand M.A.D.
    But I disagree with numbers' assertion that nukes prevent humanity from destroying itself. That's simple enough to understand, isn't it?
     
  35. 15357

    15357 Companion Cube

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    15,217
    Likes Received:
    15
    Yeah, I know what you mean. I'd rather have perpetual war than nukes.
     
  36. pomegranate

    pomegranate Newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    1
    We've got both.
     
  37. dys4iK

    dys4iK Newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    159
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do I know it wasn't the Isrealis who started 'it'?

    What was it that was started, anyways? Conflict in general isn't anything new, that much is obvious.

    I wish it were so simple, but I don't believe that it is.
     
  38. 15357

    15357 Companion Cube

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    15,217
    Likes Received:
    15
    At least we don't fight them.
     
  39. pvtbones

    pvtbones Spy

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2005
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    0
    CBC News- Harper to fly to Cyprus to help with evacuation

    I'll be honest, I like harper alot more than I did previous PM for this reason alone, he's not just sitting back watching from a television set like some of our politicians would no doubt do.

    PS: five bucks says the opposition and media will find something about this to b**** about...

    *EDIT* quoted the article and bold the section titles.
     
  40. CptStern

    CptStern suckmonkey

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    10,321
    Likes Received:
    46
    it's taken him 5 days to even start evacuation ..I'm glad he's flying in but at the same time I cant forget that he agreed with israels attack on lebanon despite there being 40,000 canadians in harms way

    wtf? some reports are saying as many as 100 dead civilians a day ..how is that "measured"? IMHO he's just too much of a bush lackey. However I do applaud his decision to visit cyprus (even though it's not the same as entering lebanon, you have to ask yourself why)
     

Share This Page