According to a few documentaries I saw (history channel), wrt to the Palestinians, they teach hate from day one to the children. It is not to big of a leap to see many of these kids grow up to be extremists. It is a shame.ChrisRobin said:You can always not tell her... kinda like getting a tattoo without her knowing.
Seriously though, it's a belief system. An Arab woman might lover her child more than hating another people but she can still understand why her son wants to become a terrorist, or join the ranks of a terrorist organization.
edit. It's not like the child will go to his parents and say "Yeah! I want to be a terrorist and blow up random ****", it must be more like "Mother, I want to join (insert organization) in order to defend our land"
New Israel/Lebanon thread
- Thread starter Silver
- Start date
"go in, invade stay and change governments", that's what the nazis did in most countries they invaded! Vichy regimes around the world that support the US and Israel!! Follow the nazis examples for a beautiful world, great!!!ALEXIS_DH said:
What Israel needs to do in Palestine is to hit them hard enough, once and for all, to make it a credible deterrent. Something they haven't been doing for the last 40 years...and Lebanon for what, 18 years between 82-00?
If you meet some one who says he's a monk, claims to be peaceful and pious, wears monks clothes and talks about ethical and religious stuff all the time, but then pulls out a machinegun and kills a bunch of people, what is he?
A peace lovin' monk or a killer?
So what bit from all the love that US American mothers give their kids transformed to the extreme unhuman behaiviours of GI's in Abu Gharib, Gitmo, Diego Garcia and all other known and secret prisons?SDH said:
Same goes for Israeli mothers that have tought their kids love and justice that results in thousands of people kept in their prisons without a trial, or the worst occupation of mankind?
All those actions show serious lack of respect for human values and is a result of a "master race" type of thinking.
rockwool said:
What "extreme unhuman behaviors" A few pics taken by a stupid 18-19 year old? I am sure those war crimes will haunt the lives of the prisoners forever.
On one hand you have a a US kid under the pressures of war do some stupid stuff that is commonly seen in fraternity hazing (though still wrong) vs a dude loading himself up with explosives and taking out a bus. apples and oranges..........
We're supposed to be the goddamn good guys, remember? Pointing out that we aren't quite as bad as Osama/Hussein/Hitler/Pol Pot/Hezbollah is like pointing out that you aren't quite as stupid as a rock.SDH said:
It's not really a compliment...
You guys are good a bridging some WIDE gaps.............Silver said:
Rockwool was comparing to...............
If you wanna do that you need to keep things in perspective and consistent .....Again apples and oranges............comparing blowing yourself up and others to "extreme inhuman acts" like "dirty pictures" is such a stretch............jeesh...........
I also remember writing.........that I thought it was stupid and wrong, but what do you expect from your common 18-20year old? I bet you did some stupid things back then? Now add the stress and pressure of a war zone, I think we are lucky worst crap did not go down.
As I've said before in another thread; it's suicide bombers vs. F-16's, Merkavas, heli gunships and such. Civilians die from the high tech weapon warfare Israel conducts aswell. Actually by far more on the Palestinian side. Are you blaming the Palestinians for not having this kind of weapons? Shouldn't you blame the one using that overwhelming type of weaponry on civilians and soldiers that have just a machinegun to fight with?SDH said:
Do you beat 8year olds up, steal their lunch boxes and blame them for not fighting you back on the same level? If they have to quadruple team on your ass with baseball bats, to stop you from terrorizing them, they are doing no wrong.
However, suicide bombings against civilians is not acceptable. Aginst any military target, yes.
But, one has to see suicide bombing for what it is; an act of desperacy that has sprung forth after decades of brutal occupation and far from ****lng uneven combatant parties.
About Abu Gharib you seem to complain more about that therre were pictures taken than the actual disgracful acts. Beeing under pressure is no excuse for doing that kind of stuff. But the pressure you're talking about is non existant. Them guards were not in combat. They were prisoner guards with all the might in the world to defend them selves from an interne.
You are also trying to make it out as the torture wasn't put to system or that orders about it hadn't come from high places. Brigader general Janis Karpinski (spelling?), the comanding officer at Abu Gharib has in interviews come out and spoken about this (z-net?). Orders about torturing of prisoners had come from one in the government (Rumsfelt? don't remember).
Janis Karpinski Interview/Abu Ghraib Hello everyone, please watch this video. Janis Karpinski commander at Abu Ghraib says Donald Rumsfeld ordered torture...
http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=archive&daysum=2006-03-08
http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=archive&daysum=2006-03-08
OK....you're all bringing up some interesting points--but straying away from the topic. Let's keep this on Lebanon/Isreal(but don't forget the personal insults) for the time being.
Say.....how about a Middle East Primer 101?
Take it away, Mr. Teheri....
--------------------------------------------
This is just the start of a showdown between the West and The Rest
Amir Taheri
MANY IN THE WEST see the mini-war between Israel and Hezbollah, now in its fourth week, as another episode in a tedious saga of an Arab-Jewish conflict that began with the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, a political version of the original sin. The conventional wisdom in the West is that the whole tale would end if Israel were to return the occupied territories to the Palestinians, allowing them to create a state of their own.
But that analysis does not reflect the Middle Easts new realities. All the wars in that region of the past century, including the one between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s, revolved around secular issues border disputes, the control of territory and water resources, security and diplomatic relations. Although fought in the name of nationalism or pan-Arab aspirations, none had a messianic dimension.
*
The first two wars of the new century in the Middle East, however, were ideological ones. The United States toppled the Taleban in Afghanistan and the Saddamites in Iraq not in pursuit of territory but in the name of an idea: democracy.
Since 2001 the region has been turned into an ideological battleground between two rival camps with global ambitions. One camp, led by the United States, claims to represent the modern global system of open markets, free elections, religious freedoms and sexual equality. The other camp is represented by radical Islam, which regards the Western model as not only decadent but dangerous for the future of mankind. It hopes to unite the world under the banner of Islam, which it holds to be The Only True Faith.
In the Lebanese conflict, Israel and Hezbollah are the junior proxies for the rival camps. Israel is not fighting to hold or win more land; nor is Hezbollah. But both realise that they cannot live in security and prosper as long as the other is in a position to threaten their existence. A Middle East dominated by Islamism could, in time, spell the death of Israel as a nation-state. A westernised, democratic Lebanon, on the other hand, could become the graveyard of Hezbollah and its messianic ideology. And if the US succeeds in fulfilling George W. Bushs promise of a new Middle East there will be no place for regimes such as the Islamic Republic in Iran and Syrias Baathist dictatorship.
The present rupture in Lebanon has much to do with who will lead the fightback against the West. For almost a quarter of a century there has been intense competition within the Islamist camp over who could claim leadership. For much of that period Sunni Salafist movements, backed by oil money, were in the ascendancy. They began to decline after the 9/11 attacks that deprived them of much of the support they received from Arab governments and charities. In the past five years Tehran has tried to seize the opportunity to advance its own leadership claims. The problem, however, is that Iran is a Shia power and thus regarded by Sunni Salafists as heretical. To compensate for that weakness, Irans President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made the destruction of Israel a priority for his regime. The war triggered by Hezbollah is in part designed to show that President Ahmadinejad is not bluffing when he promises to wipe Israel off the map as the first step towards defeating the infidel West.
The broader aspects of the Lebanon crisis are better understood in the Middle East than in the West. For the first time, Israel is under attack from Islamist and Arab secular radicals as an American proxy. Writing in Asharq Alawsat, a pan-Arab daily, a Syrian Cabinet minister, makes it clear that the war in Lebanon today is between the forces of Islam and America, with Israel acting as an American proxy.
Irans supreme guide, Ali Khamenei, expressed a similar view this week during an audience he granted in Tehran to Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan President. What we see in Lebanon today represents the revolt of Muslim nations against America, he said. Hezbollah is backed (by Iran and others) because it is fighting America. President Chávez endorsed that analysis by calling on Muslims and non-Muslim revolutionaries to unite to save the human race by finishing the US Empire. Irans state-controlled media has said that Lebanon would become the graveyard of the Bush plan for a new Middle East.
Tehran believes that a victory for Hezbollah in Lebanon will strengthen President Ahmadinejads bid for the leadership of radical Islam. A number of recent events have made his attempt to wrest control more likely. This week several leading Sunni theologians at the Al-Azhar seminary in Cairo issued fatwas that allow Sunnis to fight alongside and under the command of Shia Muslims. The fatwas came in response to a Saudi fatwa that had declared any association with and support for Hezbollah to be haram (forbidden).
More significant was a message from Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaedas number two. The Salafist radical tried to get hold of Hezbollahs tailcoats in the hope of winning a share of the expected spoils of victory. He endorsed the idea of a global campaign against the infidel, thus abandoning his previous strategy of focusing the jihad on countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. More significantly, he dropped the al-Qaeda claim of fighting a defensive war against the infidel by designating a vast area of jihad from Spain to India.
All that is good news for President Ahmadinejad, who claims that Sunni radicalism has reached the limits of its capabilities in the fight against the global system led by the US and that it is now the turn of the Shia, led by Iran, to be in the driving seat.
Hezbollah has fought Israel longer than all the major Arab armies combined ever did, President Ahmadinejad told a crowd in Tehran this week. He also promised that Muslims would soon hear very good news about the jihad against the United States.
The idea of Shia leadership for the jihad was further boosted this year when Iran took Hamas under its wings. As a branch of the global Muslim Brotherhood movement, a Sunni outfit, Hamas has exerted its influence to win wider support for Iranian leadership at least as a tactical choice.
Many in the Middle East are alarmed by these shifts of power and dread the prospect of the region entering a new dark age under radical Islamist regimes. For this reason, there seems to be much less hostility towards Israel in the wider Arab world than we might expect in the West. There may be no sympathy for Israel as such but many Arabs realise that the current war is over something bigger than a Jewish state with a tiny territory of 10,000 square miles, less than 1 per cent of Saudi Arabias land mass.
Say.....how about a Middle East Primer 101?
Take it away, Mr. Teheri....
--------------------------------------------
This is just the start of a showdown between the West and The Rest
Amir Taheri
MANY IN THE WEST see the mini-war between Israel and Hezbollah, now in its fourth week, as another episode in a tedious saga of an Arab-Jewish conflict that began with the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, a political version of the original sin. The conventional wisdom in the West is that the whole tale would end if Israel were to return the occupied territories to the Palestinians, allowing them to create a state of their own.
But that analysis does not reflect the Middle Easts new realities. All the wars in that region of the past century, including the one between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s, revolved around secular issues border disputes, the control of territory and water resources, security and diplomatic relations. Although fought in the name of nationalism or pan-Arab aspirations, none had a messianic dimension.
*
The first two wars of the new century in the Middle East, however, were ideological ones. The United States toppled the Taleban in Afghanistan and the Saddamites in Iraq not in pursuit of territory but in the name of an idea: democracy.
Since 2001 the region has been turned into an ideological battleground between two rival camps with global ambitions. One camp, led by the United States, claims to represent the modern global system of open markets, free elections, religious freedoms and sexual equality. The other camp is represented by radical Islam, which regards the Western model as not only decadent but dangerous for the future of mankind. It hopes to unite the world under the banner of Islam, which it holds to be The Only True Faith.
In the Lebanese conflict, Israel and Hezbollah are the junior proxies for the rival camps. Israel is not fighting to hold or win more land; nor is Hezbollah. But both realise that they cannot live in security and prosper as long as the other is in a position to threaten their existence. A Middle East dominated by Islamism could, in time, spell the death of Israel as a nation-state. A westernised, democratic Lebanon, on the other hand, could become the graveyard of Hezbollah and its messianic ideology. And if the US succeeds in fulfilling George W. Bushs promise of a new Middle East there will be no place for regimes such as the Islamic Republic in Iran and Syrias Baathist dictatorship.
The present rupture in Lebanon has much to do with who will lead the fightback against the West. For almost a quarter of a century there has been intense competition within the Islamist camp over who could claim leadership. For much of that period Sunni Salafist movements, backed by oil money, were in the ascendancy. They began to decline after the 9/11 attacks that deprived them of much of the support they received from Arab governments and charities. In the past five years Tehran has tried to seize the opportunity to advance its own leadership claims. The problem, however, is that Iran is a Shia power and thus regarded by Sunni Salafists as heretical. To compensate for that weakness, Irans President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made the destruction of Israel a priority for his regime. The war triggered by Hezbollah is in part designed to show that President Ahmadinejad is not bluffing when he promises to wipe Israel off the map as the first step towards defeating the infidel West.
The broader aspects of the Lebanon crisis are better understood in the Middle East than in the West. For the first time, Israel is under attack from Islamist and Arab secular radicals as an American proxy. Writing in Asharq Alawsat, a pan-Arab daily, a Syrian Cabinet minister, makes it clear that the war in Lebanon today is between the forces of Islam and America, with Israel acting as an American proxy.
Irans supreme guide, Ali Khamenei, expressed a similar view this week during an audience he granted in Tehran to Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan President. What we see in Lebanon today represents the revolt of Muslim nations against America, he said. Hezbollah is backed (by Iran and others) because it is fighting America. President Chávez endorsed that analysis by calling on Muslims and non-Muslim revolutionaries to unite to save the human race by finishing the US Empire. Irans state-controlled media has said that Lebanon would become the graveyard of the Bush plan for a new Middle East.
Tehran believes that a victory for Hezbollah in Lebanon will strengthen President Ahmadinejads bid for the leadership of radical Islam. A number of recent events have made his attempt to wrest control more likely. This week several leading Sunni theologians at the Al-Azhar seminary in Cairo issued fatwas that allow Sunnis to fight alongside and under the command of Shia Muslims. The fatwas came in response to a Saudi fatwa that had declared any association with and support for Hezbollah to be haram (forbidden).
More significant was a message from Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaedas number two. The Salafist radical tried to get hold of Hezbollahs tailcoats in the hope of winning a share of the expected spoils of victory. He endorsed the idea of a global campaign against the infidel, thus abandoning his previous strategy of focusing the jihad on countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. More significantly, he dropped the al-Qaeda claim of fighting a defensive war against the infidel by designating a vast area of jihad from Spain to India.
All that is good news for President Ahmadinejad, who claims that Sunni radicalism has reached the limits of its capabilities in the fight against the global system led by the US and that it is now the turn of the Shia, led by Iran, to be in the driving seat.
Hezbollah has fought Israel longer than all the major Arab armies combined ever did, President Ahmadinejad told a crowd in Tehran this week. He also promised that Muslims would soon hear very good news about the jihad against the United States.
The idea of Shia leadership for the jihad was further boosted this year when Iran took Hamas under its wings. As a branch of the global Muslim Brotherhood movement, a Sunni outfit, Hamas has exerted its influence to win wider support for Iranian leadership at least as a tactical choice.
Many in the Middle East are alarmed by these shifts of power and dread the prospect of the region entering a new dark age under radical Islamist regimes. For this reason, there seems to be much less hostility towards Israel in the wider Arab world than we might expect in the West. There may be no sympathy for Israel as such but many Arabs realise that the current war is over something bigger than a Jewish state with a tiny territory of 10,000 square miles, less than 1 per cent of Saudi Arabias land mass.
Changleen said:
So? .....When the rest of the world is safe from the Islamic threat, I'll try and remember not to expect a Christmas card from you.
Changleen said:
....Than that of MY enemy? We don't behead innocent schoolchildren or smash their faces in with the butts of rifles because they're Jewish, sparky. We don't fire missles from playgrounds and apartment buildings, we don't hide behind human shields and then parade their loss of life around like a trophy. We don't behead journalists and then send video's out of it for the rest of the world to see. Yeah, sparky......I don't understand defeat, you're right---and I thank the Lord above everyday I was blessed with the balls to stand up for the rest of the ones who can't.
LordOpie said:
This statement is quite possibly the most repugnant pile of filth posted yet. :redX:
Ain't the Old Testament great?LordOpie said:
You're really bad at this.
No I condem your assertion of it as justification for genocide.
The old testament is fvcked up.blue said:Ain't the Old Testament great?
You're really bad at this.
Wasn't there a story about jews destroying a neighbor completely cuz they raped one of their girls? Disgusting.
I do not condone or agree with destroying Lebanon because of them capturing two soldiers, but it's way beyond that... more just the "last straw" kind of thing.
I just wish I could've visited the region before ALL of them destroy it.
an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
Oh I see, and the nation that decides to invade small countries just because it can't doesn't? Yes, I'm referring to the US and to Israel.LordOpie said:
You are so one sided in every single thread involving Israel, it's disgusting.
No, do the math. You claimed the region has been at war for 3000 years. Your words, not mine. Last time I checked, that time period starts in 1000 BC and includes invasions by (in chrono order) Greeks, Romans, and Christian Europeans. Those entities, not middle-eastern ones, were the causes of those conflicts. It's like blaming American slavery on Africa.SDH said:
Now address the other points about the definition of "constant."
ChrisRobin said:You can always not tell her... kinda like getting a tattoo without her knowing.
Seriously though, it's a belief system. An Arab woman might lover her child more than hating another people but she can still understand why her son wants to become a terrorist, or join the ranks of a terrorist organization.
edit. It's not like the child will go to his parents and say "Yeah! I want to be a terrorist and blow up random ****", it must be more like "Mother, I want to join (insert organization) in order to defend our land"
well, if you have a kid who grows up with desires to become a terrorist (i suspect most terrorists enroll when they are young teenagers), then the mother/father did a pretty ****ty job raising a kid with criminal tendencies.
probably, with another kind of upbringing (i dunno, like teaching your kid "blowing up stuff = no good"), maybe the kid wouldnt have criminal tendencies. of course ultimately its up to the kid, but generalizing from the age of arab foot soldiers and parades; you can tell those parents and enviroment did a good job feeding propaganda to the kids.
i said exactly that israel doesnt need to do that.rockwool said:
you cant hit somebody and then be paternal about it, like the US. doesnt work like that, thats why the US is in the quagmire it is (besides the fact they shouldnt be there in the first place).
harder and at once.
coldly, attrition wars dont do any good for peace.
they are just used to feed nationalism in each side, rally support and keep the war going on.
imagine if the russians went for an attrition war without pushing back in wwii.. it would probably keep going on for way longer. remember egypt-israel too.
israel doesnt need another attrition war, it needs to set a credible deterrent.
currently, there is no credible threat against terrorist actions. that is what keeps terrorism going on.
in this time terrorists think they are safe hitting, running and hiding later.
It is not an isolated conflict, it all has to do with that nice game "world domination" James Bond played against some bad guy in a movieGreyhound said:
. That is also somthing mr Teheri says in this very text you posted; "in the fight against the global system led by the US", and that is exactly what a lot of fighting in the world is about; "the US Empire(not to forget, Brittain still has a part in this).You seem to be defending this empire because you have bought the package it is sold in; "open markets, free elections, religious freedoms and sexual equality", you know what I mean.. Thing is, when you look at how things are when practisised and not just talked about, you'll se:
markets that are opened from one side and hindered (either thrugh tolls like in the EU or by subsidising in the US) from the other, resulting in that the rich can get their high tech sold unhindered while the poor cant sell their crops to us or for that matter in their own countries where we dump the prices on our agricultural stuff;
you'll see:
elections that are bought or tampered with: like in Nicaragua where the US payed $20 (about half months salary) for every vote so that the popular Sandinistas would loose the election in 1989 and in the elections after the US have been threatening the country economicaly if they was to elect the Sandinistas.
In the "democratic" elections held in Iraq the other year, not every party that wanted to be registered were allowed to by the US, who also took great measures and bought/started radio (& TV?) channels and papers/magazines that distributed the propaganda (it's not a communist fenomena, it's brittish) of those that were favoured.
In Venezuela (dec 2004?) CIA tried to remove Chavez, the elected president, from office and replace him with a puppet.
In the 2000 elections in the US, as you all know very well, mainly coloured voters in Florida, were not allowed to vote and later the basic democratic principle "one man, one vote" was set aside for the ruling of 9 people.
These are not individual cases, stuff like this goes on in every other country and in every field the empire has its "interests" in ..
"The conventional wisdom in the West is that the whole tale would end if Israel were to return the occupied territories to the Palestinians, allowing them to create a state of their own"
-It is bigger than that is I pointed out, all countries want to be free from the involvment of the US in their decissions.
"The United States toppled the Taleban in Afghanistan and the Saddamites in Iraq not in pursuit of territory but in the name of an idea: democracy"
-Democracy, WMD's and we all know the lies...continued world domination demands control of the oil resourses or the Chinese will get us (you can read this in any wall street journal like paper). Afghanistan has no oil but the piplines from Azerbadjan had to go through there and the poppy fields have to finance the CIA's non official operations..
"The Only True Faith
- Many religions seem to claim that. I know for sure that the Greek Orthodox church does that and, as I remember it, the Catholic church has this claim aswell.
"A Middle East dominated by Islamism could, in time, spell the death of Israel as a nation-state"
-Israel has the A-bomb and the worlds 4th largest conventional military force; won't happen.
"George W. Bushs promise of a new Middle East there will be no place for regimes such as the Islamic Republic in Iran and Syrias Baathist dictatorship"
-There will be friendly dictatorships and Vichy regimes instead..
"the destruction of Israel", "wipe Israel of the map", "throw the Jews in the sea"
-This is mentioned so often by media that we forget the ongoing destruction of Palestine. Think about it, it is a well used tactic, what ever is repeated, mirror it and look what is happening to the Palestinians.
"the infidel West"
-Frases like this is to manipulate our feelings so that we fear them or , better, hate them. If you're afraid, you're easier to control..
the forces of Islam and America, with Israel acting as an American proxy, spoken by a Syrian cabinet minister, backed up by Ali Khamenei saying What we see in Lebanon today represents the revolt of Muslim nations against America, and Hezbollah is backed (by Iran and others) because it is fighting America. and "President Chávez endorsed that analysis by calling on Muslims and non-Muslim revolutionaries to unite to save the human race by finishing the US Empire"
-It's obvious that this is what's going on in Lebanon right now even though it might have started with demands of prisoner releases on both sides, so it's bigger than Lebanon/Israel.
"Many in the Middle East are alarmed by these shifts of power and dread the prospect of the region entering a new dark age under radical Islamist regimes"
-This is probably true, but who are these "Many"? Some are defenetly all of them who benefit in the various regimes that are in power only because of the US, and the others are people who are not radical islamists but have still would like to see their countries free from influence from the US.
Is it allright that the world is under threat from the US or is it just as bad?Greyhound said:
Actually Israel does all those things. Difference is that it doesn't reach the general public because of about 85% of the worlds media is owened by FIVE media conglomerates. Jewish influence over media is massive, both by different intrest groups and by sheer stock holding in them companies!Greyhound said:
Start noticing that, when you read an article, the reporter many times lets the Jewish side have their say directly, but that it doesn't happen near as often for the Palestinian side.
Problem with "the truth" is that the side that gets their word out is the side people will belive in. If your quiet or gaged, people won't be able to relate to you.
Another problem is the subconsious effect that repeatedness has on the human mind; it familiarizes us with that sertain thing and there for we prefer that. Commercial adds work with that same principle (and a few more).
C'mon, terrorism is a REACTION (key word here) to neo colonialism. It didn't pop up out of nowhere or because "they are jealous of our freedom" or somthing stupid like that...ALEXIS_DH said:
Maybe you're not wicked after all... and then, there is hope for youALEXIS_DH said:
Whos peace and what kind of peace would that be? In a conflict, there are two parties at least. All parties have to feel that they get peace or else that onesided peace won't last long..ALEXIS_DH said:
Violence is not the way
terrorism is a REACTION to something perceived, by those who react, as "neocolonialism". not to neocolonialism. thats an interesting difference right there.rockwool said:
what about if i start bombing cars and i claim its a reaction to "hollywood brainwashing me" because i most movie channels i get are american?? (not saying its the same thing, but the fact you put a name to something, doesnt mean it is).
you are the one implying israel shouldnt react... yet you "understand", although it looks like condoning, terrorist activities based on delusional ideas of recently made-up nationalism used to rally dirt poor arabs to blow up themselves.
both, and dont deny violence as a tool for humans. we not that advanced yet.
sometimes you need a good, almost fundamentalist, smacking to inject some sense into fundamentalism. you dont negotiate with it.
the islamic terrorists have laid down their demands.. check their ethos, their ideals revolve around the extinction of israel... kinda hard to make a deal with that.
This is why I like my bike. None of this, especially since reading most of the posts here, makes sense. It's as if you all can make an arguement for the point you want to support and that's that. It's nothing different than what's going on between the Arabs and the Jews. Both sides always have fact to prove their points against the other side. It's not as if I don't care. I do, but the more that I hear these one sided arguements, the more I don't have the effort to do anything about it. It's sad and I care for the kids. Especially, those ones that won't ever know the joy of mountain biking, or hiking, or skiing, or just growing up, because the world of grown ups is too interested in making their points, even if it means killing children for it. Peace and Go Bike!
hippie
It does make perfect sense cus we communicate through speach, this is the best way to prove our point. The other way is with wooden clubbs and that is what you consider to be most wrong in this world.SeaPig said:
We can all leave every thing and go bikeing or somthing, but when we get back we will find that some people have stolen our oil and other stuff. When we ask for it back, they say sure, we can buy it of of them... There will allways be wicked opportunists out there.
But I understand what you're saying about "It's as if you all can make an arguement for the point you want to support and that's that"; we distort our words to make them fit our cause, right?
There is actually a bunch of people that do that as their profession. Have you seen the movie Liar Liar with Jim Carrey?
Ok, I think I worded it wrongly... I meant the mother would probably understand if her son wanted to become a 'freedom fighter' (to us, a terrorist) in order to defend their religion and their land.ALEXIS_DH said:
You can also make comparisons between an arab joining (to us anyway) a terrorist organization and a young US citizen joining the military to go fight in Iraq. Both are doing what they think is right, both have parents that are concerned for them and both are victims of some serious propaganda.
Hmmm... "Islamic threat." I hope you're referring to the 'extremists' and not just generalizing.Greyhound said:
Side note and has nothing to do with this post: I get a kick out of all the religions having serious issues, yet people stil become devout followers. You get extremists blowing **** up and you have catholic priests molesting young boys. Which ever way you look at it, if you're looking to a book that was written over 2000 years ago for answers, you're ****ed up.