We Are Under Attack !!!!!!!! - Page 11

Myetball · #**151** 07-20-2006, 09:11 PM

I've been a military intelligence analyst for over 20 years. I spent many, many years working the middle east "problem". In fact, my first duty assignment back in Jan 1987 was working the middle east "problem". Yes we call it a "problem" vs. a situation. A situation is actually a problem of a temporary nature, there is an end in sight. For a situation to escalate to a "problem", there has to be long term issues with no end in sight. Hence the middle east "problem".

So, how far back does this "problem" go? Long before any of us were born. When will it end? If ever, it will be long after we're dead and buried.

Why do so many Islamic fundamentalists believe killing is the answer to their perceived "problems"? I don't have that answer, I wish I did. However, I do know that many of the so-called freedom fighters are only fighting so they can feed their families. Tough finding a job when your only skill is tearing down and reassembling an AK blindfolded.

Anyway, about Israel targeting non-military stuff. Well, there are methods to target selection and there is generally a good reason a target is selected. With the accuracy of today's weapons the excuse of a "stray round" doesn't hold water. However, when you hear that it's usually to cover up the methods they used to identify the target.

Yes, collateral damage sucks but Hizbollah isn't concerned about that. In fact, the more women, children, and families that are killed by the Isrealis the better for Hizbollah. Why do you think they operate in/around soft civilian infrastructure? The fact Israel is willing to prosecute Hizbollah targets, knowing there will be collateral damage, shows the resolve of the Israelis not to let Hizbollah operate with civilians as human shields. Kinda cold-blooded but so is setting up military-style operations in/around civilians. Nobody ever said war was pretty.

Electrophil · #**152** 07-20-2006, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myetball

I've been a military intelligence analyst for over 20 years. .

How did that work out for you? Did ya ever find any to analyze?

WGJ · #**153** 07-20-2006, 11:22 PM

Since it is the case that there is no ontological proof for or against the existence of God, or Allah, there is no foundation in reason for dialogue. Whatever the belief system, there is no proof of the right or wrong of your position. The religous believer and the secular have both made a choice based on their perception of reality. They've made a leap of faith, based ultimately on what they FEEL is right. Everyone makes the Kierkegaardian "leap of faith". There's the rub. It is not possible to reason with belief. How do you resolve the conflict between opposing belief systems? For there to be order requires that both sides, that all sides, tolerate and respect each other. I don't think this tolerance has ever been achieved during war before, therefore the first order of business is a cessation of hostilities. It is increasingly apparent that this conflict cannot be allowed to escalate much further, before it reaches a point of no return and engulfs the region. Iran and Syria need to be immediately called to account by the rest of the world.
WGJ

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.

The time must come inevitably when mankind shall surmount the imbecility of religion, as it has surmounted the imbecility of religion's ally, magic. It is impossible to imagine this world being really civilized so long as so much nonsense survives. In even its highest forms religion embraces concepts that run counter to all common sense. It can be defended only by making assumptions and adopting rules of logic that are never heard of in any other field of human thinking.

H.L. Mencken

WGJ

SilverSpear · #**154** 07-21-2006, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lhopp77

This is no doubt a historic day. Us agreeing and me even agreeing with Annan with two notable exceptions. He fails to call Hezbollah what they are---terrorists or to identify by name their facilitators--Iran and Syria.

Poor old Danny is caught in the middle of this, yet continues to delude himself with the fiction reported by the Lebanese and pro-Hezbollah news.

Lee

Yeah sure poor me (I am still young, unlike you

), if you say so, I am proud of having a great resistance such as Hizbullah fighting for my country

..

And I told you 1000xxx, I am watching both Israeli and Lebanese TV stations... we are showing everything on TV, but are the Israelis doing the same? Haifa is hidden from the cameras, WHY???

SilverSpear · #**155** 07-21-2006, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SubaSteevo

In any conflict their are always two sides, the "terrorist" and the "freedom fighters."

Which side is which? Well, that depends who you ask...

In the 1982 they played the role of terrorists when they attacked your marines. But now they are playing the role of freedom fighters FOR SURE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Electrophil

The Hezbollah organization are terrorists born from the bowels of a fanatically religious Iran/Khomeini Islamic revolution. They hate the U.S. for the simple fact that they are helping Israel against the Muslims in the Middle East. They have NEVER given us a reason to think otherwise, and they are brave enough to stand up right now against the country who is occupying a part of the Lebanese territory and is fighting to get back its long time prisoners in Jewish dungeons.

Fixed something up ^^^
I can feel your pain from what have happened in 1982 in Lebanon. On one side I hate Hizbullah for doing this (because I take the things religiously, they are Muslims, most of you are Christians and I am Christian), but on the other side, taking THEIR point of view in this matter, I can explain what happened by the following:
You were helping Israel against them in the war and you take the advantage of that peacekeeping group to come to Lebanon... so they thought you were fooling them by one side helping Israel in its war and in the other side pretending you have nothing to do and you want peace to reign over... so what happened is happened...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Electrophil

They just blow stuff up, then run and hide behind babies like the little sissies that they are

That is not true Rob, EXCUUUUUUUUUSE ME

SilverSpear · #**156** 07-21-2006, 03:09 AM

Guys let me sum up the whole deal:

1- In 1983, I can understand what Hizbullah did from their own point of view and I am not OK with what he did at all, in my book that is classified as Terrorism at that time.
I can also understand that you hate it for that simple fact (well not simple... a lot were killed).

2- In 2006, Hizbullah is playing the role of defending the country's borders. It is also my country, so automatically I should stand the side of Hizbullah because we have experienced the Jews in 82-83, they are even dirtier (both in methods and hygiene) than the Syrians and Shiites combined.

3- Who said that this land called Israel are for Jews only??? Do you see it fit that Palestine is divided into two completely seperate entities??? this is not common sense.

4- I am not saying that Hizbullah isn't hiding behind civilians, in fact it is sometimes launching missiles next to churches and homes. But this is not mostly the case!!! I can understand bombing and killing civilians in the south, the case is debatable, but what about the Bekaa area (northern east) and the Aakar/Tripoli (far north) areas of Lebanon? Are those civilans killed there are caused by those missiles???

5- Israel has the state of the art spy arsenal right now, they are showing footages on THEIR TV's how they are targeting trucks and locations and bombing them... can they show us just one footage of a location where Hizbullah launched Katyuchas next to civilians and those civilians were killed BY MISTAKE from an Israeli retaliation on that same location??? I DOUBLE DARE THEM TO HAVE ONLY ONE!!!

6- Considering this war never happened, Lebanon was on its way to doom, one way or another. Corruption is filling the deputies seat caused by Sunnites (Hariri family) in Lebanon. This same Hariri family has a lot of $$$ (near 16 billion) and they bribed 71 members out of 128 and they cannot bribe the rest (Tayyar Al Watani which I am a supporter, and Amal and Hizbullah).

If Hizbullah cannot be reached in this attack, the Lebanese soil restored fully, the blue line borders set and the prisoners released back, I can assure you that the Sunnites role would be diminished in the country, the great and CLEAN leader of the Tayyar Al Watani (General Michael Aoun) assumes presidency (the presidency in Lebanon is Christian), he has the greatest and ONLY ... (are you reading well??) THE ONLY influence on Hasan Nasrallah to hand down his arsenal to the Lebanese Army (according to a written agreement with them). Michael Aoun signed the agreement with Hasan Nasrallah in a freaking CHURCH!! on national TV!! You don't know the feeling of seeing a Muslim Shiite entering a Christian Church! and you can ask your fellow Israelis what they think of the Word of Hasan Nasrallah! He keeps it always. This is why the Sunnites (like the Hariri family in Lebanon) in Egypt, KSA and Jordan are against Hizbullah in this war, they want him destroyed to keep the Sunnites in Lebanon strong... and believe me you sure do not want that because you don't know about the Sunnite Extremists and Al Quaeda (yes they are Sunnites) over here... They are beginning to rise over here backed and funded by the Hariri family (they are f*cking training next to my hometown ).

This way, if the Shiites win, corruption is greatly minimized in my country, a strong Christian leader assumes Presidency, Hizbullah will become a political party with no weapons whatsoever and peace will reign on the side of Lebanon/Syria/Iran which are considered the most dangerous countries in the middle east. They will not interfiere anymore in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict because the Palestinians are Sunnites and the latters are Shiites (they love to see each other getting killed).

Some of you may say that my words are full of sh!t, in my opinion I want the benefit of both Lebanon in the first place, USA in the second and ... (F*ck I don't care about the rest)... You see the situation following what Hizbullah did in 1983, I cannot blame you, but politics is like a sh!t fan, it turns each millisecond... The only solution I can see now is what I stated above...

You can either believe me now or let history show you in the future. I am waiting resonses to the points I mentioned above

benebob · #**157** 07-21-2006, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Electrophil

How did that work out for you? Did ya ever find any to analyze?

OMG TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNY!

SubaSteevo · #**158** 07-21-2006, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SilverSpear

Guys let me sum up the whole deal:

1- In 1983, I can understand what Hizbullah did from their own point of view and I am not OK with what he did at all, in my book that is classified as Terrorism at that time.
I can also understand that you hate it for that simple fact (well not simple... a lot were killed).

2- In 2006, Hizbullah is playing the role of defending the country's borders. It is also my country, so automatically I should stand the side of Hizbullah because we have experienced the Jews in 82-83, they are even dirtier (both in methods and hygiene) than the Syrians and Shiites combined.

I am not justifying their acts in 83' (hell, I wasn't even around then, so I don't know much about it), but as Danny said, things can change every second in politics.

If you are basing your hatred on them from something that happened that long ago, shouldn't you also hate Japan, and maybe even England?
I can understand Rob's position since he was over there at the time, but I don't understand the others who feel that way.

Electrophil · #**159** 07-21-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WGJ

Since it is the case that there is no ontological proof for or against the existence of God, or Allah, there is no foundation in reason for dialogue. Whatever the belief system, there is no proof of the right or wrong of your position. The religous believer and the secular have both made a choice based on their perception of reality. They've made a leap of faith, based ultimately on what they FEEL is right. Everyone makes the Kierkegaardian "leap of faith". There's the rub. It is not possible to reason with belief. How do you resolve the conflict between opposing belief systems? For there to be order requires that both sides, that all sides, tolerate and respect each other. I don't think this tolerance has ever been achieved during war before, therefore the first order of business is a cessation of hostilities. It is increasingly apparent that this conflict cannot be allowed to escalate much further, before it reaches a point of no return and engulfs the region. Iran and Syria need to be immediately called to account by the rest of the world.
WGJ

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking.

The time must come inevitably when mankind shall surmount the imbecility of religion, as it has surmounted the imbecility of religion's ally, magic. It is impossible to imagine this world being really civilized so long as so much nonsense survives. In even its highest forms religion embraces concepts that run counter to all common sense. It can be defended only by making assumptions and adopting rules of logic that are never heard of in any other field of human thinking.

H.L. Mencken

WGJ

This is worth repeating. The post may require a couple of trips to an online dictionary though.

Ontological? Kierkegaardian? WTF?? Tone it down for us non-PhD, never won a spelling bee types Bill, OK?

WGJ · #**160** 07-21-2006, 01:21 PM

As my philosophy prof was fond of reminding me, "You can't get the inference, if you don't get the reference." I'm sure the trips to the dictionary were inconvenient but they were necessary in order to fully understand the concepts involved. Resolving religion based conflicts is extraordinarily difficult...now you really understand why, if you didn't already. As for dumbing it down...ain't gonna happen. If I were concerned that the those participating in this discussion weren't bright enough to understand my writing I would withdraw. Even Lee gets it but if it doesn't fit with his phenominally biased view of Bush he ignores it or changes the subject. He has posted some decently well researched positions on some other subjects. Defending an idiot of Bush's magnitude is well neigh impossible at this point, nobody, including Lee can shovel Bush's BS fast enough. Understandable, considering I can barely stand to read about his latest dufus moves, much less defend them.

WGJ

I hope the multiple ironies of Dubya using his first veto on stem cell research are not lost on you, besides the obvious war mongering fool claiming it violates the sanctity of human life, there's the fact that Dubya will go the way of friend Raygun and will be responsible for his own demise because he denied the research that could of cured Alzheimers. Dubya's alocohol and cocaine abuse will predispose him to rapid deterioration of his mental facilities and he has few brain cells to spare.
WGJ

Electrophil · #**161** 07-21-2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WGJ

As my philosophy prof was fond of reminding me, "You can't get the inference, if you don't get the reference."
WGJ

Exactly.

Most won't bother with the dictionary, and never catch how logical and realistic the post was.

I guess my taking this from a "dumbing down" point of view was the wrong way to do it. I guess the point is the amount of effort people will put forward to comprehend. If the post is normal everyday conversational english, more people will comprehend the point being made. If too much effort is needed in either comprehension or time, they will scan and blow off what is actually an excellent point they may adopt.