RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


vincentML -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/23/2013 6:52:59 PM)

quote:

I don't recall the details of the case, the Border Patrol agent may have been charged. But even if he was charged, I don't see how it changes the situation, nor is it blaming the victim. Throwing rocks at someone with the intent of doing bodily harm is against the law.

Well gee, so is jay walking. We don't shoot jay walkers.




Zonie63 -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/23/2013 7:19:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I don't recall the details of the case, the Border Patrol agent may have been charged. But even if he was charged, I don't see how it changes the situation, nor is it blaming the victim. Throwing rocks at someone with the intent of doing bodily harm is against the law.

Well gee, so is jay walking. We don't shoot jay walkers.


Jay walking is not a violent crime.




Zonie63 -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/23/2013 8:14:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

Anyone who would throw rocks at a heavily-armed individual is an idiot.


Well, duh...

That said, I don't expect uneducated teenagers from families living on $900 per year in a civil war zone to have excellent judgment.


Still, I would expect that they know what a gun is and what it can do.

quote:


quote:

It's hard to sympathize with reckless teenage delinquents and gang-bangers.


If you find it hard, I'd submit that it's a worthwhile challenge to set your mind to. As a starting point, consider just what conditions these kids live with. Over half the population is children, and one third are under fourteen. They're a violently oppressed ethnicity/class in their own country, live with civil war and what to them appears to be indiscriminate bombing on a regular basis, and so forth.


I consider myself liberal, perhaps even slightly leftist, but that doesn't mean I'm a bleeding heart. I don't sympathize with people who commit acts of violence, whether right or left, whether in the USA or abroad. Sure, I can consider what conditions people live under, just like the Sandy Hook killer or any number of violent criminals in our society, but sympathize? No way.

But in case you're wondering, I don't sympathize with the IDF or the U.S. government either. If violence is directed at my government, then I'll consider the conditions that the perpetrators live under, and perhaps I might even understand the reasons for it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to sympathize with them.

quote:


quote:

There was one case near El Paso where a kid from the Mexico side was throwing rocks at the Border Patrol, and the Border Patrol shot and killed the kid. There was the usual outrage at the Border Patrol, but all I was wondering: Why was the kid throwing rocks at armed individuals in the first place? How stupid.


Look, if I was going to write people off based on their behavior being stupid according to my own metrics thereof, I would have to write off most of humanity as being terminally stupid, and our species as a disease. I find that to be a supremely unproductive exercise, and so I try to respect people and their lives anyway.


I don't see anything wrong with calling something as one sees it. I think that people should take responsibility for their own actions.

In the case in El Paso, I recall that the kid was throwing rocks at the behest of the drug cartels, mainly as a diversion to distract the BP while smugglers were crossing the border at another location.

If I went down to Mexico and started throwing rocks at armed thugs in the drug cartels, I would expect to get shot. If I did, do you think most people would sympathize with me and consider me a victim? Or would they just consider me a fool?

quote:


Where I live, you just don't do a thing like that. You can put the kid in his place, sure, but you don't kill him for it, and certainly not with a firearm. This has been a cultural norm since the days when we raided the British Isles for slaves and plunder, when people worried about the barbarian hordes up here and their violent bearzerkers. You would be branded and outlawed for it back then, as a civilian, worse if you were a combattant. These days, you're simply a pariah and socially shunned if you do such a thing.

If the IDF wants to throw rocks back at the kids, I'm gonna give them a pass on that, though I don't think it's particularly decent behavior. When they go shooting these kids, then, no, that's when they lose any claim to legitimacy (not that they had much to begin with).


I never said they were legitimate.

quote:


quote:

If it's just a ploy to get shot and gain sympathy from the bleeding hearts in the media, then okay, but they'd still be better off if they would just take the Gandhi non-violent route.


The non-violent route only scores points with people that have a sense of decency, and hence is ineffective in Israel.


How effective is rock throwing?

quote:


quote:

Throwing rocks at someone with the intent of doing bodily harm is against the law.


Does it demand the death penalty, effectuated extrajudicially, on the spot? Thought not.

For that matter, lots of people throw rocks without any intention beyond lashing out in anger, or even much thought for consequences.


No, I didn't say that it demanded the death penalty, but it's not as if these were innocent kids walking in the park and being unfairly harassed by "The Man." They're not victims as I would define the term. They knew the risks, they took their chances, and lost.

I remember a case many years ago, in which a female police officer was attempting to arrest a man for burglarizing the offices of an ice company. He was a large man, much larger than the police officer, and he made a threatening movement as if to lunge towards her. She pulled out her weapon and shot an unarmed man. He didn't even have a rock to throw.

There are also cases where someone with a gun might charge at police officers, even though they have no chance of winning a gunfight against them. I think they call it "suicide by cop."

Honestly, I don't take rock-throwing very lightly. It's not like kicking sand in someone's face or spitting on someone. One can cause serious injury or death. You seem to think that it's no different than a bunch of kids playing football, but I just don't see it that way.





tweakabelle -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/23/2013 11:07:20 PM)

Rack throwing is violent, it doesn't achieve much bar letting off some steam, and against a properly trained security force is ineffective. In a situation where daily events include the demolition of Palestinian homes, or water wells, destruction of their crops, vicious assaults by colonists/settlers, arbitrary daily arrests tortures and imprisonment, wholesale land theft, routine murders by the 'security' forces, harassment and humiliation, all the minutiae of low to mid intensity ethnic cleansing carried out by a foreign military occupation force with a culture of total impunity to justice, it is understandable.

More than anything else, it is an act of resistance and defiance, an assertion that 'we are here and we are not going anywhere else'. Which is why it's intolerable for the IDF, and the Israeli Govt which seems to insist on total capitulation on all levels by the Palestinians. It is a direct challenge to Israeli ethnic cleansing which aims to drive the Palestinians off their lands and to absorb the West bank into Israel proper.

The IDF knows these situations are going to occur - as long as it maintains an occupation, there will be resistance. It would be an act of criminal negligence to deploy troops to the West Bank with out some training in crowd control. A properly trained security force (and the IDF too) has at its disposal a range of measures to counter street violence of this type with minimum damage - tear gas, baton charges, rubber bullets, protective clothing and the like. Used properly by a trained force, these measures can contain street violence with zero fatalities, with live ammunition used only as a last resort in life-threatening situations. So the IDF knows how to contain street violence with minimal casualties to both sides, it chooses not to on many occasions.

It is difficult to imagine a defence for the use of live tank shells against rock throwing civilians but it happens - I have posted videos portraying exactly this previously.The IDF sometimes deploys standard non-lethal crowd control measures, at other times, its first and only option is the use of lethal force, as in the video I posted above where 3 tiny Palestinian girls and their grandmother were shot, with 2 tots killed and the other crippled for life. There are numerous such videos on YouTube if people wish to look.

So it's difficult to avoid concluding that the IDF responses are calculated, that the IDF and Israeli Govt see some advantage in using lethal force against Palestinian youths. It is self evident that the use of live ammunition with intent to kill against rock throwing youths is grossly disproportionate, especially when other less lethal options are available. (As such it could contravene the Geneva Conventions, and constitute a war crime.)

But these killings occur with such regularity that one can only conclude they are meant to happen. Which is to say they are murders. So how does one escape concluding that these murders are carried quite deliberately as an integral part of the ethnic cleansing and eventual colonisation of the entire West Bank?




Zonie63 -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/24/2013 4:51:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Rack throwing is violent, it doesn't achieve much bar letting off some steam, and against a properly trained security force is ineffective. In a situation where daily events include the demolition of Palestinian homes, or water wells, destruction of their crops, vicious assaults by colonists/settlers, arbitrary daily arrests tortures and imprisonment, wholesale land theft, routine murders by the 'security' forces, harassment and humiliation, all the minutiae of low to mid intensity ethnic cleansing carried out by a foreign military occupation force with a culture of total impunity to justice, it is understandable.


All of these events are understandable. There are two sides to every story, and there have been numerous times when Arabs have victimized Israelis too, even going back to before Israel was even an independent nation. It's an ongoing blood feud for which there's no end in sight.

I'm no fan of Israel either. I don't support either side here. But even if I was on the Palestinians' side, if I was living there under those conditions, I would still give the same advice: Don't throw rocks at men with guns. Especially if they're already known to be brutal thugs. I would say that it's equally stupid to try and take on the drug cartels in Mexico, not unless you have an army to back you up. There may be other ways of fighting back, but not that way.





tweakabelle -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/24/2013 5:41:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Rack throwing is violent, it doesn't achieve much bar letting off some steam, and against a properly trained security force is ineffective. In a situation where daily events include the demolition of Palestinian homes, or water wells, destruction of their crops, vicious assaults by colonists/settlers, arbitrary daily arrests tortures and imprisonment, wholesale land theft, routine murders by the 'security' forces, harassment and humiliation, all the minutiae of low to mid intensity ethnic cleansing carried out by a foreign military occupation force with a culture of total impunity to justice, it is understandable.


All of these events are understandable. There are two sides to every story, and there have been numerous times when Arabs have victimized Israelis too, even going back to before Israel was even an independent nation. It's an ongoing blood feud for which there's no end in sight.

I'm no fan of Israel either. I don't support either side here. But even if I was on the Palestinians' side, if I was living there under those conditions, I would still give the same advice: Don't throw rocks at men with guns. Especially if they're already known to be brutal thugs. I would say that it's equally stupid to try and take on the drug cartels in Mexico, not unless you have an army to back you up. There may be other ways of fighting back, but not that way.



I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm opposed to violence in anything other than the most desperate life threatening situations. But I wouldn't like to have to explain this to some Palestinian youth whose house had just been demolished or who brother or cousin had just been shot or kidnapped by the IDF or .......

We should also note that many Palestinian kids are killed by the IDF in many non-confrontational situations - in their homes, while playing or tending their farms and so on . And, as I tried to point out in my last post, there is a political dimension to these killings by the IDF. They happen far too often for them not be officially sanctioned.




tweakabelle -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/24/2013 6:45:37 AM)

Obama has announced a new direction in the fight against Islamist terrorism. Obama's speech deals with many of the issues discussed in this thread. The UK Guardian reports:

"In a major policy speech outlining new US counter-terrorism doctrine, Obama also announced a series of steps he was taking to try to speed up the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention centre – including lifting a blanket ban on the transfer of prisoners to Yemen and seeking a site in the US for military commissions to take place.

Obama said America was at a crossroads, having spent over a trillion dollars and 7,000 lives fighting wars over the last decade. "We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us," he said.

"To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance."

Obama said that US military intervention abroad did not guarantee the safety of Americans at home, and often fomented extremism. "A perpetual war – through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments – will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways," he said.

Though some of the policy details have been trailed, the speech at the National Defense University marks a softening of rhetoric too.

Despite continued attacks in Boston and London, Obama said the US should seek to address the "underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism" through greater foreign aid and diplomacy. He claimed that success in fighting al-Qaida leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan meant the US had to think more about deterring home-grown terrorists in the future.
"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/"world/2013/may/23/obama-drone-policy-counter-terrorism

Here's another report of the speech originating in the 'Washington Post":
http://www.smh.com.au/world/obama-agrees-security-measures-at-odds-with-values-20130524-2k6q5.html

Will these changes be enough to save the failing war on terrorism or are they merely cosmetic changes to appease critics?




vincentML -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/24/2013 8:33:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I don't recall the details of the case, the Border Patrol agent may have been charged. But even if he was charged, I don't see how it changes the situation, nor is it blaming the victim. Throwing rocks at someone with the intent of doing bodily harm is against the law.

Well gee, so is jay walking. We don't shoot jay walkers.


Jay walking is not a violent crime.

Rock throwing is not violent unless someone is hit. Violence in itself is nowhere in the US punishable by death. Domestic violence for example has never resulted in a death penalty unless homicide was commited, and maybe not even then. The killing by a kid throwing rocks is immoral and an over-reach of police authority. Basically, it is police brutality imo.




tj444 -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/24/2013 8:53:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Will these changes be enough to save the failing war on terrorism or are they merely cosmetic changes to appease critics?

jmo but.. I think it has more to do with the financial cost than saving a failing war.. and Obama is only at the wheel for another 3 years.. who knows what the next DIC (Dude In Charge) will decide to do..




vincentML -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/24/2013 9:29:44 AM)

quote:

Will these changes be enough to save the failing war on terrorism or are they merely cosmetic changes to appease critics?

The war will continue regardless of any actions by an American president if we are to believe the Fatwa issued by OBL in 1996 and the one issued by Al Quiada and signed by other groups in 1998. Therein they declared war against the Zionist-Crusader alliance, against America, and against the Saudi ruling family until all of the Arabian Peninsula (including Palestine as I read it) is free of the "invaders." Special mention was also made by OBL of preserving the oil wealth of the peninsula for the Ummah (Arab community) I would continue to be pessimistic.




Real0ne -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/24/2013 10:26:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Will these changes be enough to save the failing war on terrorism or are they merely cosmetic changes to appease critics?

The war will continue regardless of any actions by an American president if we are to believe the Fatwa issued by OBL in 1996 and the one issued by Al Quiada and signed by other groups in 1998. Therein they declared war against the Zionist-Crusader alliance, against America, and against the Saudi ruling family until all of the Arabian Peninsula (including Palestine as I read it) is free of the "invaders." Special mention was also made by OBL of preserving the oil wealth of the peninsula for the Ummah (Arab community) I would continue to be pessimistic.



what evidence do you have that the issuance fatwa is in fact a fact, and that its meaning carries what is portrayed and presented?





vincentML -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/24/2013 11:03:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Will these changes be enough to save the failing war on terrorism or are they merely cosmetic changes to appease critics?

The war will continue regardless of any actions by an American president if we are to believe the Fatwa issued by OBL in 1996 and the one issued by Al Quiada and signed by other groups in 1998. Therein they declared war against the Zionist-Crusader alliance, against America, and against the Saudi ruling family until all of the Arabian Peninsula (including Palestine as I read it) is free of the "invaders." Special mention was also made by OBL of preserving the oil wealth of the peninsula for the Ummah (Arab community) I would continue to be pessimistic.



what evidence do you have that the issuance fatwa is in fact a fact, and that its meaning carries what is portrayed and presented?



You can read them here and draw your own conclusions:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military/july-dec96/fatwa_1996.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military/jan-june98/fatwa_1998.html





Real0ne -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/24/2013 11:10:55 AM)

while we all know that the tell-lie-vision is always the gospel, especially in the US, you dont mind posting a copy of the original document do you?




vincentML -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/24/2013 11:28:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

while we all know that the tell-lie-vision is always the gospel, especially in the US, you dont mind posting a copy of the original document do you?

LOL! Those were copies of the original documents.




Real0ne -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/24/2013 11:29:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

while we all know that the tell-lie-vision is always the gospel, especially in the US, you dont mind posting a copy of the original document do you?

LOL! Those were copies of the original documents.



did I miss something?

All I seen were translations and no signature.

Otherwise you really dont believe a translation without a signature is an original document do you???????????






vincentML -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/24/2013 1:34:43 PM)

Oh, now you want the originals, not copies. You keep moving the goal posts. Next time I am in the Arabian peninsula I will ask da guys to let me borrow the originals so I can show them to you.[8|]

On second thought . . . I won't play derail the tread with you anymore. Why don't you address Tweakabelle's question in #107. I am done with this BS. [:D]




Real0ne -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/24/2013 3:34:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Oh, now you want the originals, not copies. You keep moving the goal posts. Next time I am in the Arabian peninsula I will ask da guys to let me borrow the originals so I can show them to you.[8|]

On second thought . . . I won't play derail the tread with you anymore. Why don't you address Tweakabelle's question in #107. I am done with this BS. [:D]



then stop talkin shit and putting up shit as your evidence.

see thats how it works.

you put up american translations of presumed documents NOT the originals, which I can tell you with out looking are complete bullshit, because I assure you that they are using americanized translations of the words putting the administration spin on it 99.9 times out of a 100 not the intended meaning. Same shit they did with the word annihilate regarding germany and the jews. its all bullshit and I have learned over the years no bonafide documents with signatures = prima facia bullshit


I have addresseed terrorism many times as nothing more than a catch all euphemism for expansion of jurisdiction. Hell it took the un 10 years to figure out how the hell they could define it so it made "sense".







DomKen -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/24/2013 3:47:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

BTW I will actually be gone for a couple of days.


Just had to fling some p**p first? [8|]

I already said I'd get back to you, but you know what? Screw that.

You let me know when you're interested in an adult conversation. I'm not wasting my time on this.

I noted that I couldn't avoid having my post unduly influenced by the response to your BS allegation right now, as you should've done if you were getting too involved yourself, and instead you throw this crap at me when you already know I can't reply properly to it while maintaining a good standard of posting civility. That tells me you want a shitfest, not a conversation, and I'm not up for what you appear to want.

I wish you well,
— Aswad.


Wow. A flounce and retreat.

I was really looking forward to the intellectual contortions you were going to try out to somehow still approve of one kind of politically motivated murder but not another.




DomKen -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/24/2013 3:50:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Rock throwing is not violent unless someone is hit. Violence in itself is nowhere in the US punishable by death. Domestic violence for example has never resulted in a death penalty unless homicide was commited, and maybe not even then. The killing by a kid throwing rocks is immoral and an over-reach of police authority. Basically, it is police brutality imo.

A thrown rock can kill. A slinged or sling shot rock can be very dangerous. Depending on the circumstance using lethal force in response might well be legal as self defence.




tweakabelle -> RE: "Welcome to America's 30 year War" (5/24/2013 5:39:13 PM)

quote:

Wow. A flounce and retreat.

I was really looking forward to the intellectual contortions you were going to try out to somehow still approve of one kind of politically motivated murder but not another.


Precisely the same challenge was put to you in post #94:
quote:

I'm glad to hear you condemn intentional murders. So I am looking forward to hearing you condemn the IDF murderers of 2 tiny Palestinian girls covered in this BBC video report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krlnS6hcxTI

The two girls were deliberately shot by one IDF thug while his mates enjoyed munching on chocolates. A third sister was also shot but survived. Tragically she is crippled for life and will never walk again. The children's grandmother was also shot during the murders. Yes, as you say, "intentionally targeting innocents for murder is not noble no matter what".

Of course, should you fail to condemn the IDF for this slaughter, which occurred while the girls were under a white flag, the internationally recognised sign of surrender, you will have demonstrated once again that any principles you may have go by the wayside when it comes to defending the terrorist State of Israel. And that sadly, the noble sentiments you expressed above are simply empty words of political expedience.


Your response thus far has been a deafening silence. Is there any reason not to conclude that your position is "simply empty words of political expedience"?




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875