Tweet
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Where did I ever say anyone deserved it? Please, go back and find where I said this was a good thing? I triple dog dare you.
Where did I ever say anyone deserved it? Please, go back and find where I said this was a good thing? I triple dog dare you.
DanS wrote:
While I do believe that Israel's occupation has led (mostly) to what we have now, attacking innocents knowing full well that they are innocents is beyond the pale. Israel is within her rights to defend herself.
In any war, you attack an enemy at his weak point. The IDF is far too strong to be combatted directly, so the only option left is to take the war to its supporters. It is completely hypocritical for Americans to decry the horrors of suicide bombers while it was applauding the complete destruction of the civilian infrastructures of Iraq and Yugoslavia. Feh! A suicide bobmer has nothing on American death from the skies.
POPPYCOCK! You automatically *assume* that those civilians slaughtered by terrorist suicide bombers back all of Israel's actions?!
Now let's see here. DanS was talking roughly along the lines of terrorists knowingly targeting innocents, how that went beyond the pale and how Israel has a right to defend itself. You came in and disagreed, Chegitz, saying that in any war you target your enemy's weak point. You spoke of how the IDF was too strong to take on directly, so the terrorists' only option was to "take the war to its supporters." It isn't much of a stretch to imagine that the "supporters" you were referring to were the innocent civilians blown apart by suicide bombers. Furthermore, considering the context of all the above — namely, the deliberate targeting of innocents — it was quite natural (and correct, I might add) to call attention to your post. Nor was I the only contributor on this thread to call attention to it.
You were saying something about triple dog dare, Chegitz?
Hospitals were bombed in Iraq. The water treatment facilities were bombed in Iraq. Strategic bridges in Yugoslavia would be what? . . . every bridge in the country. Chemical factories on the Danube were destroyed, spilling their contents into the major water supply for millions and millions of people, and not just for Yugoslavia. TV stations were bombed . . . unless they were anti-Milosevic. Government offices were bombed, which, like the Murrah building in Oklahoma City, had more than just government offices.
I have noticed over and over again how so much blame is laid at the feet of the United States, NATO, or any number of nations who choose to side with America in any of the given conflicts above in any number of topics on the 'Poly OT over the years. Yet the likes of Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein are regularly allowed to get away with murder. Why is that? Is it because Western governments are easier to criticize (YES) and less likely to put a bullet in the back of your head once a spiel has been finished (YES)?
Western governments are far from being as pure as the driven snow. But I submit to you that you're safer criticizing them any day of the week — and more likely to get results — than you are with the likes of Iraq and whatnot. But the criticial eye can only be willfully closed for so long in regards to these less-than-democratic governments.
Perhaps next time you should engage your brain before typing, idiot. In every single one of your responses to someone elses post, you have completely missed the point and gone balastic off on some tangent.
If that's called going "balastic," in your book, Chegitz, count me as more than happy to bear that title in your eyes.
Good day, Chegitz.
Gatekeeper
.
, and since the Palestinians only consistant message is they want Israel to cease to exist, this conclusion would be logical. I think the United States, nor any other country should have any ties to Israel at all. Unfortunately, history shows intractable problems are only solved by overwhelming violence. Just ask the Palestinians or Israelis.
Comment