Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: SnapIT
What really amazes me is that if a suicide bomber kills women and children, he is a terrorist scumbag, but if israeli (or us) forces kill twice as many, they are just casualties of war and the one who does it is just another hero...
I wish, just for one day, you would be in their position, no, i do not wish that you would die, just to be in their position, to feel theri despair, then you might understand...
What really amazes me is that if a suicide bomber kills women and children, he is a terrorist scumbag, but if israeli (or us) forces kill twice as many, they are just casualties of war and the one who does it is just another hero...
the difference is that the israelis don't have the intention of killing civilians while the bombers do. or is the US a superterrorist considering many more civilians were killed recently in iraq. when a police officer accidentally shoots a civilian in a gun fight with a criminal, he is a terrorist by your standard.
people blinded by moral equivalency cannot see the distinction. a death is a death regardless of intention. a serial killer of girls is no worse then a driver who accidentally kills in an accident. its sophistry.
palestinian suicide bombers are terrorists, plain and simple. they are people who's main intent is to randomly murder as many civilians as possible, to create fear and undermine the unity/strength of a people. no matter how one feels about occupation, one cannot possibly honestly call israeli actions terrorism. one cannot use it as justification for targeting civilians without being an apologist.
if you cannot distinguish the difference between the killing of combatants from intended targeting of peacable civilians you live in a world of moral nihilism.
i'm trying to remember the last time a jew cried out "for yahweh" while blowing up women and children. oh wait, the palestinian terrorists do that while crying out "for allah/allah is great etc" eh?
You know you're killing civilians when you indiscriminately fire on children throwing stones. Is that moral?
i've seen those "children" speak to reporters. they intend to kill the soldiers if possible. blinding or maiming is a nice secondary objective if murder isnt possible. they use slings and slingshots. people are stoned to death in this world, sticks and stones can break your bones. parents that allow their children to be their front line troops throwing stones and molatove cocktails are responsible for any harm that may befall their children. soldiers have a right to defend themselves against attack.
oh wait, better to have a martyr right?
oh wait, thats not the definition of martyr, a real martyr is one who suffers or dies for his cause. not one whos goals is to murder others and die. arabs have twisted this definition to get around islams of denoucement of suicide.
The US has lost all credability, which nation in it's right mind would trust the US? err... none... They have proved that they are on their own, good riddance i say... be gone and shut up...
The US should be thrown out of the UN, isolated with the strictest possible rules... No trade, no nothing...
who would trust nations like the EU who have on many occasions stood by while genocide and attrocities have been visited on people. it seems the EU doesn't hear the cries of the oppressed and dying around the world, as long as their little boat doesn't get rocked, they are fine and dandy. sure the US has not stood up for oppressed people enough in the past and has let tyrants have their ways at times, but that does not invalidate future attempts at justice.
and gee, suddenly moral relativism is out and you set harsh standards. funny how you can turn it on and off at will. wanna ban all nations where women aren't treated as full equals? out goes basically the entire middle east. how about religious/fundamentalist/oppressive governments? dictators/despots etc. oh wait, u in the EU are all lovey dovey with them as long as you get your oil too. remember who france had billions of dollars of oil contracts with? IRAQ. no high horse to stand on apparently. so lets see, coddle dictators and u get oil. seems like invading countries doesn't have all that much to do with oil, u get oil anyhow. people in the middle east can't drink the stuff, they have to sell it.
how about china? human rights record/oppressive government etc, yet you still would have them in the UN and trade with them, so much for your high horse again, and china is one of the better countries of the sorry lot. don't forget the russians with their chechen war, the indians with their constant clashes with pakistan over a tiny patch of land named for a sweater.
and boot france, they relatively recently told the world to f*ck off and tested their nukes. no trade, no nothing! france doesn't ask the UN when it goes into its former colonies. france doesn't get huffy with russia about chechnia.
What causes just about all of the instability in the middle east? why do you think that every arab country supports Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad?
how about the fact that 1/5 of the arab world is illiterate and ignorant?
how about oppressive governments that are funded by oil and thus don't need to tax their citizens. no taxation without representation right? well no taxation, no representation for arabs. its very convenient for arab governments to distract their populations from their own problems and oppression by continuously pointing to israel as the cause of all problems in the world. its wonderful self denial the arab states are ingaged in that prevents them from reforming their own governments and societies. how about islamic fundamentalism that considers all that don't believe in allah as infidels worthy of nothing more then death. how about islamic hatred of western secular goverments and all they stand for. what can the west do to make these people happy? become islamic, and oppress their populations with wonderful shari'a law. there are people who do not prescribe to the idea that all people are created equal. kind of like the nazi's, do you continue to ask what caused the nazi's? considering western values of equality were abhorent to nazi's should we have asked what should we do to appease the nazi's? or do you deal with them by denazifying the area.
Facebook
Twitter