- Jan 8, 2011
- 10,731
- 3,440
- 136
Subyman
Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
- Mar 18, 2005
- 7,876
- 32
- 86
I just don't get your point when applied to the real world. Every perspective is different. I know the argument of freedom fighters here, terrorists there. I understand depending on your point of view we are bad and they are good or they are bad and we are good. However, it is meaningless to carry a philosophical view into politics or your real life actions. The fact is they are against me, so my perspective has to align with my self interest. For that reason, they are terrorists, not freedom fighters. For me, American rebels against Britain were freedom fighters because they built the world I live in.
It does me no good to see it from their view other than for anthropological discussions in academia. They certainly won't engage me in a philosophical discussion of "we are both cut from the same cloth, just from different sides of the fence" type stuff if I'm taken hostage and used for leverage to free their prisoners. We are enemies by destiny and they are fine with it, so I must be or I'll be the "enlightened one" that is killed in the conflict.
My point is perspective does matter, but it matters because it solidifies who's side I'm on. I'm on my side, the side I live in, and my side is America.
It does me no good to see it from their view other than for anthropological discussions in academia. They certainly won't engage me in a philosophical discussion of "we are both cut from the same cloth, just from different sides of the fence" type stuff if I'm taken hostage and used for leverage to free their prisoners. We are enemies by destiny and they are fine with it, so I must be or I'll be the "enlightened one" that is killed in the conflict.
My point is perspective does matter, but it matters because it solidifies who's side I'm on. I'm on my side, the side I live in, and my side is America.
To go into another country and attack the civilians as a suicide bomber has nothing to do with winning but to generate terror and destruction. Not even political based.
Why go into a market place and kill people that are not attacking you, only because they have a different concept of religion.
A majority of the deaths within Iraq have been Muslim on Muslim.
And of that, most have been civilians.
The mullahs and imams are extorting their "blinded" followers to go out and kill other civilians.
The civilians are targeted because they are not of the "faith" and are also an easier target than an armed opponent.
They are the primary target, not a secondary target.
Why go into a market place and kill people that are not attacking you, only because they have a different concept of religion.
A majority of the deaths within Iraq have been Muslim on Muslim.
And of that, most have been civilians.
The mullahs and imams are extorting their "blinded" followers to go out and kill other civilians.
The civilians are targeted because they are not of the "faith" and are also an easier target than an armed opponent.
They are the primary target, not a secondary target.
TreVader
Platinum Member
- Oct 28, 2013
- 2,057
- 2
- 0
I get that practically it helps to have nationalism. I can be nationalistic too, however I think the difference in this case is I personally have family in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Israel.
That probably gives me a different perspectives. As far as usefulness to society as a whole or just myself, my job has a lot to do with talking and writing rhetorically in favor of points I don't necessarily agree with. In order to do this, I've learned to detach myself from my nationality and environment and take somebody else's perspective because it allows me to make a point regardless of whether I believe it or not. Doesn't always work 100% and may be useless but if you deal mostly with human resources, for lack of a better word, it helps.
Perspectives matter, but so does truth. There must be a way for you to logically understand the truth while still maintaining your general disposition to the U.S. and it's history. I don't think seeing stuff for what is, is totally incompatible with also holding your country above the rest if you practice a little cognitive dissonance.
Whether I acknowledge the truth in any given discussion is dependent on whether or not it supports my position. But, no matter what, I know the truth is there and I understand it.
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,582
- 12
- 76
The enemy the United States has faced over the past 15 years (jiahadists, global terrorism, whatever you want to call it) is incredibly resourceful and the most cost effective enemy we've ever seen. Working on a shoe string (or leather sandal?) budget they're able to accomplish their missions against a numerically, technologically and tactically superior force.
If all you have is some home made explosives, a bunch of polio-ridden children and a mosque, you work with what you have. And they do a pretty effective job of it, all things considered. Their ability to use our telecommunications networks to communicate with each other while avoiding tracking\surveillance is also fairly impressive given their rudimentary knowledge of such networks.
If all you have is some home made explosives, a bunch of polio-ridden children and a mosque, you work with what you have. And they do a pretty effective job of it, all things considered. Their ability to use our telecommunications networks to communicate with each other while avoiding tracking\surveillance is also fairly impressive given their rudimentary knowledge of such networks.
TreVader
Platinum Member
- Oct 28, 2013
- 2,057
- 2
- 0
They do have one resource in abundance: a Poverty stricken and debilitated population of people who have little to live for and many reasons to hate. It's hard to comprehend the way a Palestinian family is getting by on $1500 a year, when large numbers of their family members have died in air strikes in suicide attacks and their homes are under constant threat of bombardment. I don't know how much I would value life living in such conditions.
Your Palestinian family is getting quite a bit of external $$ support from various countries and agencies.
Their lot is life has been amplified by choices made many years ago and then currently with respect to their leadership.
While they can be frustrated; they also fail to realize that the way they have expressed those frustrations have the consequences of making their lives much more intolerable. An endless downward spiral.
When offered help to reverse such; if it is refused and/or misused who is to blame? Those that offered it and will refuse to do so again?
When help to get out of the cess pool is offered, should one take it or reject it because of who is offering it.
TreVader
Platinum Member
- Oct 28, 2013
- 2,057
- 2
- 0
My family isn't Palestinian, LOL. Almost all Palestinians are Sunni Muslims, and very few have immigrated to the U.S. My relatives in Israel are Lebanese and live and work there, and do not take any "aid".
What choices? They were born into poverty and war, live, and die in poverty and war. It's easy for you to claim they should have "done better", but when was the last time you got by on $100 a month and saw your neighbors house bulldozed or bombed every once in awhile? You wouldn't do well, neither would I most likely.
You act like if the Palestinians had just let Israel take their land, somehow convinced x country to take them as refugees, and just "moved on" they would be fine! That's ludicrous and shows how myopic your views are.
bshole
Diamond Member
- Mar 12, 2013
- 8,315
- 1,215
- 126
What is their choice to have the land appropriated from them at the point of a gun by Western powers? Once again America and it's friends created a problem which has now existed for 60 years and the problem is THEIR fault, not ours. Nothing is ever our fault. We are perfection. We are doing God's work.
irishScott
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,562
- 3
- 0
People still give a shit about Michael Moore? The last thing remotely significant I remember was him showing up at an Occupy Wall Street rally and getting cheered by a bunch of toothless morons.
You was not intended to be directed at yourself.
the Palestinians did not jsut let Israel take their land.
They teamed up with the Arab nations to take what the UN, the Jews and the Arabs agreed would go to the new Israel.
And they lost that bet.
Rather than accept the outcome; the Palestinians kept doubling down.
Pissing off Israel and Jordan multiple times.
Now they have also ticked off Egypt.
They (people and leadership) keep wanting do-overs not seeming to realize that it will not happen.
Everytime they get a chance for some peace; some idiot with the leaderships blessing stirs the embers into a roaring fire which burns them.
That action is what keeps getting houses bulldozed and bombed.
Piss off your neighbors and they retaliate.
bshole
Diamond Member
- Mar 12, 2013
- 8,315
- 1,215
- 126
The Arabs NEVER AGREED to the new Israel. It was forced on them at the point of a gun by western nations. It would be akin to Russia coming in and returning the state of Wisconsin back to the Native Americans and then bombing the rest of America if it tried to take it back.
TreVader
Platinum Member
- Oct 28, 2013
- 2,057
- 2
- 0
Lol. Would make a great movie.
Seriously though, the Palestinians were totally fucked during the partition. He makes it sound like there was some consensus reached, and it was only the Palestinians who disagreed. Not so, not a single neighboring nation would recognize Israel until Egypt gave them a slap in the 73' war and they gave back the Sianai.
It has been proven time and time again that the best way to deal with Israel is the take the fight to them. Hezbollah is the only state actor besides Egypt to give Israel a beating, and they haven't invaded since.
The countries that are least harassed by Israel, are the countries that went to war with it first! Why would the Palestinians ever give up when every example shows that if you kill enough Israelis they will give up? And it's not a large number. Israel views its soldiers as its greatest asset and if you kill a couple hundred they back off.
If the Israelis gave back the Golan and ended the settlements they would be on such high moral ground that the world community would support them. They would rather bomb and kill and conquer.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Egypt and Syria both attacked Israel during the '73 war.
Israel had full control of the Sinai and were threatening Damascus.
Now 5 years later:
Link
Hezbollah did not give Israel a beating; they ran back to Beruit and then asked the UN for protection.
Even a big shot in Hezbollah admitted that they underestimated Israel and it was a mistake to have provoked them at that time.
Israel only "gives up" when they have dealt the enemy a crippling blow, not a death blow AND the UN steps in to cover for the opponent. They choose to not deliver the death blow; which is less than their opponents desire.
How many times has the opponent asked for/begged for help, promising never again, but turn around and do it. Egypt (until '78), Jordan (until after '67), Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, the PLO, Hezbollah, Hamas all have begged for help to have Israel stop the punishment. All also re-attacked at a later date violating the truce that was previously signed.
The Arabs with the exception of Egypt and Jordan have yet to fully learn their lesson to leave Israel alone.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
Man, I don't even know where to begin with TreVader any more.
I do understand having compassion for the Palestinians, and I do agree that they have got the short end of the stick historically, whether they had a hand in that themselves or not.
However, if the lesson derived from wars with modern Israel is that you should keep launching futile attacks because eventually they will give in... that's just ridiculous. Israel has given back land in exchange for peace, Israel has given back land because of UN/world pressure, but they have never given anything back because they lost or because the cost of winning would be too high.
Israel could have easily held the Sinai, or the southern parts of Syria. Hell, they can basically blow shit up in Syria at will, even before the civil war. Nothing suggests that any local Arab army would fare much better.
I do understand having compassion for the Palestinians, and I do agree that they have got the short end of the stick historically, whether they had a hand in that themselves or not.
However, if the lesson derived from wars with modern Israel is that you should keep launching futile attacks because eventually they will give in... that's just ridiculous. Israel has given back land in exchange for peace, Israel has given back land because of UN/world pressure, but they have never given anything back because they lost or because the cost of winning would be too high.
Israel could have easily held the Sinai, or the southern parts of Syria. Hell, they can basically blow shit up in Syria at will, even before the civil war. Nothing suggests that any local Arab army would fare much better.
TreVader
Platinum Member
- Oct 28, 2013
- 2,057
- 2
- 0
What? You clearly have zero knowledge of this war. Israel was warned hours before the attack by King Hussein of Jordan, but decided not to strike first because of the outrage when they sneak attacked all the arab nations in 67'. So first of all: not a "surprise" because Hussein warned Golda Meir.
Second, yes they both attacked, but only one was successful. Egypt took out the Bar Lev line that defended the eastern side of the Suez, and Egypt took over the entirety of the Suez canal. The Sinai is a desert, nobody cares if Israel was able to hold on to a bunch of desert, the canal was what was important.
Third, Egypt most definitely did give Israel a "slap", and that's putting it lightly. Israel lost 1/3rd of it's Air Force in the first hours of the conflict. Dozens of Israeli aces died, it was not a good day for Israel and they are still feeling the shock of being pushed back today. Before that day, NOBODY had even successfully defended against israel, let alone actually invade and take back land! The israelis were totally shocked.
Israel was only able to take back a few positions on the bar lev line because: 1) Assads forces were getting torn up in the Golan and he begged Nasser to break out from under their missile defense and take pressure of the Syrian army and 2) Ariel Sharon and his tank brigade made a mad dash across the suez and headed straight for Cairo, ignoring the cease fire and attacking civilian Egyptian areas to threaten Cairo. He basically was going to tear ass into Cairo DURING THE CEASEFIRE and threaten to take the capital of Egypt, and was reigned in after the US told Meir to stop being a wise and beautiful woman and quit trying invade while the US and USSR negotiated peace.
So yeah, they did get their asses kicked, and were only saved by Syrian incompetence and Sharon's war criminal habits.
It's all right here:
Link
This is my favorite one, because it shows how easily Americans are manipulated by the pro-israel lobby. Before I start here is a chance to familiarize yourself with a war you clearly payed no attention to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War
The Israelis tucked their tales between their legs and headed home after a few months with over 120 dead and one ship BADLY damaged by a missile attack from Hezbollah.
The israelis lost: Israel Defense Forces:
Killed: 121 killed
Wounded: 1,244
[12]
Israeli civilians:
44 dead[13][14]
33 seriously wounded
68 moderately wounded
1,388 lightly wounded[15]
Foreign civilians:
2 dead[16]
Guess how many Hezbollah lost? Less than 500 militia. That's barely over 4 to 1 K to D which is not at all adequate for a state of the art first world state fighting a 3rd world milita. That is HORRENDOUS casualties. Do you know what the US would have done if for every 4 iraqis one american died? We would have left.
The real thing that tells you who won the war, is the demands Hezbollah made after the cross border raid and whether or not Israel met them. What do you think happened?
Remember, Hezbollah LOVES prison exchanges where they can trade bones of Israeli soldiers for hundreds of prisoners. Here, take a look at the long list of prisoners israel has given to hezbollah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_prisoner_exchanges
Of course! The usual western propaganda about Israel: They are invincible.
It's bullshit. They have massive material, tactical, and technological superiority yet can't handle some 2000 Hezbollah Militia with 20,000 IDF!
And lol at the "death blow". The only death blow israel could give Lebanon is a nuke, and they would be nuking their own holy land. If Israel could have conventionally occupied the entirety of the middle east, they would have. They just don't have the population to cover any more land than they already do, not with them being hated worldwide.
What? When did any of those people "beg for help", lol? Israel was begging the USA for help in 73 when they were getting trounced by the Egyptians! If we hadn't replaced half their armor they would have lost the entire war! Christ you are uneducated about this.
Hezbollah dares Israel to come into Lebanon. They will go home crying with IDF wives on Israeli TV badmouthing the PM for the war. The israelis have no stomach for war at all, they are far to busy partying it up in their Apartheid garden of eden. If there is any force on earth that I would say is uniquely terrible at taking causualties, it's Israel.
You knew nothing about Israel before this post hopefully now you will know a little more:|
Last edited:
TreVader
Platinum Member
- Oct 28, 2013
- 2,057
- 2
- 0
I disagree. The lesson to be learned is that the ONLY way to get anything from Israel is to hurt them SO BADLY that they give in to demands. That's it.
Egypt hurt them so bad, that the US forced them to give back the Sinai. Hezbollah hurt them so bad, they had to leave Lebanon.
Hamas and Fatah have totally failed to hurt them, and thus are not productive and tend to target civilians. But they are Palestinian groups, poorer than poor. They use WWII era rockets, vs Hezbollah has guided ASMs.
Israel could conventionally occupy much of Syria but "blow it up"? lol it's on the border, what would they blow it up with? Ever heard of fallout? Where do you get these silly ideas that countries "blow up" each other? You sound like a 10 year old talking about foreign policy.
It appears the out Palestinian shill can not even read the link that he posted.
Israel has crossed the Suez before the 22 October cease fire in the '73 war
Now for those that are geographically challenged, the Suez is what separates Egypt in general from the Sinai.
The Arabs have asked the UN for cease fires, not the other way around.
Lebanon asked for a ceasefire in '06
Please provide links to the contrary
Israel has no need to go into Lebanon unless it is to respond to something done to it.
Israel has crossed the Suez before the 22 October cease fire in the '73 war
Now for those that are geographically challenged, the Suez is what separates Egypt in general from the Sinai.
The Arabs have asked the UN for cease fires, not the other way around.
Lebanon asked for a ceasefire in '06
Please provide links to the contrary
Israel has no need to go into Lebanon unless it is to respond to something done to it.
Sinai was returned to Egypt as part of a truce; 5 years after the '73 war.
Seems like a whale of hurt there.
Israel was not in Lebanon until they chased Hezbollah back to Beirut after soldiers were captured in Hezbollah in a cross boarder raid.
Israel does not want Syria; they only need Golan to protect against attacks from Syria along those heights.
Hezbollah guided ASMs also are in violation of the truce that they signed.
But such does not matter until Israel attacks Syria transit points.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter