Obama apparently NOT going to surrender to the terrorists

[Procrustes Stretched]

I do not find the 1993 WTC attacks to be justified, no matter how many times you attribute that ridiculous position to me over my repeated assertion of my position.

I know. You say the attack was unjustified, yet you use all kinds of justifications for terrorists. silly me for thinking you're a disingenuous troll.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

pfife, are you anti killing or anti-Jew?

 

[jillian]

Not counting a few things, terror at home and abroad:

Significant Terrorist Incidents 1961-2003: A Brief Chronology





During the Bush years, following 9/11:

lots of incidents after Bush became president... far more than clinton ever saw. 'specially if you count every roadside bombing that occurred in Iraq.

I also see a lot of palestinian attacks on Israel in there, certainly you aren't laying those at clinton's doorstep, are you? Or the Burmese or Chechnya, etc?

 

[pfife]

pfife, are you anti killing or anti-Jew?

anti killing

edit to clarify: I'm against the killing of innocent civilians, regardless of the nationality or creed of those attacked or those attacking.

 

[Annie]

lots of incidents after Bush became president... far more than clinton ever saw. 'specially if you count every roadside bombing that occurred in Iraq.

I also see a lot of palestinian attacks on Israel in there, certainly you aren't laying those at clinton's doorstep, are you?

Jillian, took both and posted all I could see US citizen involvement.

 

[pfife]

I know. You say the attack was unjustified, yet you use all kinds of justifications for terrorists. silly me for thinking you're a disingenuous troll.

I have repeatedly stated they were not justified. If you chose to interpret that 180 degrees opposite, your free to do so. However, I'm not compelled to accept the exact opposite of my position as my position and defend it as it if were my position.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I have repeatedly stated they were not justified. If you chose to interpret that 180 degrees opposite, your free to do so. However, I'm not compelled to accept the exact opposite of my position as my position and defend it as it if were my position.

it isn't your position that is in question ... it is your selectivity when it comes to your expressions of moral outrage. where are the posts where you do so against the bombers and targeters of innocent civilians: terrorists? your posts are all directed at Israel, not killing civilians in general.

disingenuous.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

anti killing

edit to clarify: I'm against the killing of innocent civilians, regardless of the nationality or creed of those attacked or those attacking.

and you spend time, bandwidth and your inexhaustible moral outrage expressing this position on the pages here?

 

[pfife]

it isn't your position that is in question ... it is your selectivity when it comes to your expressions of moral outrage. where are the posts where you do so against the bombers and targeters of innocent civilians: terrorists? your posts are all directed at Israel, not killing civilians in general.

disingenuous.

So the absence of a post declaring my position means you get to attribute a position to me? That's the height of disingenuousness and irony.


Obviously I condemn the killing of Israelis by Hamas.

 

[pfife]

and you spend time, bandwidth and your inexhaustible moral outrage expressing this position on the pages here?

And you spend time, bandwidth, and your inexhaustible moral outrage attributing the exact opposite of this position to me on the pages here?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So the absence of a post declaring my position means you get to attribute a position to me? That's the height of disingenuousness and irony.


Obviously I condemn the killing of Israelis by Hamas.

Where are the posts where you felt the need to volunteer these sentiments? I just did a quick perusal of all 74 of your posts. You joined on Jan 9th, so maybe you have not had time to express your moral outrage at the killing going on all over the world.

My first impression of you was that you were one of those peaceniks or an all-war-is-bad nitwit or a combination of things mixed with a killing is bad moral superiority complex. Most people think killing is bad. Most people would rather not kill others. Most people do not support the killers. What do you think makes you so special? You take away nuance and state the obvious. What is it you are saying actually that others would not given the right framing of a sentence or a question?

I thought that first impression was missing something and then as time went on all you did was hang around the trolls who express an outright hatred of Israel while hiding behind a few Jewish supporters of part of their own positions. It came to me that you have an agenda that is outside of the killing-is-bad rant. Maybe you are unaware, but I doubt it. We could put another nation into the equation in place of Israel and you would be outraged I'm sure, but to what degree? You do not see it. The mere mention of Israel always gets a rise out of some people. They think Israel is somehow evil or that Israel is not what they think it should be.

then again, maybe I'm wrong about you and time will tell, won't it?

we'll see.

I am a very patient man and a decent man. When it comes time to pounce or apologize do not be surprised at my actions.

we'll see.

 

[pfife]

Where are the posts where you felt the need to volunteer these sentiments? I just did a quick perusal of all 74 of your posts. You joined on Jan 9th, so maybe you have not had time to express your moral outrage at the killing going on all over the world.

Again, if I don't express an opinion on something, that means you're free to make up and opinion for me and act like its my opinion?

My first impression of you was that you were one of those peaceniks or an all-war-is-bad nitwit or a combination of things mixed with a killing is bad moral superiority complex. Most people think killing is bad. Most people would rather not kill others. Most people do not support the killers. What do you think makes you so special?

What makes you think that I think I'm so special?

Most people support your position on the current Israel/Hamas violence. What makes you so special? Why are you here wasting bandwidth merely repeating what almost everyone believes?

You take away nuance and state the obvious. What is it you are saying actually that others would not given the right framing of a sentence or a question?

I've clearly stated that I believe Israel does not have the right to attack people who are not attacking them - which is clearly something a lot of people here do not agree with, hence their debate with me.

I thought that first impression was missing something and then as time went on all you did was hang around the trolls who express an outright hatred of Israel while hiding behind a few Jewish supporters of part of their own positions. It came to me that you have an agenda that is outside of the killing-is-bad rant. Maybe you are unaware, but I doubt it. We could put another nation into the equation in place of Israel and you would be outraged I'm sure, but to what degree? You do not see it. The mere mention of Israel always gets a rise out of some people. They think Israel is somehow evil or that Israel is not what they think it should be.

So basically you're admitting that you attributed positions to me. You should just not attribute positions to me.

FWIW - I absolutely do not hate Israel or Jews. I personally think they should kick the fuckin shit out of Hamas. What I don't think they should do is kick the fuckin shit out of innocent civilians.

then again, maybe I'm wrong about you and time will tell, won't it?

we'll see.

I am a very patient man and a decent man. When it comes time to pounce or apologize do not be surprised at my actions.

we'll see.

I never had any beef with you. Time will tell, but in all honesty, in my short time here, I've found it very difficult to have a respectful discussion with you because you repeatedly attributed many positions to me that, coincidentally, are not my position and make me look bad.

I look forward to more conversations with you - you are clearly passionate about politics, and I am as well. I just greatly prefer if you discuss what I've stated, not what you make up and attribute to me.

 

[KittenKoder]

Attacking the terrorists = giving them what they want.
Giving what one wants = letting them win.

 

[Red Dawn]

Are you not counting the 1993 WTC bombing?

Let me see if I have this straight.

Cons are fond of whining that the 2001 WTC attack, which occurred 8 months into the Bush Regime, was Clinton's fault.

But, the 1993 WTC, which occurred a mere 30 days after clinton took office, was also Clinton's fault?

By Con standards, wouldn't the 1993 attack have been planned under Poppy Bush's adminstration?

 

[Annie]

Let me see if I have this straight.

Cons are fond of whining that the 2001 WTC attack, which occurred 8 months into the Bush Regime, was Clinton's fault.

But, the 1993 WTC, which occurred a mere 30 days after clinton took office, was also Clinton's fault?

By Con standards, wouldn't the 1993 attack have been planned under Poppy Bush's adminstration?

If I'm a 'con' by your definitions, never said either. Funny thing, I think an attack on America, is just that.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

FWIW - I absolutely do not hate Israel or Jews. I personally think they should kick the fuckin shit out of Hamas. What I don't think they should do is kick the fuckin shit out of innocent civilians.

there you are. an internal conflict. how would you propose Israel do this? and if there were no other way...how many Israeli's would need to be terrorized before you'd...you would feel comfortable with HAMAS supporters getting in the way of self defense military might?

we did ask the Africans, Italians, French or Germans who did not support the Nazi machine if it were okay for us during WWII to kill a few of them on the way to peace. Do you think the killing of innocent civilians by Allied troops during WWII was so wrong as to make WWII an unjustifiable war on the part of the Allies?

I never had any beef with you. Time will tell, but in all honesty, in my short time here, I've found it very difficult to have a respectful discussion with you because you repeatedly attributed many positions to me that, coincidentally, are not my position and make me look bad.

I look forward to more conversations with you - you are clearly passionate about politics, and I am as well. I just greatly prefer if you discuss what I've stated, not what you make up and attribute to me.

lol

 

[pfife]

there you are. an internal conflict. how would you propose Israel do this? and if there were no other way...how many Israeli's would need to be terrorized before you'd...you would feel comfortable with HAMAS supporters getting in the way of self defense military might?

That's not an internal conflict whatsoever. I completely and totally reject the argument that because Israel can't discriminate between innocent and not innocent in their preferred method of attack, that they have a right to ignore this difference for their own convenience.

we did ask the Africans, Italians, French or Germans who did not support the Nazi machine if it were okay for us during WWII to kill a few of them on the way to peace. Do you think the killing of innocent civilians by Allied troops during WWII was so wrong as to make WWII an unjustifiable war on the part of the Allies?

No. But considering I never once called Israel's "war" on Gaza unjustified, I fail to see the efficacy of your comparison. Again, I've repeatedly said they've got the right to defend themselves against those who've attacked them. If they attack those who haven't attacked them, that has no bearing whatsoever on their right to attack those who have attacked them.

 

[Annie]

That's not an internal conflict whatsoever. I completely and totally reject the argument that because Israel can't discriminate between innocent and not innocent in their preferred method of attack, that they have a right to ignore this difference for their own convenience.



No. But considering I never once called Israel's "war" on Gaza unjustified, I fail to see the efficacy of your comparison. Again, I've repeatedly said they've got the right to defend themselves against those who've attacked them. If they attack those who haven't attacked them, that has no bearing whatsoever on their right to attack those who have attacked them.

When those that 'attack' do so from sites where innocents are and hide among innocents, innocents will be killed. To do the hiding is a war crime, but that doesn't help the innocents.

It also doesn't make Israel the culprit.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

That's not an internal conflict whatsoever. I completely and totally reject the argument that because Israel can't discriminate between innocent and not innocent in their preferred method of attack, that they have a right to ignore this difference for their own convenience.

the difference is not for convenience. Israel is being attacked. Self defense if you agree with it (and you have agreed Israel is defending itself) is not a matter of convenience, it is a matter of survival. Sure Israel can stand by and take a few more rocket attacks, but how many...three, a hundred, a thousand? What number would you say justifies Israel going after HAMAS where ever they are...as we went into Afghanistan after 911.


did you disagree with going into Afghanistan after 911?

No. But considering I never once called Israel's "war" on Gaza unjustified, I fail to see the efficacy of your comparison. Again, I've repeatedly said they've got the right to defend themselves against those who've attacked them. If they attack those who haven't attacked them, that has no bearing whatsoever on their right to attack those who have attacked them.

Israel is not attacking anyone but HAMAS targets. HAMS is hiding behind human shields. Should Israel just wait and take a few more rocket attacks because HAMAS is hiding?

there is conflict inherent in your positions. nuance

defense often involves offensive actions. Israel has no other choice except to accept more rocket attacks or capitulate to terrorism.

 

[pfife]

the difference is not for convenience. Israel is being attacked. Self defense if you agree with it (and you have agreed Israel is defending itself)

That's not quite true. I said they have the right to defend themselves. I have not said that their current actions constitute self defense.

is not a matter of convenience, it is a matter of survival.

Perhaps convenience is not the right word. What I'm trying to say is that they resort to bombing from planes in order to reduce their own military casualties, and in doing so kill more civilians. I fail to see why their desire to reduce their military casualties gives them the right to increase their opponents civilian casualties.

Sure Israel can stand by and take a few more rocket attacks, but how many...three, a hundred, a thousand? What number would you say justifies Israel going after HAMAS where ever they are...as we went into Afghanistan after 911.

1.

did you disagree with going into Afghanistan after 911?

No.

Israel is not attacking anyone but HAMAS targets. HAMS is hiding behind human shields. Should Israel just wait and take a few more rocket attacks because HAMAS is hiding?

They're attacking others besides Hamas. They may only intended to attack Hamas, but they're attacking others in addition to Hamas.

there is conflict inherent in your positions. nuance

I disagree.

defense often involves offensive actions. Israel has no other choice except to accept more rocket attacks or capitulate to terrorism.

Defense, by definition, is against those who attacked. How can one claim self defense when killing people who've not attacked?