Former Mossad chief: Kill Ahmadinejad

[Shogun]

"An act of violence that takes another's life is ALWAYS an extreme measure, regardless who does it. The real question here is: Is using an extreme meausre justified?"

ill agree to that.. and does this justification have everything to do with perspective and identity rather than simple us vs them good vs evil? Did those Japanese civilians come to applaud two nukes?

of course not. even if WE in america can rationalize dropping them all day long. likewise, even if WE can rationalize Israel calling for an assasination it still makes us no better than those we accuse of acting like terrorists when THEY do the same thing.



In your first example, we dropped two nukes on Japan. It was estimated it would cost 1M US lives to invade and take Japan. The tactic used was strategically sound to accomplish the mission: defeat Japan with least amount of loss to US lives.

and.. the US can easily rationalize such a position.. as can muslims who blow themselves up in a jewish crowd rather than form an army to be wiped out by superior american weapons. Are you willing to rationalize 9/11 in the same fashion you rationalize hiroshima and nagasaki? of course not.. even if you admit that taking life is always an extreme measure. were Jap civs worth less than OUR civs? are Iranian leaders more qualified for assasination than OUR leaders?



In your second, it is also tactically and strategically sound to fight a war on someone else's soil rather than your own. Would you prefer those civilian casualties be US casualties?


I would prefere to play by the same standard we expect others to play by. Again, rationalization aside.. WE are the only nation to ever USE a nuke against civs. Our moral authority on acceptable means to an end is seriously lacking. Would I prefere US soil or American dead? of course not.. JUST LIKE japan and muslims dont their own either. perspective, sir.. rationalized violence against civs is still violence against civs.



The cold, hard fact is yes. When it comes to war, the lives of the enemy have less value than the lives of your own forces and/or your own civilians.

even if the stated purpose of the conflict to begin with is liberating those same civs? so, likewise, civilians in japan and iraq are less important just because we are the side doing the killing rather than the dying? how imperialistic. seems that tyrant always believes theri own shit doesnt stink. Im sorry, I am not willing to rationalize away civs for convenience any more that I am willing to rationalalize OUR dead civilians. especially when every other excuse for said conflict relies on some moral authority concerning treatment of civs as opposed to their treatment under muslim rulers.


What kind of TV they watch or shoes they wear is irrelevant. The ideals you represent vs the ideals the enemy represents is what matters.

What ideal sdid japanese civilians represent that is not similarly represented by those who died in 9/11?





"Torture has not been rationalized. The use of coersion has been. Here's some rationalization for you to think about ..."


you are splitting hairs according to what you want to use as nomenclature. I bet I could have you admitting that you love to cuddle with men if I had enough waterboard time with you. we can rationalize torture just liek saddam did. call it tomAto if you want to...



You're the Company Gunny. You capture an enemy combatant who can tell you how and where the forces he belongs to are deployed. You have a mission, and you are on a schedule. There are 150 Marines counting on YOU to bring them home alive so they can see Momma and the kids again.

such is the price for claiming a moral authority and trumpeting your righteousness over those who already admit to killing and torture. the end result is exactly the same. all you are doing is rationalizing it. so, then, a vietnamese prison camp has every right to have tortured john mccain for information as to the military strategy of the US? turnabout, sir.


Do you stick a Ka-Bar to that enemy soldiers throat and threaten to cut it if he doesn't talk?
Damned right you do. EVERY time.

just like john mccain's hanoi vacation? would THEY too have the exact same motivations as you do to rationalize torture? How do you figure that OUR behaviour is any better than theirs if the product is the EXACT SAME while preserving the moral authority that has been the siren that brought us the war? so, if he STILL doesnt talk do we take plays from Udays playbook? maybe a little ramboesque car battary on the metal boxsprings?

It seems that your "kill them first" perspective is exactly why we dont see too many natives eating dinner at mcdonalds these days.


"NAPALM is an effective weapon. It's been used since the close of WWII."

I guess so too are airliners into buildings, eh?



"Perspective? I'm not willing to place the concerns of my enemy before my own. I don't go out and choose these enemies. They choose me. I'm not willing to sacrifice my life nor what I believe in so my enemy can have his."

do you think that an iraqi (or vitnamese for that domino theory matter) might ask you when, exactly, they chose you as an enemy? Are you trying to whipe your hands like pontius pilot here? When did Iraq declare war agasint the US again? vietnam? japanese cits who are a DIRECT equivilent to our 9/11 civs?



"You're trying to confuse apples-n-oranges. There is no "do as I say not as I do, and relegating fighting for what you believe in to cheerleading is trivializing."

does that apply to muslims who hyjack planes too?


The Trail of Tears, was no more barbaric than US Civil War prison camps where the white man treated his own barbarically by today's standards.

indeed.. fair enough.. I think we have covered white mans willingness to kill those unlike himself... however, I daresay that the manifest destiny involved with western expansion is a LOT different than the self regulating of a succession from our early American government.



What double standard would that be?

that it is OK for Israel to call for an assasination while iran would be deemed a terrorist state for the EXACT SAME message? that Israel has been allowed to have nukes with Americas authority while we are the only nation to ever USE nukes and have no gumption about invading muslim nations? any of that sound familiar?


I'd say since one of the US's stated goals is to support democracy world-wide, there is no double standard.


support democracy as long as the voting results are to our liing, ala, the result of democracy in Palestine AND IRAN?



I'd say apologizing for a people who have thrived on nothing but hatred, murder and anti-semitism for 50+ years WOULD be a double standard wfor anyone who believes in democracy.


as opposed to open hatred of muslims in America and the total blind support of a nation that has a host of suspicious activities? As opposed to the open aparthied and total refusal to consider the palestinian reality? By ignoring how WE would react to ATZLAN while calling anything that is not a rabid support for zionism an antisemite? You can hate them, dude.. but they can hate you too.. in the end, Id rather not let this social darwinsim destroy a culture like we destroyed OUR indegenous cultures.




I already addressed this.

I didnt see you admit that THOSE civs were just as innocent of the machine of their culture as OUR civs were on 9/11... We cannot act like tyrants while selling wars on the excuse of removing tyrants.



And apologizing for your enemy makes you a perfect fall guy for them, and when they're done with you, you're just as dead as the next body.


this is why I choose to consider the source of conflict rather than merely let god sort em out. I guess im humanitarian that way.. peace isnt always convenient but I think it is preferable than nuking civilians and using cluster bombs, napalm and random rationalized collateral damage to forward the ideals of democracy. meet the new boss, smae as the old boss.
__________________

 

[Shogun]

"The Jews wanted a homeland. The did not choose Israel. The UK did. They took what they could get."


then perhaps it is time to move israel somewhere whose creation doesnt spark fire to those living there already... say TEXAS?
So, would Mexicans and Natives who are also looking for a homeland be validated in defending the American southwest if they were given that land by CHINA?


The difference between the two is that Israel has fought and maintained it's territorial integrity and independence. Native American had no territorial integrity, and they did not win their wars.


dude... Israel had the support of the west much like white men in colonial America had superior weapons from europe. howe EXACTLY does this have anyhting to do with the validity of an original claim to the land? might makes right? is that still applicable when the rise of China decides to sell the American southwest to ATzlan? If jews can claim the burning bush deed to validate Israel then why cant others do the exact same thing to OUR american terriroty?



Israel was given to the Jews as the result of a war. The principle of "to the victor go the spoils" , not the right of eminent domain was the justification.


how roman of you to admit as much.. so, then if muslims had kicked the jews out of israel hundreds of years ago how can they still lay claim to that land based off of their burning bush mythology or, indeed, even an ancient claim based on ancient archeology? the muslims WON the spoils, right? so, then if iran nukes the fuck out of israel and russia and china hold the US at bay... then said prize is accordingly rewarded to the muslim victor? I dont think so.




That would be an act of war, and you bet there'd be assassination plans in the works.

so... it is an act of war to US when ATZLAN is created....

but NOT an act of war to muslims when Israel was created?

double standard.




"If Iran was an ideological ally and provided support for Israel in your hypothetical, yes, it would."

the state of Israel is not some prerequisite for democracy, peace or validation of a muslim government. Again, if WE had our southwest snatched from us you would be quick to pruge and kill YOUR percieved invaders just as THEY are. the golden rule, remember?



That's ridiculous. Israel has never fought other than a defensive war and has been beset upon since it's beginning. Sabre rattling? I think not.


uh, just like the US has never used a nuke against civilians expect when it needed to save an ESTIMATED amount of AMERICAN lives, eh? again, perspective. so, if ATZLAN were DEFENDING itself from an America who feels violated can they too claim to have only fought defensive wars in order to retain their ATZLAN homeland?


The golden rule is irrelevant. It becomes so when others set out to do unto you by force someithing you are opposed to.

perhaps it is the very decision to ignore consideration and the golden rule that provides us an excuse to kill and let god sort em out, eh gunny? Are you not catching how you bounch back and forth between demonizing violence agaisnt a percieved enemy while defending violence against a percieced enemy when the midigating factor is merely your personal perspective? do you think that mexicans, natives and muslims might have an opinion about something that has been TAKEN BY FORCE too?




"I don't need to fantasize about killing anyone. Violence is a means of last resort, but when it is a means a last resort, I'm damned good at what I'm trained to do."


violence wasnt the means of last resort with the American natives who were being pushed from their land, neither the vietnamese who paid the price for the American concept of domino theory, nor the collateral damage eating cluster bomb mulsims easily written off these days... Tell me, dude.. and Im usre you are a skilled killer and I do not doubt the might of the American Military one bit... but tell me.. which seems to produce actual long term peace... violence or consideration? in fact, is the very grease in the gears of democracy closer to VIOLENCE or CONSIDERATION?



That "turnabout is fairplay" stuff is for armchair quarterbacks. I fully-expect my enemy to be trying just a hard to kill me as I am him. When it comes down to THAT point, all your politics and hypotheticals are discarded as so much rubbish.


oh i know i know.. is this where you tell me that I just cant handle the truth? My objective is to turn what you want as enemies into allies rather than rationalize violence for the sake of national identity. Again, Ill ask when exactly natives, mexicans, iraqis and vietnamese rose up and said, hey.. lets go kill some americans and get them over here to shit on our nations for a while with excuses for behaviour that would qualify as terrorism for anyone else.



The difference I am trying to illustrate regarding the self-destructiveness of your concern for your enemy's ideology is this:
While you would be hesitating to kill, identifying with his personal malfunctions, giving him the opportunity to kill you, I'd have already dropped his ass at a 1000m.


and, in doing so you would be no better than the tyrant you think you are protecting these people from since, chances are, your "enemy" is one of those people you think you are protecting. we dont always have to kill everything that doesnt conform to our opiions, dude. THAT is a fact beyond assuming that a gun is the last final answer to anything that is not falling in line behind you.


with all due respect, of course.

 

[90K]

If he was so hellbent on killing jews for the sake of their jewishness... why are there jews living in Iran and other muslim nations?

Biblically speaking the Jews were scattered to all corners of the earth.
That would be like asking Hilter why he hated the Jews! You'd get some babble that wouldn't make any sense but only to Hilter.

 

[Shogun]

I dont really put much water in biblical logic..

im not one of those dudes that think a showdown to the apocolypse is where this in inevitably heading.

again, if iran merely HATES jews.. then why are there jews in iran not being killed of like in hitlers germany?

 

[90K]

pretty much a racism deal. Do you have any Jewish friends? If not find a few and learn about them. Honestly they are very intriguing folks considering they are some, if not the oldest race on this plant.

 

[Shogun]

im, in fact, dating a jew so please spare me the antisemite label..



I would consider many ethnicites intruiging and worthy of consideration beyond any one single people. Im not sold on old testement history but am just as concerned with peace for jews as I am peace for muslims. I agree, their culture and traditions are fascinating and count many among my cirlce of friends. I assure you that my motivation is not to demonize jews.


if iran were simply racist then, again, why are there jews still living in Iran? America had to pen up it's slaves and such.. correct me if I am wrong but I believe that Iranian and lebonese jews are free to leave at any time, yes?

 

[90K]

im, in fact, dating a jew so please spare me the antisemite label..



I would consider many ethnicites intruiging and worthy of consideration beyond any one single people. Im not sold on old testement history but am just as concerned with peace for jews as I am peace for muslims. I agree, their culture and traditions are fascinating and count many among my cirlce of friends. I assure you that my motivation is not to demonize jews.


if iran were simply racist then, again, why are there jews still living in Iran? America had to pen up it's slaves and such.. correct me if I am wrong but I believe that Iranian and lebonese jews are free to leave at any time, yes?

Be like asking you if you lived someplace that wasn't condusive to your well being, you stay because of many reasons, fear of change, fear of starting over , fear of the unknown, mostly because why should you leave if you were born there?
If you are really dating a princess then what did she tell you?
Your post remind me of some who needs to always be saying something even when silence is a good thing.
Am I being nasty? No I'm really curious what your angle is? You are making comments like it is that easy for a race to pick up and leave. I would suspect the Jews in Iran are successful in there trades. And leaving would mean uncertain futures in the new land they move to.

And whatever your religious deal is doesn't matter to me but I know what I've read and to my friends the history so those were my points.

 

[Shogun]

Be like asking you if you lived someplace that wasn't condusive to your well being, you stay because of many reasons, fear of change, fear of starting over , fear of the unknown, mostly because why should you leave if you were born there?
If you are really dating a princess then what did she tell you?
Your post remind me of some who needs to always be saying something even when silence is a good thing.
Am I being nasty? No I'm really curious what your angle is? You are making comments like it is that easy for a race to pick up and leave. I would suspect the Jews in Iran are successful in there trades. And leaving would mean uncertain futures in the new land they move to.

And whatever your religious deal is doesn't matter to me but I know what I've read and to my friends the history so those were my points.

packing up and moving on, say, like a palestinian after the creation of Israel?

Im SURE that jews who felt in danger of another hitler holocaust from the very nation they live in would make at least an effort to clue in Israel and make a case beyond what we certainly have not yet seen.

fear of unknown is greater than fear of a man who is constantly personified as simply hating jews and wanting jews dead? come on... that shit just doesnt float, dude. FEAR of starting over is greater than an apparent FEAR for your life being taken by someone who, by all reported accounts out of Israel, merely hates jews and wants to kill jews?

I could care less if you believe me or not about my gf.. She has a backbone enough to ask these same questions for the sake of humanity instead of donning the team jersey blindly.

and, considering the quickness to facilitate a double standard and willingness to instigate a conflict you are goddamn right communication is better than silently letting the machine work.. that IS one of the lessons from the holocaust, yes?


you can be curious about my angle all day long but I have been respectful of your posts and I ask that you be the same. Believe it or not critical thought does not imply antisemitism... especially in light of your somewhat illogical reply to my question. I am making posts as if it is easy for a race to pick up and leave? How in the hell would a hateful racist president in Iran that simply hates jews allow jews to be successful in a hostile nation?

again, not easy to pick up and leave?

like the muslims have been forced to do since the creation of Israel?

 

[Gunny]

"The Jews wanted a homeland. The did not choose Israel. The UK did. They took what they could get."


then perhaps it is time to move israel somewhere whose creation doesnt spark fire to those living there already... say TEXAS?
So, would Mexicans and Natives who are also looking for a homeland be validated in defending the American southwest if they were given that land by CHINA?

I'm all for giving them California.

The difference between the two is that Israel has fought and maintained it's territorial integrity and independence. Native American had no territorial integrity, and they did not win their wars.


dude... Israel had the support of the west much like white men in colonial America had superior weapons from europe. howe EXACTLY does this have anyhting to do with the validity of an original claim to the land? might makes right? is that still applicable when the rise of China decides to sell the American southwest to ATzlan? If jews can claim the burning bush deed to validate Israel then why cant others do the exact same thing to OUR american terriroty?

You may wish to recheck your assertion. The US opposed the establishment of Israel originally, and no one supported it in any way. The Jews had to TAKE what they had been given by force with what they had.


Israel was given to the Jews as the result of a war. The principle of "to the victor go the spoils" , not the right of eminent domain was the justification.


how roman of you to admit as much.. so, then if muslims had kicked the jews out of israel hundreds of years ago how can they still lay claim to that land based off of their burning bush mythology or, indeed, even an ancient claim based on ancient archeology? the muslims WON the spoils, right? so, then if iran nukes the fuck out of israel and russia and china hold the US at bay... then said prize is accordingly rewarded to the muslim victor? I dont think so.

Israel's legal claim to the land is not heredity ... it is the Balfour Agreement and whatever UN Resolution shored it up.

Again, check your history. He who has the biggest bomb wins, and almost every inch of land worth having on this Earth has been claimed by conquest from prior inhabitants.



That would be an act of war, and you bet there'd be assassination plans in the works.

so... it is an act of war to US when ATZLAN is created....

but NOT an act of war to muslims when Israel was created?

double standard.

You keep missing the important parts. Israel was created as the RESULT OF WAR. The Arabs were on the losing side. Losers are at the mercy of th victors. The way wars have worked since the first one.


"If Iran was an ideological ally and provided support for Israel in your hypothetical, yes, it would."

the state of Israel is not some prerequisite for democracy, peace or validation of a muslim government. Again, if WE had our southwest snatched from us you would be quick to pruge and kill YOUR percieved invaders just as THEY are. the golden rule, remember?

I didn't say Israel was a prerequisite to anything. I said it was a democracy and the US as a policy supports all democracies. The US did not recognize nor support Israel until it established it's parliamentary democracy, and was set upon by Egypt and the Arab nations... of which Iran is not a part, btw. Iranians are Persians, not Arabs.


That's ridiculous. Israel has never fought other than a defensive war and has been beset upon since it's beginning. Sabre rattling? I think not.


uh, just like the US has never used a nuke against civilians expect when it needed to save an ESTIMATED amount of AMERICAN lives, eh? again, perspective. so, if ATZLAN were DEFENDING itself from an America who feels violated can they too claim to have only fought defensive wars in order to retain their ATZLAN homeland?

Dude, you're wearing this ATZLAN out. It isn't going to happen. Shall we deal with reality? If the US lost a war, and was at the mercy of the victors and the victors established a separate nation from a portion of the US, there just wouldn't be a whole lot the US could do about, is there?

If you are saying would I wage a war of attrition against noncombatants because I didn't like it, no I would not. That's called being lowlife murdering scumbags and pussies.

If I chose to wage a war against the military forces of that nation and they continually kicked my ass as Israel has done the Arab nations, I would probably find something better to do.

The golden rule is irrelevant. It becomes so when others set out to do unto you by force someithing you are opposed to.

perhaps it is the very decision to ignore consideration and the golden rule that provides us an excuse to kill and let god sort em out, eh gunny? Are you not catching how you bounch back and forth between demonizing violence agaisnt a percieved enemy while defending violence against a percieced enemy when the midigating factor is merely your personal perspective? do you think that mexicans, natives and muslims might have an opinion about something that has been TAKEN BY FORCE too?

There's no bouncing back and forth at all. My ethics where the use of violence are concerned are in no way related to my ability to use violence, nor they in any way related to the necessity to use violence.

I can believe ideologically in a perfect world while still dealing with the reality of the world in which I live.



"I don't need to fantasize about killing anyone. Violence is a means of last resort, but when it is a means a last resort, I'm damned good at what I'm trained to do."


violence wasnt the means of last resort with the American natives who were being pushed from their land, neither the vietnamese who paid the price for the American concept of domino theory, nor the collateral damage eating cluster bomb mulsims easily written off these days... Tell me, dude.. and Im usre you are a skilled killer and I do not doubt the might of the American Military one bit... but tell me.. which seems to produce actual long term peace... violence or consideration? in fact, is the very grease in the gears of democracy closer to VIOLENCE or CONSIDERATION?

I was not consulted when Native Americans were pushed from their land, nor was I consulted about the Vietnam war, nor have I been consulted about the current war; therefore, your response in that rgard is irrelevant to my statement of personal beleif concerning the use of violence.

Sine neither consideration nor peace have EVER produced actual long term peace throughout the history of mankind, you are attempting to superimpose ideology over reality.

Peace is achieved through tolerance of each other by BOTH sides. In every instance you have mentioned, oneor both sides are intolerant of each other.

That "turnabout is fairplay" stuff is for armchair quarterbacks. I fully-expect my enemy to be trying just a hard to kill me as I am him. When it comes down to THAT point, all your politics and hypotheticals are discarded as so much rubbish.


oh i know i know.. is this where you tell me that I just cant handle the truth? My objective is to turn what you want as enemies into allies rather than rationalize violence for the sake of national identity. Again, Ill ask when exactly natives, mexicans, iraqis and vietnamese rose up and said, hey.. lets go kill some americans and get them over here to shit on our nations for a while with excuses for behaviour that would qualify as terrorism for anyone else.

I'm not saying you can't handle the truth. I'm saying you are confusing ideology with reality.

Mexico -- 1836.

Iraq -- Aug 1990 by invading a US ally

Vietnam -- 1965 when the VC turned their attention from attacking and terrorizing S Vietnamese civilians to attacking US military advisors.


The difference I am trying to illustrate regarding the self-destructiveness of your concern for your enemy's ideology is this:
While you would be hesitating to kill, identifying with his personal malfunctions, giving him the opportunity to kill you, I'd have already dropped his ass at a 1000m.

and, in doing so you would be no better than the tyrant you think you are protecting these people from since, chances are, your "enemy" is one of those people you think you are protecting. we dont always have to kill everything that doesnt conform to our opiions, dude. THAT is a fact beyond assuming that a gun is the last final answer to anything that is not falling in line behind you.

with all due respect, of course.

Your assessment is way off. I would not be trying to kill someone who disagreed with me. I would be killing someone trying to kill me. BIG difference.

 

[Shogun]

ill reply tomorrow, gunny.

have a great evening.

 

[90K]

and, considering the again, not easy to pick up and leave?

So what can you do to change anything? I'm not expecting exceptance here but this can't be resolved by you, nor me or anyone else on this board.
Why do you care? What is in it for you?
There is nothing in it for me, I see most of this as history and how things are to be played out. These were written long before you or I were ever a twinkle in our fathers eyes.
To me these people have a history and that is that.
Like I said earlier go find someone who was a spy, spook or whatever you call them and you'll be given hints to answers in this world that will amaze you. Then you can ponder the big picture. These issues are well outside any of our realms.
These are frustrating topics about a hatred I'm not sure if you grasp, I see it but I don't fully understand it nor do I want too.
Cheers

 

[Gunny]

"An act of violence that takes another's life is ALWAYS an extreme measure, regardless who does it. The real question here is: Is using an extreme meausre justified?"

ill agree to that.. and does this justification have everything to do with perspective and identity rather than simple us vs them good vs evil? Did those Japanese civilians come to applaud two nukes?

Nope. When it comes to the point of armed conflict, it's us vs them, good vs evil. What the Japanese thought about the weapons we used to end their barbaric imperialism is immaterial to our winning.

of course not. even if WE in america can rationalize dropping them all day long. likewise, even if WE can rationalize Israel calling for an assasination it still makes us no better than those we accuse of acting like terrorists when THEY do the same thing.

Last I check, and ex-Mossad chief does NOT speak for the Government of Israel.

In your first example, we dropped two nukes on Japan. It was estimated it would cost 1M US lives to invade and take Japan. The tactic used was strategically sound to accomplish the mission: defeat Japan with least amount of loss to US lives.

and.. the US can easily rationalize such a position.. as can muslims who blow themselves up in a jewish crowd rather than form an army to be wiped out by superior american weapons. Are you willing to rationalize 9/11 in the same fashion you rationalize hiroshima and nagasaki? of course not.. even if you admit that taking life is always an extreme measure. were Jap civs worth less than OUR civs? are Iranian leaders more qualified for assasination than OUR leaders?

I don't rationalize the cowardly waging of war against noncombatants at all. It's murder ... nothing more.


In your second, it is also tactically and strategically sound to fight a war on someone else's soil rather than your own. Would you prefer those civilian casualties be US casualties?


I would prefere to play by the same standard we expect others to play by. Again, rationalization aside.. WE are the only nation to ever USE a nuke against civs. Our moral authority on acceptable means to an end is seriously lacking. Would I prefere US soil or American dead? of course not.. JUST LIKE japan and muslims dont their own either. perspective, sir.. rationalized violence against civs is still violence against civs.

Our moral authority in defeating the Japanese was lacking? Perhpas you should check out the Rape of Nanking, or the bombing of Pearl Harbor, or the Bataan Death March.

This statement contradicts your previous one in which you try and rationalize Pali Arabs waging war against civilians; yet, denigrate us for waging war against an enemy where civilians are unfortunate casualties of war.


The cold, hard fact is yes. When it comes to war, the lives of the enemy have less value than the lives of your own forces and/or your own civilians.

even if the stated purpose of the conflict to begin with is liberating those same civs? so, likewise, civilians in japan and iraq are less important just because we are the side doing the killing rather than the dying? how imperialistic. seems that tyrant always believes theri own shit doesnt stink. Im sorry, I am not willing to rationalize away civs for convenience any more that I am willing to rationalalize OUR dead civilians. especially when every other excuse for said conflict relies on some moral authority concerning treatment of civs as opposed to their treatment under muslim rulers.

And you would lose everything you have and the ideals you hold dear would be nothing because you refuse to deal with reality rather than your idealistic beliefs.

What kind of TV they watch or shoes they wear is irrelevant. The ideals you represent vs the ideals the enemy represents is what matters.

What ideal sdid japanese civilians represent that is not similarly represented by those who died in 9/11?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial centers critical to Japan's war-making ability. It was an act of war during a declared war by both sides, each knowing the price for losing.

9/11 was a sneak attack by a criminal organization against the noncombatant population of the US for the sole purpose of creating as many US civilian casualties as possible.

"Torture has not been rationalized. The use of coersion has been. Here's some rationalization for you to think about ..."

you are splitting hairs according to what you want to use as nomenclature. I bet I could have you admitting that you love to cuddle with men if I had enough waterboard time with you. we can rationalize torture just liek saddam did. call it tomAto if you want to...

And I could say YOU are splitting hairs using something as benign as waterboarding to call "torture."

You're the Company Gunny. You capture an enemy combatant who can tell you how and where the forces he belongs to are deployed. You have a mission, and you are on a schedule. There are 150 Marines counting on YOU to bring them home alive so they can see Momma and the kids again.

such is the price for claiming a moral authority and trumpeting your righteousness over those who already admit to killing and torture. the end result is exactly the same. all you are doing is rationalizing it. so, then, a vietnamese prison camp has every right to have tortured john mccain for information as to the military strategy of the US? turnabout, sir.

There's no turnabout. The Vietnamese tortured US POWs for entertainment. I would never consider the notion, and that is not the scenario I put before you. I put YOU in MY shoes, and you failed to make a decision. Your men are dead.


Do you stick a Ka-Bar to that enemy soldiers throat and threaten to cut it if he doesn't talk?
Damned right you do. EVERY time.

just like john mccain's hanoi vacation? would THEY too have the exact same motivations as you do to rationalize torture? How do you figure that OUR behaviour is any better than theirs if the product is the EXACT SAME while preserving the moral authority that has been the siren that brought us the war? so, if he STILL doesnt talk do we take plays from Udays playbook? maybe a little ramboesque car battary on the metal boxsprings?

Addressed above.

It seems that your "kill them first" perspective is exactly why we dont see too many natives eating dinner at mcdonalds these days.

I have no "kill them first" mentality at all. My scenario doesn't say a thing about killing, does it? It's about NOT getting your own men killed. It is also a tactical combat scenario, not a discussion at Dunkin Donuts over coffee.

"NAPALM is an effective weapon. It's been used since the close of WWII."

I guess so too are airliners into buildings, eh?

You've transitioned into trying to justify 9/11 in which case, we're going to have a SERIOUS disagreement.


"Perspective? I'm not willing to place the concerns of my enemy before my own. I don't go out and choose these enemies. They choose me. I'm not willing to sacrifice my life nor what I believe in so my enemy can have his."

do you think that an iraqi (or vitnamese for that domino theory matter) might ask you when, exactly, they chose you as an enemy? Are you trying to whipe your hands like pontius pilot here? When did Iraq declare war agasint the US again? vietnam? japanese cits who are a DIRECT equivilent to our 9/11 civs?

More relativism. I'm not going to keep answering the same questions. I'm on my side and I'm a warrior. I could give rat's ass why they chose to be my enemy, only that they are.


"You're trying to confuse apples-n-oranges. There is no "do as I say not as I do, and relegating fighting for what you believe in to cheerleading is trivializing."

does that apply to muslims who hyjack planes too?


The Trail of Tears, was no more barbaric than US Civil War prison camps where the white man treated his own barbarically by today's standards.

indeed.. fair enough.. I think we have covered white mans willingness to kill those unlike himself... however, I daresay that the manifest destiny involved with western expansion is a LOT different than the self regulating of a succession from our early American government.

The barbarism with which the white man treated his own and Native Americans was the same.
What double standard would that be?

that it is OK for Israel to call for an assasination while iran would be deemed a terrorist state for the EXACT SAME message? that Israel has been allowed to have nukes with Americas authority while we are the only nation to ever USE nukes and have no gumption about invading muslim nations? any of that sound familiar?

Israel did not call for an assassination. An individual did.

I'd say since one of the US's stated goals is to support democracy world-wide, there is no double standard.


support democracy as long as the voting results are to our liing, ala, the result of democracy in Palestine AND IRAN?

Iran is not a democracy and its elections a joke. And the Palestinians voted a known terrorist, criminal organization in as its government. So yea, there's a BIG difference.



I'd say apologizing for a people who have thrived on nothing but hatred, murder and anti-semitism for 50+ years WOULD be a double standard wfor anyone who believes in democracy.


as opposed to open hatred of muslims in America and the total blind support of a nation that has a host of suspicious activities? As opposed to the open aparthied and total refusal to consider the palestinian reality? By ignoring how WE would react to ATZLAN while calling anything that is not a rabid support for zionism an antisemite? You can hate them, dude.. but they can hate you too.. in the end, Id rather not let this social darwinsim destroy a culture like we destroyed OUR indegenous cultures.

Again, I don't care who they hate. Only that they do.


I already addressed this.

I didnt see you admit that THOSE civs were just as innocent of the machine of their culture as OUR civs were on 9/11... We cannot act like tyrants while selling wars on the excuse of removing tyrants.

I hate to point this out at this late a date but, Iraqis are killing WAY more Iraq civilians than were killed as collateral damage by us.

And you won't see an admission to your enemy-apologetic viewpoint.



And apologizing for your enemy makes you a perfect fall guy for them, and when they're done with you, you're just as dead as the next body.


this is why I choose to consider the source of conflict rather than merely let god sort em out. I guess im humanitarian that way.. peace isnt always convenient but I think it is preferable than nuking civilians and using cluster bombs, napalm and random rationalized collateral damage to forward the ideals of democracy. meet the new boss, smae as the old boss.
__________________

Again, what you prefer, and how you think things should be appear to have a BIG conflict with how things are.

 

[Gunny]

Now let's separate the wheat from the chaff here ......

1. Aztlan: fantasy nation in SW US with no set boundaries, history, and a stiicky substance within an argument that evolves to support the users argument.

A separate topic in and of itself, and irrelevant to reality.


2. Shogun's personal ideology: used as a real standard throughout; although, does not necessarily reflect nor support reality.

Relevant only insofar as comparison to reality is concerned, but not a standard, nor necessarily correct.

3. 9/11 A criminal act committed by criminal militant extremist Muslim organization for the purpose of creating noncombatant casualties.

Not relevant to the atomic bombing of Japan which was an act of war, where both beligerents were in a state of war with one another, and the target was industrial, not human.

Each topic are separate topics in and of themselves and are not comparable acts.

4. The Vietnam War -- a separate topic in and of itself.

5. Iraq -- a separate topic in and of itself.

6. The Israel- Palestine Conflict -- a separate topic in and of itself.

Each of these topics is intermingled within one conversation and do not correlate as a single topic. This distracts and confuses the reader who is attempting to read your mind and figure out how one relates to the other, and what your point is. It also leads to repetition of the same questions which creates page-long posts.

Chose ONE topic, and continue, and argue that topic on its own merit, and maintain focus on that argument. Create a new thread for separate topics you wish to discuss on their own merit.

thanks.

 

[Paul Revere]

And he has called repeatedly for the eradication of Israel and the genocide of a people. That isn't an excuse ... its fact.

Was I one of those people he wishes to eradicate, I'd drop the hammer on him and his little gaggle of Mullah's in a heartbeat.

Not A Fact at all.
It is a lie repeated by the media.

Ahmadinejad did not threaten to "wipe Israel off the map. " This phrase just another jingoistic brand slogan for selling the next war in the Middle East.

He said, "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

Translated from Farsi to English, that is, "The Imam said this regime (Zionism)occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

The word map in Farsi is “nagsheh"

The actual quote was a quote of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been blamed for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office.

What if Ahmadinejad actually wanted initiate a nuclear war on Israel. THAT would be Iran's Suicide. The CIA's own estimates put Iran about ten years away from being able to produce one nuclear bomb, if they really are in the planning stages now, which is highly unlikely given that international inspectors have found no evidence of such a program and CIA satellite imagery also shows no proof of nuclear arms. Now contrast this to an Israeli arsenal of anything up to 200 launch ready nukes allied to the might of the U.S. which has nearly 6,000 active warheads not to mention numerous mini-nukes.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ahmadinejad+did+not+israel+off+the+map&btnG=Google+Search
By the way Iran has never attacked another country.

Also, 9/11 was an inside job.


Video back up:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ[/ame]

I will go Ahmadinejad even one further. I call for Regime Change in Washington.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Not A Fact at all.
It is a lie repeated by the media.

Ahmadinejad did not threaten to "wipe Israel off the map. " This phrase just another jingoistic brand slogan for selling the next war in the Middle East.

He said, "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

Translated from Farsi to English, that is, "The Imam said this regime (Zionism)occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Although the actual translation is debatable, the context of it is not. Saying something should be wiped off the map is pretty much the same as saying something should be vanished from the pages of time.
President Alphabet has repeatedly made reference to Israel and their existence several times afterwards so it's pretty clear what he meant and how he feels about Israel. There's no need to play spin doctor just because you share President Alphabet's agenda.

 

[Gunny]

Not A Fact at all.
It is a lie repeated by the media.

Ahmadinejad did not threaten to "wipe Israel off the map. " This phrase just another jingoistic brand slogan for selling the next war in the Middle East.

He said, "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

Translated from Farsi to English, that is, "The Imam said this regime (Zionism)occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Kinda' playing semantics here, aren't you?

The word map in Farsi is “nagsheh"

The actual quote was a quote of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been blamed for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office.

Which mean nothing except that if he is willing to repeat something regardless its age or origin, as policy, then it is as applicable to him as it is to Kohmeini.

What if Ahmadinejad actually wanted initiate a nuclear war on Israel. THAT would be Iran's Suicide. The CIA's own estimates put Iran about ten years away from being able to produce one nuclear bomb, if they really are in the planning stages now, which is highly unlikely given that international inspectors have found no evidence of such a program and CIA satellite imagery also shows no proof of nuclear arms. Now contrast this to an Israeli arsenal of anything up to 200 launch ready nukes allied to the might of the U.S. which has nearly 6,000 active warheads not to mention numerous mini-nukes.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ahmadinejad+did+not+israel+off+the+map&btnG=Google+Search
By the way Iran has never attacked another country.

I did not secify that Iran would attempt to carry out the policy with nukes. I merely stated the offical stance of Iran, regardless the mouthpiece.
Also, 9/11 was an inside job.


Video back up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ

I will go Ahmadinejad even one further. I call for Regime Change in Washington.

A separate topic, and I don't buy the conspiracy theory.

 

[hjmick]

By the way Iran has never attacked another country.

Really? Never attacked another country. Are you sure about that? Really sure? Because I can think of 52 U.S. citizens who would beg to differ with you. November 4, 1979. 444 days. More than one of those 52 U.S. citizens is certain Ahmadinejad was one of those "students."

Under international law, diplomatic missions enjoy an extraterritorial status and although remaining part of the host country's territory, they are exempt from local laws and in almost all respects treated as being part of the territory of the home country. They are also only required to pay taxes equal to their respective countries' guidelines.

The host country may not enter the representing country's embassy without permission.

I'm fairly certain the "students" weren't invited in.

 

[Gunny]

Really? Never attacked another country. Are you sure about that? Really sure? Because I can think of 52 U.S. citizens who would beg to differ with you. November 4, 1979. 444 days. More than one of those 52 U.S. citizens is certain Ahmadinejad was one of those "students."

Under international law, diplomatic missions enjoy an extraterritorial status and although remaining part of the host country's territory, they are exempt from local laws and in almost all respects treated as being part of the territory of the home country. They are also only required to pay taxes equal to their respective countries' guidelines.

The host country may not enter the representing country's embassy without permission.

I'm fairly certain the "students" weren't invited in.

It also depends on how far back you want to go in history.

And it also depends on whether or not you wish to consider the state-sponsored terrorist group Hezbollah as part of Iran.

 

[Paul Revere]

Although the actual translation is debatable, the context of it is not. Saying something should be wiped off the map is pretty much the same as saying something should be vanished from the pages of time.
President Alphabet has repeatedly made reference to Israel and their existence several times afterwards so it's pretty clear what he meant and how he feels about Israel. There's no need to play spin doctor just because you share President Alphabet's agenda.

Believe what you want.
I could careless Jerk McDirt.

 

[Paul Revere]

A separate topic, and I don't buy the conspiracy theory.

Too bad. i hope you wise up to thetruth someday.