Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Some agreement, some disagreement Author: JeffF [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 06:59:53 10/04/01 Thu In reply to: Mark7 's message, "Israel is no democracy. It is a THEOCRACY." on 22:59:21 10/03/01 Wed "It is wrong when Palestinian homes are demolished randomly in retaliation." This may surprise you, but I agree with that. In fact, I'd take it a step further. It's also wrong when the house of the widow and family of the terrorist is destroyed in retaliation. Leaving people homeless doesn't help anything and only feeds revenge desires. But the bigger problem is that it condemns people without a trial. "And that's why nobody can agree on who is the terrorist and who is the freedom fighter. Because your simplistic definition in above post does not apply. The Pentagon is a military target and the Belgrade station was full of civilians, yet our men in uniform are not terrorists, they are freedom fighting gentelmen officers." Says who? I repeat - any DELIBERATE attack on civilians for political aims is a terrorist attack regardless of who commits it. If we knew there were civilians in the television station,than that was a terrorist act regardless of whether it was committed by soldiers. What's next? Are you going to tell me the Mai Lai massacre wasn't an act of terrorism because it was committed by our soldiers? Rubbish. "For some reason, I cannot believe our support of Israel has nothing to do with it." Certainly, neither you nor I come in without having some preconceived notions. I'll admit that Schremmer's link has somewhat changed my mind(don't know if you've looked at it but he did put a link to an earlier interview with Bin Laden on IS- since I know you still read there sometimes, I think you may have seen it). Bin Laden does mention Israel there among a number of other things. I'm still reading some of it. It's quite long. "It may be a democracy for you because you are Jewish. But if you are Arab, it is a democracy just as South Africa was during the Apartheid area." Give me a break, Mark. This may be true of the so-called occupied territories, but this is not true of Israel proper. There are many Arab citizens of Isreal. There are Arab members of the Knesset and Arabs vote in all Israeli elections. "Citizenship is given only to one religious and ethnic group." False. There are Christian citizens and Moslem citizens and others. "I do not believe Isreal wants peace." I could debate that, but that's not what I was saying anyway. I was saying that it's in her best interest. A permanent state of war is never in a country's best interest. Peace is in the best interest of the security of the citizens of Israel as long as it is a just and lasting peace. Remember that almost nobody has been killed in actions between Isreal and Egypt since the peace treaty of 1978, proving that even a cold peace is in a country's best interest. Living in a state of suspicion is preferable to actuallly killing each other. "Sharon is the Jewish version of Milosevich. But you will never see him tried at the Haga." I would have no objection to a war crimes trial as long as any party in the Middle East who was accused of war crimes was tried, as in the Balkans. If it was just a one sided vendetta against Israel, I would fight it at all costs. Also, the tribunal could not include any members from Arab countries or Israel. It would have to have at least the appearance of neutrality. "Your buddy Ethan said something about being sick of people with my opinion, bla bla bla." I like Ethan, but we have different starting points in life. He was in the military in Vietnam while I didn't see the point of that war(and still don't). Like a lot of people who were in Vietnam, he tends to be skeptical of the peace crowd and protestors. For me, it's more complicated. The current situatation is very different from Vietnam. Whether we are fighting a war with a point depends on what we plan to accomplish. If we plan to simply kill Bin Laden, that is not enough. If we plan to ally with other thugs like the President of Pakistan,we will likely regret it later. That doesn't mean we should do nothing. Freezing the assets of terrorists has been a good move. If we want to start shutting terrorism down, we have to get at the money that finances it. I hate to agree with Iran, but this time the leaders there may be right that it would be better to let Bin Laden be arrested by the UN and tried before an international tribunal, rather than just blown away by the US and made a martyr with his followers screaming for more blood. Get every terrorist in Afghanastan and his followers elsewhere might still act. So, I am conflicted. Basically, I don't want us to do nothing, but I don't want us to rush blindly into anything that will make the situation worse either. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The Pentagon is a military target. Author: Mark7 [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 09:25:26 10/04/01 Thu The Pentagon is a military target. I was very surprised that it was hit. Anybody with some military training would know that command and control targets are the first to be hit. When Mathias Russ in 1991 I believe landed a Cessena plane in the Red Square in Moscaw, we laughed our as$ of at the stupid Russians. The Russians replied that they flanked the little plane with MIGs and just didn't want to shoot it down. Well, the Pentagon in my mind should have learned something from it. But back to terrorism, if the Pentagon is not a military target, how come the Belgrade TV station was? See, our definitions of terror and terrorism are muddy and inadequate. To us Americans, our brave men and women in uniform flying multy million $ F16s, B1s and so forth cannot be terrorists. But if you were a sound technician working for the Belgrade TV station, things would look very different. They would be terrorists, and the Sound technician could hardly be called a "military target". I do think we need an international agreement about terrorism, much like the Geneva convention regarding modern war, conditions for prisoners of war and so forth. Because frankly I cannot distinguish the thug in uniform from the one without uniform. And I certainly cannot make the difference between Jihad and Cruciade. Both are holy wars made by mad men. But I have a tip for all my fellow Americans who never learned much about the dark age history of the middle east and Islam. The Muslim did win the last Cruciades. It took them 500 years to do it, but they did end up winners. I believe the last cruciade was in 1444 at Varna, a portcity in today's Bulgaria. Mohamed the 2nd took the throne when his father (I forgot his name, maybe Murad?) died in battle. Also dead in battle was the king of Hungary and most of the elite of Christian Europe. The Turks had a fiest after the war, executing over 30,000 prisoners of war by decapitation. It took them about 3 days to do it. In 1453, the same angry Mohamed the 2nd took Constantinopole, today's Istambul, and made St. Sophia cathedral in Constantinopole into a mosque. Legend has it that he put an oath at Varna to take the city which was considered just as holy for Christianity as Rome. Istambul is to this day a Turkish city, and Sophia a mosque. Something to consider for would be cruciaders.