Welcome to AikiWeb Aikido Information
AikiWeb: The Source for Aikido Information
AikiWeb's principal purpose is to serve the Internet community as a repository and dissemination point for aikido information.

Sections
home
aikido articles
columns

Discussions
forums
aikiblogs

Databases
dojo search
seminars
image gallery
supplies
links directory

Reviews
book reviews
video reviews
dvd reviews
equip. reviews

News
submit
archive

Miscellaneous
newsletter
rss feeds
polls
about

Follow us on



Home > AikiWeb Aikido Forums
Go Back   AikiWeb Aikido Forums > Open Discussions

Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history, humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced features available, you will need to register first. Registration is absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-03-2006, 05:53 PM   #126
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Gosh, the intelligence level just went up 10 points, on my monitor!
Too bad it didn't go up anywhere else in the room.

Lessee... carefully avoiding the topic of how one-sided your political rants are, you finally figure the easiest way out of an embarrassing question is to "banish" the person who is asking the obvious. Kewl. I'll just comment freely without including you in the discussions about your continued one-sided and often false claims.

Regards,

Mike Sigman
 
Old 08-03-2006, 07:58 PM   #127
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Grant Wagar wrote:
Neil you missed two questions I was curious about
Sorry. With so many posts flying around, I missed a few.

Quote:
And then there are the use of cluster bombs, white phosphorus, and dU.
Quote:
Whats wrong with that? Are they against some kind of convention now??
In and of themselves, no (altho, I think that they should be. But, I'm just a guy with an opinion). But, when you use them against civilian populations...that's a whole different kettle of landmines.

Cluster bombs:

Quote:
In addition to strikes from airplanes, helicopters, and traditional artillery, Israel has used artillery-fired cluster munitions against populated areas, causing civilian casualties. One such attack on the village of Blida on July 19 killed a sixty-year-old woman and wounded at least twelve civilians, including seven children. The wide dispersal pattern of cluster munitions and the high dud rate (ranging from 2 to 14 percent, depending on the type of cluster munition) make the weapons exceedingly dangerous for civilians and, when used in populated areas, a violation of international humanitarian law.
White Phosphorus: Used as an illumation aid, there are no violations. Used as a direct weapon, however, is a different story.

Quote:
White phosphorus is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits its use as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas.

The US - unlike 80 other countries including the UK - is not a signatory to Protocol III.
Israel IS a signatory to the Convention.

There are no bans on dU per se, but

Quote:
There are four rules derived from the whole of humanitarian law regarding weapons:

Weapons may only be used in the legal field of battle, defined as legal military targets of the enemy in the war. Weapons may not have an adverse effect off the legal field of battle. (The "territorial" test).
Weapons can only be used for the duration of an armed conflict. A weapon that is used or continues to act after the war is over violates this criterion. (The "temporal" test).
Weapons may not be unduly inhumane. (The "humaneness" test). The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 use the terms "unnecessary suffering" and "superfluous injury" for this concept.
Weapons may not have an unduly negative effect on the natural environment. (The "environmental" test).
It has been argued that DU weapons fail all four tests.
I think you know my moral and ethical stance on using depleted uranium on civilians, and so I won't elaborate.

Quote:
You've said you've been there and tried that. To what end? You've physically gone to Israel and interacted with the government?
I have physically gone to Israel and attempted to get into Palestine, as an international observer, yes. As far as "interacted with the gov't:" well, that all depends upon how you define "government."

Needless to say, it did not go well.
 
Old 08-03-2006, 08:06 PM   #128
DanielR
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Neil wrote:
...Robert Fisk, int'l correspondent for the Independent. He lives in Lebanon, and his articles are therefore very poignant. Check him out, here.
Poignant they may be, but objective? Reading his latest:
Quote:
Robert Fisk wrote:
Hizbollah is killing more Israeli soldiers than civilians and the Israelis are killing far more Lebanese civilians than they are guerrillas
If Mr. Fisk was a mathematician, I would have no problem with this statement. He's not, however, so it's unfortunate that he fails to qualify that statement with mentioning that Hezbollah is indiscriminately firing hundreds of rockets at population centers daily, and it's just lucky for the Israelis that the military technology Hezbollah possesses doesn't allow them to inflict greater civilian casualties. Mr. Fisk also fails to mention that the fact that Hezbollah manages to kill more Israeli soldiers than civilians is also due to the fact that IDF is conducting a ground operation, engaging the Hezbollah militants and sustaining casualties in the process.

Daniel
 
Old 08-03-2006, 08:20 PM   #129
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Daniel Rozenbaum wrote:
Poignant they may be, but objective?
I'm sorry, but I thought that it was understood that objectivity is a seriously difficult, if not impossible, goal to attain, on this conflict.

Quote:
If Mr. Fisk was a mathematician, I would have no problem with this statement. He's not, however, so it's unfortunate that he fails to qualify that statement with mentioning that Hezbollah is indiscriminately firing hundreds of rockets at population centers daily, and it's just lucky for the Israelis that the military technology Hezbollah possesses doesn't allow them to inflict greater civilian casualties.
Would-a, could-a, should-a. They don't have 'em; they're not using 'em: and so the point, is moot.

Quote:
Mr. Fisk also fails to mention that the fact that Hezbollah manages to kill more Israeli soldiers than civilians is also due to the fact that IDF is conducting a ground operation, engaging the Hezbollah militants and sustaining casualties in the process.
Again, all very nice: but when the smoke clears, all that matters is WHAT is destroyed, and HOW MANY are dead, or wounded.

I can come to your neighborhood and lob 2000 cherry bombs all over the place.

2000 sounds like a big number.

YOU can come to my house and drop ONE bunker-buster bomb.

1 is a very tiny number. But I assure you, I won't be getting up to complain online, if you did. You, OTOH, would likely live to see the dawn.

As you said earlier, rockets landing inside Israel strikes a different chord. But, it's a psychological chord, at that. Tel Aviv is not saturated with refugee's; Israeli infrastructure still stands; and I see no land forces massing over the Israeli border.

Nor, do I hear about dU, cluster bombs or white phosphorus being used on the Israeli's.

Yeah, Hezbollah has to answer for firing indiscriminately on civilian's and (if they are) using civilians as shields: but the ends do not justify the means. Indiscriminate destruction and firing on civilians violates international law.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 08-03-2006 at 08:23 PM.
 
Old 08-03-2006, 08:36 PM   #130
DanielR
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Neil wrote:
all that matters is WHAT is destroyed, and HOW MANY are dead, or wounded
You don't think intent must be taken into account? It is in criminal law, why would warfare be different?

Daniel
 
Old 08-03-2006, 08:39 PM   #131
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
Yeah, Hezbollah has to answer for firing indiscriminately on civilian's and (if they are) using civilians as shields: but the ends do not justify the means. Indiscriminate destruction and firing on civilians violates international law.
Glossing over the many "international law" violations Hezbollah commits, which Neil shrugs off since they're only doing it against "Israel" and Lebanese civilian shields don't apparently qualify for much of a conversation to Neil... It's easy to notice that Neil doesn't mention that taking out Lebanese rocket sites saves Israeli lives. Neil would prefer that "Israel not respond to Hezbollah attacks as long as Hezbollah is attacking Iraeli civilians from behind the shield of Lebanese civilians". For Israel to take out Lebanese rocket launchers to protect Israeli lives is "breaking international law".... Israel should, according to Neil's logic, simply let their civilians get killed so that his specious BS about "international law" sounds good.

What absolute, self-centered, delusional shrugging off of Israeli (read "The Jooz") life, Neil. You don't even understand your extreme insults to Israel, do you?


Mike Sigman
 
Old 08-03-2006, 08:42 PM   #132
DanielR
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Neil wrote:
I thought that it was understood that objectivity is a seriously difficult, if not impossible, goal to attain, on this conflict.
Agreed. There are better and worse attempts at attaining it, however, and Mr. Fisk doesn't seem to be doing a very good job. But then again, maybe objectivity is not among his goals.

Daniel
 
Old 08-03-2006, 08:45 PM   #133
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Daniel Rozenbaum wrote:
You don't think intent must be taken into account? It is in criminal law, why would warfare be different?
Yes, let's just bomb and invade any country with the intent of attacking us.

We tried that already, remember (see pre-emptive strike)? Didn't work then: doesn't work now.

Quote:
Daniel Rozenbaum wrote:
Agreed. There are better and worse attempts at attaining it, however, and Mr. Fisk doesn't seem to be doing a very good job. But then again, maybe objectivity is not among his goals.
Please: I could easily say the same about just about any journalist.

Your reservations sound like sour grapes.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 08-03-2006 at 08:55 PM.
 
Old 08-03-2006, 08:56 PM   #134
DanielR
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Neil wrote:
Yes, let's just bomb and invade any country with the intent of attacking us.
Maybe I wasn't clear: I was talking about the intent of Hezbollah's rockets - to hurt as many civilians as possible - and about taking it into account when comparing the casualty counts on both sides.
Quote:
I could easily say the same about just about any journalist.
You most certainly could. Question is, would it be as part of an attempt at objectivity?

Daniel
 
Old 08-03-2006, 09:06 PM   #135
DanielR
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Neil wrote:
let's just bomb and invade any country with the intent of attacking us.
Come to think of it, if the intent is present and obvious, is supported by intelligence or even put into action by the country with the said intent - why not?

Daniel
 
Old 08-03-2006, 09:07 PM   #136
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Daniel Rozenbaum wrote:
Maybe I wasn't clear: I was talking about the intent of Hezbollah's rockets - to hurt as many civilians as possible - and about taking it into account when comparing the casualty counts on both sides.
I understood you, all too well. File "intent" under "pre-emptive strike," for casting blame, as it fits in the same category.

If you want to put intent into the mix: you can leave Israel blameless, for blowing up entire Palestinian blocks, because some suicide bomber yahoo's met on that block, and "intended" to take out 1000's of people.

So what if they only had 10lbs of dynamite btw them?? They certainly "intended" to kill as many ppl, as possible!

You can take "intent" very, very far, if you're using it as an excuse or justification.

And, from my limited knowledge of international law: "intent" to attack certainly IS a justification to attack first: but you have a long, long way to go, before you prove that Hezbollah "intends" to invade and attack Israel, in the same manner that Israel is doing to Lebanon.

In the end, the argument is specious, speculative, and moot.

Quote:
You most certainly could. Question is, would it be as part of an attempt at objectivity?
I'm sorry: but "objectivity" is, again: an overused term. For instance, Robert Fisk himself said that he doesn't want to be "balanced" when reporting a conflict with a clear aggressor. Why would anyone want to balance a report on the invasion of Kuwait with Saddam Hussein's rationale (except as backstory)?

I don't find your sources very "objective," either, Daniel. As Luc X Saroufim so well pointed out, earlier: everyone has a piece of the truth, and is justified in how s/he feels.

The only news sources I really distrust, are those with an agenda. FoxNews, for example.

Quote:
Daniel Rozenbaum wrote:
Come to think of it, if the intent is present and obvious, is supported by intelligence or even put into action by the country with the said intent - why not?
Because, as was made painfully clear with the invasion of Iraq: intelligence can be cherry-picked; "present and obvious" intent can be fuzzed or overstated (see "We cannot wait for verification to appear in the form of a mushroom cloud"); and the actions of countries are rarely clear.

For instance: are the pronouncements of Hezbollah REALLY what they want, or is it empty sabre-rattling? PROVE to me that they REALLY would do all that you say, if they had the weapons.

Heck, I'll even up the ante: I'll give anyone $50 in cash, if they can conclusively prove that Hezbollah would do everything to Israel that Israel is doing to Lebanon, given the chance and the weaponry.

Without a team of psychics and a crystal ball...good friggin' luck.

Last edited by Neil Mick : 08-03-2006 at 09:19 PM.
 
Old 08-03-2006, 09:19 PM   #137
DanielR
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Neil wrote:
You can take "intent" very, very far, if you're using it as an excuse or justification
I'm not entirely clear then what is your answer to the question whether intent should be considered. What you've said so far sounds to me as "no, because it's too complicated".

Quote:
Neil wrote:
In the end, the argument is specious, speculative, and moot.
Heh. I'm glad there's at least someone out there who's able to arrive at such level of confidence.

Daniel
 
Old 08-03-2006, 09:22 PM   #138
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Daniel Rozenbaum wrote:
I'm not entirely clear then what is your answer to the question whether intent should be considered. What you've said so far sounds to me as "no, because it's too complicated".
Nope. I'm saying that when a country wants to prove another's intent: all they have to do is cherry-pick what they want, and ignore the rest.

In reality, leaders often say (or do) one thing, while meaning to effect something else. It's the nature of politics.

Nikita Kruschev: "We will bury you!!!"
Reality: we have very little means to match your nuclear capability; but we will overwhelm with rhetoric.

W: "No child left behind"
Reality: "No child left unfunded"

Proving intent is practically impossible, sans crystal ball and psychics.

Quote:
Heh. I'm glad there's at least someone out there who's able to arrive at such level of confidence.
Hey, if it's so easy to prove: it should be the easiest $50 in the world, to make, right? So, what's stopping you?

Last edited by Neil Mick : 08-03-2006 at 09:29 PM.
 
Old 08-03-2006, 09:34 PM   #139
DanielR
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Re: World War 3?

If you have an extra $50, better give it to Jun. This thread of the discussion is tangental anyway - I think it was you who said "let's bomb and invade any country with the intent of attacking us". Note that you didn't say "any country we think may have the intent of attacking us". Wouldn't you agree then that the sarcasm in this statement is most naturally interpreted as "I think it's inappropriate to invade a country with the intent of attacking us"?

There's no need to prove the presence of the intent to attack on the part of Hezbollah: it simply did. What you delve into next is the question of proportional response. To me, again, it's also plainly obvious that the intent of Hezbollah's rocket attacks is to kill as many civilians as possible. But since you've already declared this argument as "specious, speculative, and moot", I won't object if we close it.

Last edited by DanielR : 08-03-2006 at 09:45 PM.

Daniel
 
Old 08-03-2006, 09:45 PM   #140
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Daniel Rozenbaum wrote:
If you have an extra $50, better give it to Jun.
He already got $10: the rest is going to my dojo dues.

Quote:
This thread of the discussion is tangental anyway - I think it was you that said

"let's bomb and invade any country with the intent of attacking us". Note that you didn't say

"any country we think may have the intent of attacking us".
Nope. I believe it was you who said:

Quote:
it's just lucky for the Israelis that the military technology Hezbollah possesses doesn't allow them to inflict greater civilian casualties.
And I contend that in the real world, there is no way to determine what they'd do, given the weaponry, and so the argument is speculative.

Quote:
Wouldn't you agree then that the sarcasm in this statement is most naturally interpreted as "I think it's inappropriate to invade a country with the intent of attacking us"?
Hey, find me a clause in the Geneva Conventions to support your contention, and I'll eat humble pie. Till then...

Quote:
There's no need to prove the presence of the intent to attack on the part of Hezbollah: it simply did. What you delve into next is the question of proportional response.
Look, you're the one to bring speculation into this. You speculate that if they could, Hezbollah would, if they had greater weaponry: inflict greater casualties on Israel (as if this is some sort of justification for violations of international law).

I stated that you cannot prove that Hezbollah would respond in the same manner, as Israel, if they had the same weaponry.

So far, you have yet to prove your contention. And, obviously, you can't.

We can go round and round this point, but I agree: it's tangential. Let's move on...

Last edited by Neil Mick : 08-03-2006 at 09:52 PM.
 
Old 08-03-2006, 09:59 PM   #141
Guilty Spark
 
Guilty Spark's Avatar
Location: Flordia
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 300
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Sorry. With so many posts flying around, I missed a few.
I can imagine, no worries.

Quote:
I have physically gone to Israel and attempted to get into Palestine, as an international observer, yes. As far as "interacted with the gov't:" well, that all depends upon how you define "government."

Needless to say, it did not go well.
Awesome. Good way to put your money where your mouth is.
I don't agree with your perspective but I have respect for anyone willing to put themselves in harms way for what the believe in.

If you're hungry, keep moving.
If you're tired, keep moving.
If you value you're life, keep moving.

You don't own what you can't defend
 
Old 08-04-2006, 06:57 AM   #142
dps
 
dps's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,353
Offline
Re: World War 3?

" When there is no desire, all things are at peace." Lao-Tzu

Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events not of words. Trust movement. --Alfred Adler
 
Old 08-04-2006, 09:06 AM   #143
Mark Uttech
Dojo: Yoshin-ji Aikido of Marshall
Location: Wisconsin
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,224
Offline
Re: World War 3?

"Imagine all the people, living together in peace. Imagine." - John Lennon
 
Old 08-04-2006, 09:26 AM   #144
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

From yesterday's "Times of London"

Times: [T]here is a sense in the world, and you must be aware of it, of lack of "proportionality". Many people question how after two soldiers kidnapped and eight killed by Hezbollah we are now seeing upwards of 400 dead and rising in Lebanon. How can such an initial incident justify such a huge response from Israel?

Olmert: I think that you are missing a major part. The war started not only by killing eight Israeli soldiers and abducting two but by shooting Katyusha and other rockets on the northern cities of Israel on that same morning. Indiscriminately.

Now we know that for years Hezbollah - assisted by Iran - built an infrastructure of a very significant volume in the south part of Lebanon to be used against Israeli people. The most obvious, simple, way to describe it to the average British person is: can you imagine seven million British citizens sitting for 22 days in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham in Newcastle, in Brighton and in other cities? Twenty two days in shelters because a terrorist organisation was shooting rockets and missiles on their heads? What would have been the British reaction to that? Do you know of a country that would have responded to such a brutal attack on its citizens softer than Israel did? Based on my knowledge of history no country in Europe would have responded in such a restrained manner as Israel did.

I don't want now to draw comparisons [but] one could ask the question what precisely did the European forces [do] in Kosovo 10 years ago. How many innocent civilians were killed in Kosovo 10 years ago? We can draw on and on these comparisons.

What are we talking about? More than a million Israelis are sitting 22 days in shelters because of the fear of terrorists. In every single case...that we kill an uninvolved civilian in Lebanon, we consider it as a failure for Israel. And you know how many Israelis raise their voices as a result of this? And they don't have to because we feel that we failed when we killed uninvolved people.

The difference between us and Hezbollah is that when we kill innocent people we consider it a failure, when they kill innocent people they consider it a success.

Tell me, who are they aiming at when they shoot already 2800 rockets on Haifa, Hanariya, Akko, Sefat, Afula and the rest of the places, if not to kill innocent people? So I'm sorry for every individual that was killed that was not involved.

And by the way, how do you really know that 400 innocent civilians were killed? How do you know who is innocent and who is not? Why? This is not an army. They don't wear uniforms that distinguish them from other civilians. We didn't attack any of the Christian quarters of Beirut. We didn't attack any of the Christian residential areas in any part of Lebanon. We attacked only those areas where they had the Katyusha launchers, where they had the missile launchers, where they had the command positions of Hezbollah, where they had the storage houses, the logistic centres and so on and so forth.

So the fact that people were killed there who were not dressed in uniforms doesn't mean that they were innocent civilians. There were Hezbollah people, they are the terrorists. Did you ever see terrorists dressed with military uniforms like we have in our army? No.
 
Old 08-04-2006, 10:05 AM   #145
Huker
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 63
Canada
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Olmert Wrote:
"Twenty two days in shelters because a terrorist organisation was shooting rockets and missiles on their heads? What would have been the British reaction to that? Do you know of a country that would have responded to such a brutal attack on its citizens softer than Israel did? Based on my knowledge of history no country in Europe would have responded in such a restrained manner as Israel did."

That's pretty speculative. I don't think Olmert is making a very powerful argument here. Then again we did drop that A-bomb on Japan...

Olmert:
"In every single case...that we kill an uninvolved civilian in Lebanon, we consider it as a failure for Israel. "

How sad. Makes me feel so, so sorry for Israel's moral plight.

Olmert:
"Tell me, who are they aiming at when they shoot already 2800 rockets..."

More numbers, but I'll agree that a few innocents were killed.

Olmert:
"And by the way, how do you really know that 400 innocent civilians were killed? How do you know who is innocent and who is not?"

Shoot first, ask later...or just shoot and don't ask.

Olmert:
"We attacked only those areas where they had the Katyusha launchers, where they had the missile launchers, where they had the command positions of Hezbollah, where they had the storage houses, the logistic centres and so on and so forth."

Didn't see any Katyusha launchers on the ambulances or in the airport. Nor the hospital, nor in Qana, nor...

Sorry, Mike. I'm not personally attacking you or anything. I'm just picking things apart a bit. I see Olmert as another Bush, so I take just about everything he says with a big grain of salt.
 
Old 08-04-2006, 10:15 AM   #146
Huker
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 63
Canada
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Tanner wrote:
Quote:
I see Olmert as another Bush
Just to correct myself: I should say that I see Olmert as a warmonger, not quite identical to Bush.
 
Old 08-04-2006, 10:26 AM   #147
Guilty Spark
 
Guilty Spark's Avatar
Location: Flordia
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 300
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Olmert: I think that you are missing a major part. The war started not only by killing eight Israeli soldiers and abducting two but by shooting Katyusha and other rockets on the northern cities of Israel on that same morning. Indiscriminately.
Puts a whole new spin on 'Just kidnapping 2 soldiers'

Quote:
The difference between us and Hezbollah is that when we kill innocent people we consider it a failure, when they kill innocent people they consider it a success.

Tell me, who are they aiming at when they shoot already 2800 rockets on Haifa, Hanariya, Akko, Sefat, Afula and the rest of the places, if not to kill innocent people? So I'm sorry for every individual that was killed that was not involved.
Which is why in the end Hezbollah are terrorists and need to be stopped.

If you're hungry, keep moving.
If you're tired, keep moving.
If you value you're life, keep moving.

You don't own what you can't defend
 
Old 08-04-2006, 10:29 AM   #148
DanielR
Location: New York
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 164
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Tanner wrote:
I see Olmert as a warmonger
Tanner, I don't know how familiar you are with the Israeli political situation; Olmert and his party won the last elections on a centrist platform that advocated continuation of withdrawals from the occupied territories. Again, not going into the whole issue of "proportional response" and how well the kidnappings of soldiers by Hamas and Hezbollah are being handled, I think your characterization of Olmert as a warmonger is quite off.

Edit: please consider these latest reports:
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is said to be reluctant about expanding Israel's ground operation
And here Olmert is actually blamed by the Israeli right for ignoring the Lebanon security problem while being the deputy prime minister in Sharon's government, during his election campaign and during his tenure as the prime-minister.

Edit: This, however, would quite qualify as warmongering.

Last edited by DanielR : 08-04-2006 at 10:41 AM.

Daniel
 
Old 08-04-2006, 10:31 AM   #149
Mike Sigman
Location: Durango, CO
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,123
United_States
Offline
Re: World War 3?

Quote:
Tanner Hukezalie wrote:
Olmert:
"Tell me, who are they aiming at when they shoot already 2800 rockets..."

More numbers, but I'll agree that a few innocents were killed.
I realize that those were just "number" of "Jooz" to you, but maybe if someone killed a few members of your family and wanted your whole country dead, you might catch on. But in your case, I doubt it. You insult people who have been attacked and then you think someone responding to you has an attitude problem, don't you?
Quote:
Olmert:
"And by the way, how do you really know that 400 innocent civilians were killed? How do you know who is innocent and who is not?"

Shoot first, ask later...or just shoot and don't ask.
Why don't you answer his question instead of trivializing it? Because you know he makes a logical point, but you don't want to admit any good on the part of the "Jooz", do you? How trendy.
Quote:
Olmert:
"We attacked only those areas where they had the Katyusha launchers, where they had the missile launchers, where they had the command positions of Hezbollah, where they had the storage houses, the logistic centres and so on and so forth."

Didn't see any Katyusha launchers on the ambulances or in the airport. Nor the hospital, nor in Qana, nor...
You were there? Can you explain why the building in Qana was standing 8 hours after the supposed bombing and then, it seems, suddenly exploded killing, it turns out, 28 people, not 60-something? As a matter of fact, you have no facts... you simply repeat everything negative you can about the "Jooz" because you don't like them. Not that you're smart enough to have a defensible reason to not like them, it's just trendy. Hate SUV's. Hate Bush. Hate Jooz. Hate the US. Don't mention anything wrong that the UN or the EU has done, things which have cost a million more lives, easily. Just hate the trendy stuff. I love you guys.... you make yourselves such easy targets because you use "feelings" in your arguments rather than facts. Give me the full facts on some post instead of Jew-hating.
Quote:
Sorry, Mike. I'm not personally attacking you or anything. I'm just picking things apart a bit. I see Olmert as another Bush, so I take just about everything he says with a big grain of salt.
You're not "picking" anything apart. You're sniping and not using any facts from both sides, nor are you presenting any logical arguments. You parrot whatever you think you should say that will keep you in good stead with your "peer group", just like young kids do. And like a young kid, you're not able to realize what long-term consequences are. Try to impress me with some facts, presented from both sides and with a strong argument supporting your stance. At the moment, all you have is "Hate Bush", "Hate the Jews", and "Any enemy of the US is a friend of mine".... just like Neil Mick.

Regards,

Mike Sigman
 
Old 08-04-2006, 10:41 AM   #150
Huker
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 63
Canada
Offline
Re: World War 3?

You know what, Mike? I'm really getting tired of you putting words into my mouth and slandering my name. I can see why Neil wants to ignore you and I think I'll join him on that one.
 

Please visit our sponsor:

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!



Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Omoto-kyo Theology senshincenter Spiritual 77 12-04-2005 10:50 PM
The Real World: How to Reconcile? Anonymous Anonymous 24 05-18-2005 03:01 AM
"Real world Situations" ravered General 27 12-09-2004 08:38 AM
Aikido in the World Games jon_jankus General 0 08-24-2004 10:55 AM
Aikido in the International World Games L. Camejo General 4 08-12-2004 10:13 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:17 AM.



vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2018 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
----------
Copyright 1997-2018 AikiWeb and its Authors, All Rights Reserved.
----------
For questions and comments about this website:
Send E-mail
plainlaid-picaresque outchasing-protistan explicantia-altarage seaford-stellionate