WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Signaling impatience with Syria, the United States has sent its USS Cole warship off the coast of Lebanon in a "show of support" for regional stability, U.S. officials said on Thursday.


A senior Bush administration official told Reuters the United States was very concerned about the political deadlock in Lebanon, which Washington blames on Syrian meddling, and the U.S. military gesture underlined that worry.

"The United States believes a show of support is important for regional stability. We are very concerned about the situation in Lebanon. It has dragged on very long," said the senior official, who spoke on condition he was not named.

Lebanon's western-backed governing coalition and its Syrian- and Iranian-backed opposition have failed to reach a deal to end the country's political conflict.

This is like 1984 all over again. I remember the U.S.S. New Jersey being off the coast of Lebanon. Hope this doesn't go that way.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080228/pl_nm/lebanon_usa_warship_dc_2

Lebanon needs to align anti-ship rockets along its border

C-802 ASM, upon the empire of evil

Lebanon needs to align anti-ship rockets along its border

C-802 ASM, upon the empire of evil

Well that might just be enough to provoke a response that would rid the world of Hezbollah, once and for all. But I doubt Nasrallah is as ready to die as you think.

Lebanon needs to align anti-ship rockets along its border

Why? So undetectable F-22s/F-117s/B-2s can fly over and blast them to rubble?

WTF draqon?

Well that might just be enough to provoke a response that would rid the world of Hezbollah, once and for all. But I doubt Nasrallah is as ready to die as you think.

the world does not need to get rid of Hezbollah. The world you speak of is limited to the countries controlled by Israelis.

the world does not need to get rid of Hezbollah. The world you speak of is limited to the countries controlled by Israelis.

I didn't realize that Russia, China, Japan and Canada were all controled by the Israelies? Just how's that being done anyway, I'd like to know?:shrug:

Why? So undetectable F-22s/F-117s/B-2s can fly over and blast them to rubble?

undetectable? :p oh everything's detectable.

I didn't realize that Russia, China, Japan and Canada were all controled by the Israelies? Just how's that being done anyway, I'd like to know?:shrug:

they are not precisely.

The Cole is a provocative choice for Mideast gunboat "diplomacy". Between the lines, the message (intentional or not) is that this is a boat that's particularly ready to "git some". The silhouettes of US warships on the horizon have never reduced tensions in Beirut. Most often, they've been dark omens for a truly defenseless and fragile nation. We're fools to believe any Washington suggestion that we're only making our presence felt in order to bring calm.

they are not precisely.

If not precisely then how? :shrug:

If not precisely then how? :shrug:

hehehe :p

hehehe :p

If this is not spamming a thread, I don't know what is. Wonder if we could borrow SAM from Biology to do a little thread cleansing?

You realize the Cole has been re-deployed for about six years now, and regularly visits hot spots around the globe. They can't very well hide the ship in the North Atlantic for the rest of its commission because of what happened in Yemen.

Cole would not be "hiding" if simply assigned to other fleets than the 5th or 6th.

undetectable? :p oh everything's detectable.
Sure. Even the F-22s are; when they open their bomb and missile bay doors, but by then, ordnance will already be launched and they will return to invisibility after the doors close back up; and ready to dogfight any enemy jet(s) that are foolish enough to take off and try to intercept them. :)

If the US is truly reduced to gunboat diplomacy, it's in trouble.

If the threat is more direct, and preparations made, what's in the offing ?

(btw: didn't the Serbs figure out how to pick up the stealth planes using cell phone shadows ? Or was that just part of the confusion over there ? )

(btw: didn't the Serbs figure out how to pick up the stealth planes using cell phone shadows ? Or was that just part of the confusion over there ? )

If you're referring to the F117 shot down, that was by the equivelant of a commander of a AA batallion, obviously very elite.

Barry

you don't park a ship you dock it

you don't park a ship you dock it

Very droll sir. I'm sure if I had said the ship was "Steaming across the Med...", you would have also pointed out that an Arleigh Burke class destroyer isn't steam powered. Anywho, since it's in international waters, it's hardly being docked. But thanks for stopping by and offering your riveting insight.

Sure. Even the F-22s are; when they open their bomb and missile bay doors, but by then, ordnance will already be launched and they will return to invisibility after the doors close back up; and ready to dogfight any enemy jet(s) that are foolish enough to take off and try to intercept them. :)

mehhh you overestimate the F-22 capabilities, this so called small radar signature is enough to be detected. Plus there are other means of detection as well as did you know that the stealth ability of the airplane vanishes if it passes through rain/storm?

Not really sure why you need an F-22 when you have a guided missile destroyer in the neighborhood.

Not really sure why you need an F-22 when you have a guided missile destroyer in the neighborhood.

would that be gmdd perchance

would that be gmdd perchance

I'm sorry, I don't speak jive, and I don't listen to hip hop. Can you rephrase in English please?

Well that might just be enough to provoke a response that would rid the world of Hezbollah, once and for all. But I doubt Nasrallah is as ready to die as you think.

Rid the world of Hizbollah? :roflmao:Thatll be the day. Hizbollah is the most popular group in that area. Not just among Muslims, among differnt religions and all classes. You cannot get "rid" of an ideal of the people.

Rid the world of Hizbollah? :roflmao:Thatll be the day. Hizbollah is the most popular group in that area. Not just among Muslims, among differnt religions and all classes. You cannot get "rid" of an ideal of the people.

Sadly, you're probably right. But we can still dream of eradicating the cockroaches of the world.

15/19 "But we can still dream of eradicating the cockroaches of the world."

I wonder if your ghoulish dreams ever involve Zyklon B.

15/19 "But we can still dream of eradicating the cockroaches of the world."

I wonder if your ghoulish dreams ever involve Zyklon B.

Big fan of Hezbollah terrorists, are you?

The Cole is "parked" off Lebanon serving its function.

The Russian fleet recently cruising the Mediterranean served it's own function -- towing one another into the closest port because of break downs.

Context is an important part of a function's value.

Big fan of Hezbollah terrorists, are you?

Hizbollah is anything but a terrorist group.

Big fan of Hezbollah terrorists, are you? And the core of the crazy, never too well concealed, emerges.

They're cockroaches, these people. And you can't get rid of them - can you ?

15/19: "[slur already quoted above]"

If I knew a lot less than I know, or if I would ignore what I know, I could use a reciprocal invective, and smear you as a fan of "Israeli Terrorists" or compare a Jewish faction with insects, 15/19. But that would add nothing of value to this discussion, in fact it would cheapen it. When you refer to Hizbollah supporters as the "cockroaches of the world", you are descending to a level where you will not be well received by regular postors or the moderators.

I know only too well that there have been, and still are terrorists involved with Hizbollah (http://english.hizbollah.org/). When I lived in Ras Beirut, Hizbollah was slugging it out with their rival militias in our streets, in a cycle of retaliatory kidnappings, murders, firefights, and shelling. It wasn't an endearing experience. I resented, and still resent today the foreign manipulations of Lebanon by Iran, as much as by Syria and Israel and the USA. But over the years, Hebollah has emerged as a powerful political party in Lebanon of undeniable importance -and Israel has had a lot to do with that.

Because Hizbollah has diversified into a legitimate (if not my favorite) political block, and component of Parliament, and because they have played a leading role in the rebuilding and reconciliation (such as it is) of Lebanon after terrible wars, it is an exhibition of extreme ignorance, and a rhetorical attack on Lebanon to stigmatize the entire organization as "terrorist". I've gotten beyond my painful feelings about Hizbillah enough to see more clearly than the propaganda and hate-speech such as you are repeating would have me see.

I know that various founders of Israel's major political parties also committed similar terrorist acts as depraved as the worst crimes of any Hizbollah member. However, I understand that every supporter of the major parties is not an Israeli terrorist. I'm not stooping to the childish level you've just been jeering at me from. For a limited time, until Mod intervention, you're free to take cheap swipes at me, at Lebanon, and at the major Shi'a party of Lebanon like you did in your last post. But don't expect so gracious a response from me if there is a next time. Let's both try and have a more substantive and adult conversation.

mehhh you overestimate the F-22 capabilities, this so called small radar signature is enough to be detected. Plus there are other means of detection as well as did you know that the stealth ability of the airplane vanishes if it passes through rain/storm?

Yes, its RDC is detectable, but not inside it's weapons systems envelope, if you are close enough to detect a F-22 on your radar system it means it's weapons are entering kill zone on you.

Nothing the Russians or the Chinese have fielded in the last 1/2 century has matched the aircraft of the U.S. or the training of it's pilots, MIG's, YAK's, Lavochkin's, Sukhoi, what ever, when they have come up against western technology have sucked hind tit every time.

The Russians have always been playing catch up with the West.

I'm sorry, I don't speak jive, and I don't listen to hip hop. Can you rephrase in English please?

well if you don't know what ia mtalking about than i know odds are you cannot answer my question.
DD is the shorthand for a destroyer so a guided missle destroyer i was asking if it shorthand would be GMDD

That's DDG. SECNAV Instruction 5030.8 (pdf) (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/navy/secnavinst/5030_8.pdf) explains the classifications.

Maybe they put it there as bait.

Ridiculous. The USS Cole may have been considered bait as cold iron in the Port of Aden, but there is nobody in Lebanon who can threaten US warships loitering offshore. It's not bait, but intimidation, and deliberate elevation of the country's excruciating tension and uncertainty. It leaves those of us who care about Lebanon wondering what motives are behind the heaping of another bundle of straw onto the overloaded camel's back.

That's DDG. SECNAV Instruction 5030.8 (pdf) (http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/navy/secnavinst/5030_8.pdf) explains the classifications.

thanks i couldn't remember the more detailed shorthands

Let's hope the Israelies have finally figured out what kind of ships have giant red, white, and blue flags forming stars and stripes.

US forces have learned the hard way to keep our distance, and do it quietly when the IDF wants a little privacy. Having gotten too close during the 1967 executions of Egyptians at al-Arish (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/023.html), we were taught to keep our distance (http://www.gtr5.com/). The United States refrained obediently from interfering during the Sabra/Chatila massacres (http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_252.shtml). Whatever the 6th fleet is up to now, it's a reasonable assumption considering history, and considering present management, that operations involving Lebanon are being co-ordinated with Tel Aviv.

Honestly, it's adorable how you get on here and get all indignant and sanctimonious when somebody poops in your whole "Peace, Love & Happiness" fruit bowl that you carry around, but that doesn't mean you really had a point to begin with. Ok, I'll play nice, so humor me.

You are basically saying that while it's not up for debate that Hezbollah has its roots as a terrorist organization, in the year 2008 it offends you to see them referred to that way because they've morphed into something legitimate, in your opinion?

Is that about right?

Even though you claim to have lived through it, and hated them at the time, now they are ok. Is that because of how far they've come in terms of civility, or is it more a reaction to your perception of Israel and their actions over the last 25 years?

I'm trying to follow your moral compass here, but it's spinning like a ship without a rudder in a storm, so bear with me as I try to follow you on this journey.

And a point of clarification, the cockroaches of the world are those who would call themselves freedom fighters, but lack the courage to stand and fight, and would rather grab up a child or woman off the street to use as a human shield. That person is not a soldier. He has no honor. There are not 72 virgins waiting for a coward like that.

You are basically saying that while it's not up for debate that Hezbollah has its roots as a terrorist organization, in the year 2008 it offends you to see them referred to that way because they've morphed into something legitimate, in your opinion? Dropping the silly accusatory phrasing, and recognising the basic facts of the situation, yes some branches of Hezbollah have acquired some political legitimacy over the years, in Lebanon and elsewhere.

Nothing too unusual about that. A couple of Israel's major political factions have similar roots.

The US has recognized this in installing former Hezbollah dignitaries, some newly returned from exile in Iran, as members of the provisional and now US-allied central government of Iraq. The ones on our side.

You are basically saying that while it's not up for debate that Hezbollah has its roots as a terrorist organization, in the year 2008 it offends you to see them referred to that way because they've morphed into something legitimate, in your opinion?

The same could be said about the US. Look how that country started out.

And a point of clarification, the cockroaches of the world are those who would call themselves freedom fighters, but lack the courage to stand and fight

Whereas encasing yourself in 70 tons of near-impenetrable metal, firing a sniper rifle at someone 500m away who has their back turned, launching a missile or bomb from 20 miles out to sea or 50,000ft in the air, or hiding in a foxhole or behind a wall is so different?


and would rather grab up a child or woman off the street to use as a human shield. That person is not a soldier. He has no honor. There are not 72 virgins waiting for a coward like that.

Contemporary warfare is honourless, you can blame your precious west for that....and if the point you were trying to make had more to do with the using women and children as human shields, might I remind you of the huge civilian death toll of WWII that occured from the DELIBERATE bombing of civilian areas? I don't think we have the moral high ground here really.

Whereas encasing yourself in 70 tons of near-impenetrable metal, firing a sniper rifle at someone 500m away who has their back turned, launching a missile or bomb from 20 miles out to sea or 50,000ft in the air, or hiding in a foxhole or behind a wall is so different?

Contemporary warfare is honourless, you can blame your precious west for that....and if the point you were trying to make had more to do with the using women and children as human shields, might I remind you of the huge civilian death toll of WWII that occured from the DELIBERATE bombing of civilian areas? I don't think we have the moral high ground here really.

There is no such thing as a fair fight. Take two guys fighting with clubs, one guy hits the other guy in the head while he is not looking, the guy who gets hit says 'thats not fair i wasnt looking'.

15/19: "you get on here and get all indignant and sanctimonious when somebody poops in your whole "Peace, Love & Happiness" fruit bowl that you carry around, but that doesn't mean you really had a point to begin with."

My point is that Gunboat Diplomacy is not helping the tense situation in Lebanon; the USS Cole is a particularly provocative choice for these patrols.

"You are basically saying that while it's not up for debate that Hezbollah has its roots as a terrorist organization, in the year 2008 it offends you to see them referred to that way because they've morphed into something legitimate, in your opinion?"

You didn't refer to them as having terrorist roots. Instead you over-generalized, with prejudice- describing Hizbollah as cockroaches in need of extermination. You injected your vitriol about Hizbollah into this thread, in what seems to be an attempt to depict Lebanon as a country less deserving of respect than (for instance) Israel.

"Is that about right?"

No. You're far from any semblance of correctness here.

"Even though you claim to have lived through it, and hated [Hizbollah] at the time, now they are ok."

Hizbollah is a recognized political party with 14 MPs. They are no longer just a militia, or just a gang, or just some violent radicals. They are now a populist Lebanese movement with a constituency that has grown far beyond the Shi'a neighborhoods of Beirut that they started out in during the Civil War.

"Is that because of how far they've come in terms of civility or is it more a reaction to your perception of Israel and their actions over the last 25 years?"

Hibollah's growing influence has been direct response to Israeli actions from the very beginning. Throughout the most recent Israeli invasions, Hizbollah was the organization most effective in standing up against the invaders, and in expressing Lebanese nationalism in terms of significant national defense. That is why Hizbollah's popularity surged in recent years, gaining the support of Lebanese who are not Shi'a, and do not really share Hizbollah's alignment. Lebanese politics are like a shipwreck at sea, with people trying to stay afloat on whatever wreckage of national politics they can find- and they often change what flotsam they ride. It's a desperate political situation, caused by outside forces, and the Lebanese people deserve a better life.

"I'm trying to follow your moral compass here, but it's spinning like a ship without a rudder in a storm, so bear with me as I try to follow you on this journey."

Lebanon's rudder is at the bottom of the sea.

"And a point of clarification, the cockroaches of the world are those who would call themselves freedom fighters, but lack the courage to stand and fight, and would rather grab up a child or woman off the street to use as a human shield."

When people fight a more powerful enemy in their own streets and houses, the children they love and cherish are involved, and their deaths are just as horrifying and heartbreaking for Hizbollah parents as they are for any other parents in such situations. Your image of a "freedom fighter" using his screaming child as a sandbag in a firefight is exaggeration and propaganda.

"That person is not a soldier. He has no honor. There are not 72 virgins waiting for a coward like that."

You're just defaulting into a tired routine of dehumanizing a perceived enemy, smearing a major Lebanese political party, and in effect smearing an entire country and people that you obviously know very little about.

If anybody wants to understand Lebanese politics, throwing "Michel Aoun" into your Google search gives more informative results.

My interpretation:
Asking the South Lebanese Shiites /Hezbollah and Amal to disarm without also asking asking for a democracy based on a real census and proportional representation is the same as asking for the Civil war to restart. The Shia would never disarm without getting proportional representation. The present constitution, even after the Taif agreement leaves the Shiites vastly under-represented in the Lebanese government.

Asking that Lebanon become a real Democracy is also asking that the Civil war be restarted, because most Maronites would rather fight than accept a real democracy. The Suni also lose some power in a real democracy.

Jumblat, the Druze leader is rabidly anti Syrian now, but in the history of the civil wars the Jumblats and the Druze have always been quick to switch sides

Michel Aoun and his supporters are the exception to the rule that the Maronites won't are unwilling for Lebanon to become a real democracy.

Aoun +Hezbollah and Amal versus the anti-Syrian coalition = political stalemate. Aoun fought the Syrians, but Aoun wants an independent Lebanon while the Anti-Syrian coalition is willing to be a US/Saudi/Israeli client state. Aoun wants harmonious relations among the various Lebanese ethnicities while most Lebanese accept ethnically tense status quo.

Tragically, the Lebanese Civil War has never been settled. It's still simmering, and it's folly for the USA or anyone to turn up the heat.

If you want to kill Hizballah, you'll have to nuke the mid east, and then some.

(btw: didn't the Serbs figure out how to pick up the stealth planes using cell phone shadows ? Or was that just part of the confusion over there ? )
That was chronic retardation on part of the NATO air commander, who sent the F-117s over the exact same path for every mission. Eventually the Serbs got wise to this, spammed the air with gunfire when they heard engines, and...welp.

Multistatic radars, like those that would use cell phone towers as transmitters, will provide a very crude binary indication of a presence of something in their field, much like a metal detector will, but their resolution for determining speed/direction/altitude/size is absolute shit. We talked about this in greater detail in this thread (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1702451&postcount=32).

Well that might just be enough to provoke a response that would rid the world of Hezbollah, once and for all. But I doubt Nasrallah is as ready to die as you think.

Raegan actually ordered a strike on Lebanon in 1983 in response to the barracks bombing. But the SecDef aborted it. What a doytchbag...

You didn't refer to them as having terrorist roots. Instead you over-generalized, with prejudice- describing Hizbollah as cockroaches in need of extermination.

I'll second that! :)

Hold on, a second: What do you mean, otheadp? /hits brakes /grinds into contextual reverse..

15/19: (post 25) "we can still dream of eradicating the cockroaches of the world."

(post 40) "You are basically saying that while it's not up for debate that Hezbollah has its roots as a terrorist organization, in the year 2008 it offends you to see them referred to that way because they've morphed into something legitimate, in your opinion?"

HW: You didn't refer to them as having terrorist roots. Instead you over-generalized, with prejudice- describing Hizbollah as cockroaches in need of extermination.

otheadp: "I'll second that! :)"

Did you mean to second the bigotry, or second my reaction to it?

LOL
What do you think I meant?

I meant this:
http://www.wunderkabinett.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10003/goodman_spiders_450.jpg

(I'm assuming you understand the reference).

otheadp: "I'm assuming you understand the reference"

I'm not sure. It seems to me that John Goodman may be dressed as an exterminator in this image. If that is the case, the most obvious inference to be made is that yes, you are using it to repeat an assertion that Palestinians belonging to Hamas should be exterminated. It's no less an example of extreme hate speech, just because you think you're being clever here.

otheadp: "I'm assuming you understand the reference"

I'm not sure. It seems to me that John Goodman may be dressed as an exterminator in this image. If that is the case, the most obvious inference to be made is that yes, you are using it to repeat an assertion that Palestinians belonging to Hamas should be exterminated. It's no less an example of extreme hate speech, just because you think you're being clever here.

I was agreeing to the "Hizballah = cockroaches" statement. But it extended to Hamas as well, obviously :)

That pic is from Arachnophobia. John Goodman's character is the inept exterminator that gets killed by the spiders he came to exterminate. See, my allusion has a deeper meaning - it takes a very special kind of ruthless exterminator to get the job done... not a fat ass clueless one that brings a knife to a gunfight.

I was agreeing to the "Hizballah = cockroaches" statement. But it extended to Hamas as well, obviously :)

That pic is from Arachnophobia. John Goodman's character is the inept exterminator that gets killed by the spiders he came to exterminate. See, my allusion has a deeper meaning - it takes a very special kind of ruthless exterminator to get the job done... not a fat ass clueless one that brings a knife to a gunfight.

You callin' me fat?

lol

...

Uhm.... I was gonna make a joke about it, but you might be a former Marine that served in Lebanon in the early '80s, so I won't.

If so, then I call Raegan's SecDef fat (among other things) for aborting Reagan's order to strike Hizballah after the barrack bombing.

Ridiculous. The USS Cole may have been considered bait as cold iron in the Port of Aden, but there is nobody in Lebanon who can threaten US warships loitering offshore. It's not bait, but intimidation,...
Sort of like hypewaders hanging in SciForums territory: imagining safe exposure to ineffective counter-reaction to empty, threatening bluster.

Ridiculous?

I was agreeing to the "Hizballah = cockroaches" statement. But it extended to Hamas as well, obviously

Advocating the extermination of a group of people and likening them to cockroaches is hate speech. Continue and you may be banned from sciforums.

Advocating the extermination of a group of people and likening them to cockroaches is hate speech. Continue and you may be banned from sciforums.
JamesR,

Just a point of clarification: Al Qaeda is a group of people. If someone were to refer to them as cockroaches, would that be a bannable offense?

And if so, is it the terminology, or the supposed validity of a group of people?

I'm assuming you wouldn't have a problem with referring to a convicted serial killer as a cockroach, but if you do, please explain why.

Thanks in advance.

I, too, find the term "a group of people" thin gruel for the estimation of an offense.

15/19: "Just a point of clarification: Al Qaeda is a group of people. "

Your point is one of deception. Al-Qaeda is an amorphous terrorist moniker, with few identifiable members. Hamas (and Hizbollah) are political parties, with many hundreds of thousands of human beings openly involved in mundane, non-violent capacities, who are certainly not cockroaches deserving extermination.

15/19: "Just a point of clarification: Al Qaeda is a group of people. "

Your point is one of deception. Al-Qaeda is an amorphous terrorist moniker, with few identifiable members. Hamas (and Hizbollah) are political parties, with many hundreds of thousands of human beings openly involved in mundane, non-violent capacities, who are certainly not cockroaches deserving extermination.
And your point is one of laughability.

Just a point of clarification: Al Qaeda is a group of people. If someone were to refer to them as cockroaches, would that be a bannable offense?

Potentially.

Unadulterated hate speech is basically irrational emotivism.

If you have an argument why members of Al Qaeda ought to be prosecuted, and/or the organisation (if such a thing exists) ought to be outlawed and quashed (and indeed it is illegal in many countries), then put your argument.

But just saying "I hate Al Qaeda" only tells us how you feel. It doesn't say anything useful about Al Qaeda. Now compare "Al Qaeda are cockroaches." Same thing. All the poster is really saying is "I hate Al Qaeda".

It doesn't make for interesting or enlightening discourse, does it? In fact, if anything it just invites people to join in a mutual irrational hate fest.

I'm assuming you wouldn't have a problem with referring to a convicted serial killer as a cockroach, but if you do, please explain why.

I do have a problem with that. Referring to even a serial killer as a "cockroach" actually diminishes his crime. Saying he is a cockroach implies that he is not a human being, and therefore cannot be held to the moral standards expected of human beings. Saying he is a cockroach implies that no human being could possibly commit such crimes. The fact of life is very different.

We need to recognise that human beings can and do sometimes act in despicable ways. Al Qaeda members are human beings. We can only hope to solve the problem of Al Qaeda (and serial killers, for that matter) by understanding the motivations of the people involved and recognising that these are people nonetheless, although their actions lie far outside the bounds of what is considered ethical and proper by most human beings.

Attempts to pretend that people you don't like are non-human may be comforting and satisfying, but all such attempts mask the real impact of realising that these people are human too.

One other point worth making is that the very people condemned as "cockroaches" and the like are being condemned for the very reason that they regard others as cockroaches themselves. So, to labelling them in this way is essentially to join them - to lower yourself to their level.

Back when the US was winning the war in Viet Nam (and I don't mean that sarcastically - the actual objectives were largely achieved, in a cynic's accounting) US military leadership occasionally referred to the Viet Cong as "termites" infesting a "house".

This language was used to justify - or better, conceal the lack of justification of - an extermination policy.

The facile self-deception inherent in that language had several effects - among them, concealment of the fact that had anyone taken it seriously they would have paid better attention to the likely effects of the extermination methods chosen, as one naturally would with termites.

The first step in exterminating termites is careful investigation of their nature - what kinds there are and how to identify them, what the differences are between different kinds, where and how they live, what they like and don't like, what conditions favor them, etc. Usually the people doing that like termites and are interested in them, btw, but never mind - - -

The consequences in Viet Nam were, to continue the metaphor, that the house was reduced to a pile of lumber ideal for termites and uninhabitable by much of anything else.

I suppose one could ask the question: what is the dominant aspect of the stupidity inherent in the various vermin metaphors applied to Hezbollah ? Is it the failure to consder Hezbollah's actual nature, habitat requirements, etc ? Or the dismissal of concerns about the focus on, and methods of, extermination ?

Your point is one of deception. Al-Qaeda is an amorphous terrorist moniker, with few identifiable members. Hamas (and Hizbollah) are political parties, with many hundreds of thousands of human beings openly involved in mundane, non-violent capacities, who are certainly not cockroaches deserving extermination.

Al Qaeda is often applied to terrorist acts and groups when it shouldn't be yb politicians and spokesmen, but without a doubt it is an organization with easily identifiable members. In fact, in order to be in AQ, one has to swear allegiance to OBL.

Wasn't the last al Qaeda chief in Iraq an Egyptian actor pretending to be a terrorist?

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/09/17/bogus-mr-baghdadi-abc-cites-fake-al-qaeda-iraq-character
The man known as Abu Omar Baghdadi is an actor and the group a front for Al Qaeda in Iraq, the military says. In March, he was declared captured. In May, he was declared killed, and his purported corpse was displayed on state-run TV. But on Wednesday, Abu Omar Baghdadi, the supposed leader of an Al Qaeda-affiliated group in Iraq, was declared nonexistent by U.S. military officials, who said he was a fictional character created to give an Iraqi face to a foreign-run terrorist organization.

Wasn't the last al Qaeda chief in Iraq an Egyptian actor pretending to be a terrorist?

not blaming israel and the US?

maybe hes father molested him when he was a child, and now he is fuming steam. the poor lad.

One other point worth making is that the very people condemned as "cockroaches" and the like are being condemned for the very reason that they regard others as cockroaches themselves. So, to labelling them in this way is essentially to join them - to lower yourself to their level.
Bull shit.

Life feeds on life.

Eating one's own limbs, as if they were no different than the limbs of another, is a nonsensical survival strategy.

Pickling the target isn't about playing kissy-kiss.

You're rambling again, Mr. G. Stop foaming at the mouth and make an effort to make some sense.

Why not just call me a cockroach and prove your own point, and mine, in fewer words?

Wasn't the last al Qaeda chief in Iraq an Egyptian actor pretending to be a terrorist?

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/09/17/bogus-mr-baghdadi-abc-cites-fake-al-qaeda-iraq-character

And this means what exactly? That there's no Al Qaeda or something?

And this means what exactly? That there's no Al Qaeda or something?

another Zionist propaganda.

And this means what exactly? That there's no Al Qaeda or something? It means that either they're a little harder to ID than some people seem to think, or that the first reaction when a US government spokesman says anything about anything to do with "Al Qaeda" should not be a nodding of heads and bleating. Probably both.

We just saw a surge make Al Qaeda all but vanish from large areas of Iraq by giving money and weapons to local tribal chiefs.

And this means what exactly? That there's no Al Qaeda or something?

The al Qaeda vanished as soon as the Sunni "extremists" were put on the payroll of $10 a day. Not killed, not caught or captured. Vanished.

another Zionist propaganda.

Israel is definitey involved in Iraq

According to Israeli newspaper Maariv [via Assafir and Al-mokhtasar], an Israeli soldier Ami Hai Biton killed a week in Iraq in an IED explosion, the newspaper said that Ami Hai was the first Israeli soldier erects the Israeli flag in Iraq [this is the first confirmation by Israel on Israeli soldiers presence in Iraq].


And:

Israeli officer sells weapons to terrorists in Iraq
Wed, 07 Mar 2007 22:44:47
Ma'ariv Daily has reported that an Israeli retired officer sells weapons to terrorist groups in Iraq.

Shmoel Avivi, an Israeli retired officer, had established a firm in Iraq 2 years ago, which secretly sold arms to terrorist groups in Iraq, Ma'ariv reported.

Amnesty International reported that Avivi was one of the biggest weapon dealers in the Middle East.

Iraqi sources earlier announced that terrorist attacks in Iraq were backed by the intelligent agencies of CIA and Mossad and the secret agents of Iraqi former regime.

Earlier, Iraqi parliament security commission chairman Hadi Ameri had accused the occupying soldiers of secretly directing the terrorist attacks and forming terror squads in Iraq.


http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=1854&sectionid=3510202

No verification for this news, unless someone else knows different?

Why not just call me a cockroach and prove your own point, and mine, in fewer words?

What are you on?

What are you on?

well from what i read there is the new plant saliva that is legal thats supposed to be mind altering maybe thats what he is on

What are you on?
I'm on point.

Counter point, to y'all.

What are you on?

well from what i read there is the new plant saliva that is legal thats supposed to be mind altering maybe thats what he is on
Literacy is good.

At least you have that goin' for you.

It means that either they're a little harder to ID than some people seem to think, or that the first reaction when a US government spokesman says anything about anything to do with "Al Qaeda" should not be a nodding of heads and bleating. Probably both.

I agree with this, and have said as much on numerous occassions, but my point is that Hype has continually raised questions about Al Qaeda in a manner that seems to suggest he thinks the group is largely the figment of someone's imagination simply because there isn't a chart showing who's a member.

Literacy is good.

At least you have that goin' for you.

literacy and a thirst for knowledge the latter something alot of people on this site could use

countezero: "Hype has continually raised questions about Al Qaeda in a manner that seems to suggest he thinks the group is largely the figment of someone's imagination simply because there isn't a chart showing who's a member."

Al-Qaeda (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html) is most widely used today as a convenient and manipulative buzzword. The word has become a hollow appeal to emotion and ignorance, that too often clutters up reason and informed conversation.

The Power of Nightmares (http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares) provides a summary of how the term "Al-Qaeda" became conflated with any of a myriad of violent, fundamentalist, and (most often) Sunni opponents of US foreign policy in the Mideast. It has become popularly routine to affix and accept the Al-Qaeda label without any credible evidence.

The term is so compromised, that its usefulness (so far as sincere people are concerned) is now mostly limited to the fairly reliable identification of persons or organizations who are promoting or perpetuating propaganda, when they employ the term without qualifiers. "Al-Qaeda" says more today about the people who most often use the term, than it does about the many and various groups that the term is so hastily and routinely affixed to. If we recall how the Bush Administration used the term to connect Saddam Hussein's regime to the bloody shirt of 9-11 in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, we have a clear example of the use of the term for the purpose of public disinformation. The deception continues today, when the "Al-Qaeda" label is hastily affixed to various elements of violent resistance to the occupation of Iraq.

For this dangerous (and often deliberate) confusion to be overcome, reasonable people must persistently insist that those employing the term "Al-Qaeda" fully explain the specific connections being insinuated by evoking it.

The deception continues today, when the "Al-Qaeda" label is hastily affixed to various elements of violent resistance to the occupation of Iraq.
Haha, what?

Hype, if you'll go back and look at the part of my response to Ice, the part which you have neglected to quote, you will notice that I pretty much agreed with his argument. The Al Qaeda label does get wrongly applied by politicians and pundits, but that doesn't mean Al Qaeda isn't out there and that our intelligence and military operators aren't able to effectively identify them — most of the time...

But as usual, in recognizing something, you go too far in the other direction to reject it. I mean, are you really arguing there isn't any version of Al Qaeda in Iraq? Because that's just dead wrong...

countezero: "The Al Qaeda label does get wrongly applied by politicians and pundits, but that doesn't mean Al Qaeda isn't out there and that our intelligence and military operators aren't able to effectively identify them — most of the time..."

Most of the time? Most of the time, when the Al-Qaeda chant has risen to the highest volume in the White House and Major US media, it has turned out to be dead wrong.

"are you really arguing there isn't any version of Al Qaeda in Iraq?"

I have seen no convincing evidence that Bin Laden's organization holds any significant sway in Iraq, or that his organization in Iraq compares in threat to the many other elements of Iraqi civil unrest and domestic Iraqi resistance to the occupation. Can you provide compelling evidence here to show us otherwise?

First, what I wrote specifically did not mention politicians and pundits.

Second, you need to back up your outrage with specific examples from credible sources before I will take them seriously.

The deception continues today, when the "Al-Qaeda" label is hastily affixed to various elements of violent resistance to the occupation of Iraq.

Echo3Romeo: "Haha, what?"

countezero: you need to back up your outrage with specific examples from credible sources before I will take them seriously."

I've linked Andrew Tilghman's article several times around here, but I'm not sure if you've considered it: The Myth of AQI (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html)

As usual, the information is there. You either don't see it or choose to disbelieve it.

Go to Wikipedia and type in Al Qaeda in Iraq. Wiki isn't a water-tight source, but this entry links most of its material. Following the wiki link to the State Department, for example, one finds this:

"Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR): Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (al-Qaida of the Jihad Organization in the Land of Two Rivers), is most clearly associated with foreign terrorist cells operating in Iraq and has specifically targeted Coalition forces and Iraqi citizens. In a July 2005 letter to al-Qaida deputy Zawahiri, Zarqawi outlined a four-stage plan to expand the Iraq war to include expelling U.S. forces, establishing an Islamic authority, spreading the conflict to Iraq's secular neighbors, and engaging in battle with Israel. The United States also refers to the group as al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI)."

Seems pretty clear to me.

I read most of your story. It presents several different sides, some bullish, some not and then settles on the not (a subjective judgment). It does, however, acknowledge that Al Qaeda is in Iraq in some capacity.

countezero: "I read most of your story... Al Qaeda is in Iraq in some capacity."

In some capacity... OK sure. There are still any number of other marginal foreign extremist cells in Iraq, too ("in some capacity") But they will certainly not be taking over the place, not even when the USAmerican misadventure is finally abandoned. There is no evidence that Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda has any significant presence there.

Of course AQI won't be taking/holding any terrain, nor is that their long term goal. They're mainly there to cause enough hate and discontent to ensure that the new, free Iraq will never enjoy stability and its people will never experience safety. That is, unless they adopt the insane fundie values of the tweenage Salafist/Wahabbist hajjis heading north from Saudi who want to send the western powers packing and re-form the caliphate after an inspiring sermon from their local imam lit a fire in their gut. More on that here (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009900).

It seems we are all in agreement that politicians vastly overstate the influence of AQI, but they have at times had a significant organizational presence. While a majority of their fighters might be angsty kids from Syria, Saudi, or Jordan wearing bad 80s warmup suits...Iraq has also been a shit magnet for veteran jihadis from Chechnya and even Bosnia. Unlike the local brew, those guys can generally shoot straight and actually know how to maneuver in small units. When they're swearing allegiance to al Qaeda, I'm not sure who else we are supposed to associate them with.

As an aside, inflating the significance of AQI's impact early on was probably a mistake, as our operations in Afghanistan had functionally destroyed their cohesion and sent packing anyone who wasn't killed fighting the coalition. In my view, repeated mentions of Zarqawi and his alignment with Bin Laden by the western media and political leadership made al Qaeda appear far more tenacious and organized than they really were, and in retrospect wasn't a very good idea.

lookee here
the only reason why osama was a talking point in the iraq debacle was because it was touted as a justification for an invasion.
that premise had been discounted
a justification for the occupation should be seen in its own light

Advocating the extermination of a group of people and likening them to cockroaches is hate speech. Continue and you may be banned from sciforums.

I just noticed this today and ... are you friggen serious?
1) I didn't explicitly say anything of that sort (wishing death unto them).
2) Even if I implied it, which I didn't (at that particular time), I'd only be repeating their own words. What's wrong with wishing death on those who wish, and try hard, to bring death unto me and my people?
3) Calling a group of people cockroaches is a bannable offense? Since when? Can I call NAMBLA cockroaches?

lookee here
the only reason why osama was a talking point in the iraq debacle was because it was touted as a justification for an invasion.
that premise had been discounted
a justification for the occupation should be seen in its own light

/concur

3) Calling a group of people cockroaches is a bannable offense? Since when? Can I call NAMBLA cockroaches?
Bingo.

^5

What James R meant to say was that referring to certain demographics that his liberal feelings sympathize with as cockroaches is a bannable offense.

What James R meant to say was that referring to certain demographics that his liberal feelings sympathize with as cockroaches is a bannable offense.
When in Demville, opposings are supposed to step lightly, or else.

Dare not let the real world leak in.

When in Demville, opposings are supposed to step lightly, or else.

Dare not let the real world leak in.

huh you of in lala land or something?

As long as I'm here, I'm still there.

3) Calling a group of people cockroaches is a bannable offense? Since when? Can I call NAMBLA cockroaches?

Bingo.

What James R meant to say was that referring to certain demographics that his liberal feelings sympathize with as cockroaches is a bannable offense.

I advise you all to read my previous post where I clearly explained my point of view on this.

A little effort, please.

Indeed it takes effort to discern a selective point of view.

Advocating the extermination of a group of people and likening them to cockroaches is hate speech. Continue and you may be banned from sciforums.

How much effort does it really take for you to understand this, 15/19?

How much effort does it really take for you to understand this, 15/19?

I guess if I turned off my brain for a moment it wouldn't take much, but when I know what I know about this joint and the mods it becomes a bit of a game to understand just exactly which groups they are going to stand up for and defend.

Heaven knows if I had called the KKK cockroaches in another thread, nobody would have threatened me with banning. There is a double standard being applied here, even if you don't want to admit it. And for the record, anyone with any association with a white supremacist movement is also a cockroach in my book, but I doubt anybody is going to rush to criticize me for saying that. Either way, we're talking about movements motivated by hate, and apparently some are less distasteful than others, at least in the world of sciforums. Get it?

I advise you all to read my previous post where I clearly explained my point of view on this.

A little effort, please.
You're not the complicated person you would have us worrying over.

15ofthe19, Mr. G, and anybody else too lazy to read back to post #63 above:

Here it is again:

-------------
Referring to even a serial killer as a "cockroach" actually diminishes his crime. Saying he is a cockroach implies that he is not a human being, and therefore cannot be held to the moral standards expected of human beings. Saying he is a cockroach implies that no human being could possibly commit such crimes. The fact of life is very different.

We need to recognise that human beings can and do sometimes act in despicable ways. Al Qaeda members are human beings. We can only hope to solve the problem of Al Qaeda (and serial killers, for that matter) by understanding the motivations of the people involved and recognising that these are people nonetheless, although their actions lie far outside the bounds of what is considered ethical and proper by most human beings.

Attempts to pretend that people you don't like are non-human may be comforting and satisfying, but all such attempts mask the real impact of realising that these people are human too.

One other point worth making is that the very people condemned as "cockroaches" and the like are being condemned for the very reason that they regard others as cockroaches themselves. So, to labelling them in this way is essentially to join them - to lower yourself to their level.
-------------

I'm happy to answer questions, but only AFTER you've read the above.

Referring to even a serial killer as a "cockroach" actually diminishes his crime. Saying he is a cockroach implies that he is not a human being, and therefore cannot be held to the moral standards expected of human beings. Saying he is a cockroach implies that no human being could possibly commit such crimes. The fact of life is very different.I don't agree with your implications. Saying he is a cockroach implies that his behavior is beneath that expected of a human being. It also implies that he should be squashed like a bug.
One other point worth making is that the very people condemned as "cockroaches" and the like are being condemned for the very reason that they regard others as cockroaches themselves. So, to labelling them in this way is essentially to join them - to lower yourself to their level.
You fail to recognize the justice inherent in treating them as they treated their victims. When society rids itself of such scum it is not "lowering itself to their level". It is self defense. We remove such criminals from society to protect the just and the innocent from the depravations of the perverted coachroaches you seek to defend.

James R,

You should put that in Ethics and morality.

The effects of parking the Cole near Lebanon will be harder to predict, by people who think that Hezbollah is a bunch of cockroaches.

You can use language like that if you want to, but the repetition of it tends to muddle one's thinking.

Pretty soon you get the idea that Hezbollah can be cowed by threats, sent scurrying by bright lights and loud noises; that Hezbollah can be exterminated, cannot be negotiated with, has no legitimate wants or roles.

That's when you start losing your grip on the situation.

You fail to recognize the justice inherent in treating them as they treated their victims.

Does this apply to everyone?

Do the people who think the Hezbollah are cockroaches for revolting against an occupation also think Tibetan "militants" fighting off teh Chinese are cockroaches?

15ofthe19, Mr. G, and anybody else too lazy to read back to post #63 above:

Here it is again:

-------------
Referring to even a serial killer as a "cockroach" actually diminishes his crime. Saying he is a cockroach implies that he is not a human being, and therefore cannot be held to the moral standards expected of human beings. Saying he is a cockroach implies that no human being could possibly commit such crimes. The fact of life is very different.

No, James. By calling Hizballah "cockroaches" we are not absolving them of the terrible things they have done and are trying to do every day. On the contrary.

We are saying that they have no souls (at least I do) since they are so blinded by their hate. They are as soulless and disgusting as cockroaches.

Actually, calling them "cockroaches" would be insulting to those beautiful and elegant insects. I'll stop short of calling for Hizballah leaders' extermination, but you won't stop me from calling them names :)

We are saying that they have no souls (at least I do) since they are so blinded by their hate. They are as soulless and disgusting as cockroaches.

Actually, calling them "cockroaches" would be insulting to those beautiful and elegant insects. I'll stop short of calling for Hizballah leaders' extermination, but you won't stop me from calling them names :)

Of course not, you have to find some justification for Israel occupying and destroying Lebanon. The reason for the creation of the Hezbollah

Of course not, you have to find some justification for Israel occupying and destroying Lebanon. The reason for the creation of the Hezbollah

Here we go again :)

*pats SAM on the head*

Just pop a Ritalin or 7, and it'll be alright :)

Does this apply to everyone?

Do the people who think the Hezbollah are cockroaches for revolting against an occupation also think Tibetan "militants" fighting off teh Chinese are cockroaches?
I was responding specifically to Jame's post where he refered to serial killers. Regarding Hezbollah and Tibetan militants, it all depends on their actions. If you purposely target women, children, and civilians in general; then yes, you're scum. If you're resisting a military force and attack military target, then no.

I was responding specifically to Jame's post where he refered to serial killers. Regarding Hezbollah and Tibetan militants, it all depends on their actions. If you purposely target women, children, and civilians in general; then yes, you're scum. If you're resisting a military force and attack military target, then no.

What about if you're just throwing thousands of pounds of bombs on cities?

What about if you're just throwing thousands of pounds of bombs on cities?I certainly see your point that there will be significant civilian casualies, perhaps even primarily civilian casualities in those kind of attacks, or certainly with nuclear bombs..

But if this is done in the context of a declared "total war", one nation v/s another it's not the same as some terrorist sneaking in and settin off a nuke or even blowing up a school bus.

A big difference between terrorists and states is that, even if the state is committing horrible acts of violence, it's doing it with a return address. Germany bombed London, England bombed Germany in response.

A terrorist sneaks in, commits atrocities against civilians, and then runs and hides. This makes them unaccountable for their actions. It means they will not be held back from an ever escalating cascade of worse and worse atrocities. It makes them scum that needs to be wiped from the face of the earth.

The effects of parking the Cole near Lebanon will be harder to predict, by people who think that Hezbollah is a bunch of cockroaches.

You can use language like that if you want to, but the repetition of it tends to muddle one's thinking.

Pretty soon you get the idea that Hezbollah can be cowed by threats, sent scurrying by bright lights and loud noises; that Hezbollah can be exterminated, cannot be negotiated with, has no legitimate wants or roles.

That's when you start losing your grip on the situation.

Hear, hear! You're onto a familiar pattern, IA. On so many geopolitical topics here and IRL, we all have to cut through heavy newspeak. You did so masterfully. It's no wasted effort, because it is the same shallow thinking being promoted from the top down in the USA, about societies equally as sophisticated as our own, that is causing US foreign policy to run aground.

But if this is done in the context of a declared "total war", one nation v/s another it's not the same as some terrorist sneaking in and settin off a nuke or even blowing up a school bus.

A big difference between terrorists and states is that, even if the state is committing horrible acts of violence, it's doing it with a return address. Germany bombed London, England bombed Germany in response.

A terrorist sneaks in, commits atrocities against civilians, and then runs and hides. This makes them unaccountable for their actions. It means they will not be held back from an ever escalating cascade of worse and worse atrocities. It makes them scum that needs to be wiped from the face of the earth.

So its okay to bomb just any country in return for a terrorist attack? Does this mean you recognise the right of the bombed countries to seek retribution?

Take the issue of the USS Cole for instance, on the sea coast of Lebanon. Or the US missile strike on Somalia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6243459.stm) on faulty intel that killed civilians, including four year olds. What do you think about it? What should these people do about teh rogue US state bullying them?

Pretty soon you get the idea that Hezbollah can be cowed by threats, sent scurrying by bright lights and loud noises; that Hezbollah can be exterminated, cannot be negotiated with, has no legitimate wants or roles.

That's when you start losing your grip on the situation.
OK, let's disect this one by one:

1) The cockroaches cannot be cowed by threats / sent scurrying by bright light and loud noises
That is the only way to get them to do anything. Anyone who has lived in the Middle East knows what counts. And what counts, what has always counted in the Arab world, is being powerful and ruthless. If they see any sign of no confidence or weakness they'll pounce on you like pirhanas on a bloody piece of meat. But when you show them force, when you treat them like shit, when you pound and pound and pound them, only then will they fuck off, and will actually give you any kind of respect. To them trying to avoid civilian casualties shows you as a westernized pussy that is afraid to finish the job. A half-measuring, half-principled, wavering fool. You can only get their respect by being disproportionate. Look what being peaceful got Israel - 2 kidnapped soldiers and a Hizballah network in Gaza. It's a tribal caveman mentality, but that's who they are. So when in Rome...

2) The cockroaches cannot be exterminated.
That's probably True. But just because there will be more dishes to wash tomorrow does not mean you shouldn't wash the dirty ones that are there today. Going after the Black September terrorists didn't destroy terrorism, but it disrupted the international terrorism network they had in place at the time. Killing Hizballah's head in the 90's didn't destroy the group, but slowed it down. Killing Mughniya now won't destroy the group either, but it'll slow it down. Fighting these cockroaches is like maintenance. It has to be done, and it's of an ongoing nature.

3) The cockroaches can be negotiated with
:) OK there. Have fun with that. They are treacherous to their country in so many different ways. Plus, they can't deliver Ron Arad after promissing so many times. Plus, they don't abide by agreements made. Why would anyone trust them? See my pont #1. They only understand force. Just like any Arab thug.

4) The cockroaches have legitmate wants / roles
As Iran's gangsters in Lebanon they certainly have wants and roles, but to call them legitimate or honourable is laughable if it weren't so tragic. Of couse, anyone who thinks Ahmedinejad's Iran and Assad's Syria are 2 "well mannered" regimes with legitimate foreign policies will by extension think Hizballah's wants and roles are legitimate. But if you think the former then you need to have your head examined :)

As for these cockroaches, they need to be ... well, you know what I want to say :)

Sounds like Israeli squatters.

Would pest control work, do you think? :rolleyes:

Sounds like Israeli squatters.

Would pest control work, do you think? :rolleyes:

http://www.nativeremedies.com/ocd-alternative-treatment.shtml

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is an Anxiety Disorder which has as its main characteristics obsessive thoughts and ideas, which are sometimes accompanied by compulsive behaviors and actions, often designed to ward off the obsessive thoughts.

http://www.nativeremedies.com/ocd-alternative-treatment.shtml

Is that what the problem is? Then I guess pest control would be pointless. :m:

Is that what the problem is? Then I guess pest control would be pointless. :m:

Well, you are being a pest 93% of the time ;) But I think MindSoothe(TM) would do you more good than pestisides :D

I don't agree with your implications. Saying he is a cockroach implies that his behavior is beneath that expected of a human being. It also implies that he should be squashed like a bug.

Do you think serial killers are otherwise normal people who simply enjoy killing? Do you feel you can understand what motivates them?

I can't even begin to understand the motives of serial killers. I think they have defective brains. Being angry at the insane, or seeking vengeance on them, accomplishes nothing. Neither does dehumanizing them by calling them cockroaches or worse. They have to be restrained, they have to be isolated. We do not understand the human brain well enough to truly understand what motivates such people, much less cure them. But imagine a future where it was possible to fix the mental defect(s) of such people. At such a time, they might view our present treatment of them in much the same way we now view the degrading treatments applied to the mentally ill in general in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when it was still "well known" that their behavior was caused by demonic possession.

Nasrallah's ghoulish rhetoric and disgusting behaviour does make it seem like he's possessed by the 12th imam or something...

"We have the heads, the hands, the feet and even a nearly intact cadaver from the head down to the pelvis," he said.
(link (http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3496155,00.html))

That's him, boasting about having body parts of Israeli soldiers. Real class this guy. Extermination would be too good for him. He needs to be hung, drawn and quartered.

But when you show them force, when you treat them like shit, when you pound and pound and pound them, only then will they fuck off, and will actually give you any kind of respect. - - - So that's what we got from Fallujah - respect. Lots and lots of respect, in 2005 and 2006 and 2007. Or do we need to do some more pounding ? Petreaus has been wimping out - giving them guns and money and stuff.

Was the problem with Abu Ghraib that we didn't treat those cockroaches with enough brutality ?
Look what being peaceful got Israel - That was a joke, right ?

Nasrallah's ghoulish rhetoric and disgusting behaviour does make it seem like he's possessed by the 12th imam or something...


(link (http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3496155,00.html))

That's him, boasting about having body parts of Israeli soldiers. Real class this guy. Extermination would be too good for him. He needs to be hung, drawn and quartered.

Is that the pieces the Israelis were too lazy to take home with them when they invaded the independent country of Lebanon?

madanthonywayne:

I don't agree with your implications. Saying he is a cockroach implies that his behavior is beneath that expected of a human being. It also implies that he should be squashed like a bug.

I do not think that any human being should be "squashed like a bug". We've seen what happens when people dehumanise others. We've seen it in Rwanda, and in Bosnia and in the concentration camps of World War II.

And yet, here you are advocating that some people deserve such treatment. And I see that your fellow "conservatives" mostly agree with you. Maybe that's your problem as a group: you just don't see the big picture.

You fail to recognize the justice inherent in treating them as they treated their victims.

That's not justice. It's revenge. There is a difference.

When society rids itself of such scum it is not "lowering itself to their level". It is self defense.

All that is required for society to protect itself is to lock up serial killers, out of harm's way. "Squashing them like bugs" is just revelling in unnecessary violence - essentially indulging in the same kind of blood lust that the serial killer enjoys. As I said, you're just joining them when you do that.

We remove such criminals from society to protect the just and the innocent from the depravations of the perverted coachroaches you seek to defend.

Where have I "defended" serial killers? You're reading things into my posts that simply aren't there. Get some perspective.

Regarding Hezbollah and Tibetan militants, it all depends on their actions. If you purposely target women, children, and civilians in general; then yes, you're scum. If you're resisting a military force and attack military target, then no.

Seems inconsistent to me. Once a cockroach, always a cockroach, surely? If you say that some actions are the actions of human beings, then you've opened the door to regarding these people as people.

You need to resolve the problem of your double-think.


otheadp:

No, James. By calling Hizballah "cockroaches" we are not absolving them of the terrible things they have done and are trying to do every day. On the contrary.

We are saying that they have no souls (at least I do) since they are so blinded by their hate. They are as soulless and disgusting as cockroaches.

i.e. you're dehumanising them - pretending they aren't like "normal" people. Just like I said.

Members of Hezbollah are human beings, just like you. They are not, on the whole, mentally disturbed. They regard their motivations as justifiable and logical.

The fact that you view them as "cockroaches" means that you will never understand them, and hence you will never be able to see a way to solve the "problem" of groups like Hezbollah.

Anyone who has lived in the Middle East knows what counts. And what counts, what has always counted in the Arab world, is being powerful and ruthless. If they see any sign of no confidence or weakness they'll pounce on you like pirhanas on a bloody piece of meat. But when you show them force, when you treat them like shit, when you pound and pound and pound them, only then will they fuck off, and will actually give you any kind of respect. To them trying to avoid civilian casualties shows you as a westernized pussy that is afraid to finish the job. A half-measuring, half-principled, wavering fool. You can only get their respect by being disproportionate.

Do you really think that disproportionate violence is a way to earn respect?

Really?

They only understand force. Just like any Arab thug.

It sounds to me like you only understand force.

You need to grow up and learn to solve problems like an adult.

JamesR, I know you mean well, but honestly, you're shining on the history of the region. The truth is, Arabs do respect force. They really don't respect appeasement. To deny that is to deny 1000 years of history, and I really don't see you doing that.

Now if you want to twist my words and say that I'm saying violence is the only answer, go ahead. I wont be surprised. But when you discount history, you diminish your effectiveness as a mod.

JamesR, I know you mean well, but honestly, you're shining on the history of the region. The truth is, Arabs do respect force. They really don't respect appeasement. To deny that is to deny 1000 years of history, and I really don't see you doing that.

Now if you want to twist my words and say that I'm saying violence is the only answer, go ahead. I wont be surprised. But when you discount history, you diminish your effectiveness as a mod.

Is that why the Americans are pounding them since so many years? Because they are earning their respect? Hows that working out?

What about Israel? All Arabs mucho impresso?

15ofthe19:

I have a problem with blanket statements like "Arabs do respect force". Do you mean all Arabs? Or just the ones with the wherewithal to impose force?

Look at odeadp's statement again: "They only understand force. Just like any Arab thug." Take out the word "Arab", and you have a true statement. But putting the word "Arab" in that sentence is just stereotyping an entire people to make yourself feel comfortable.

The fact is, you don't have to look far to find Arabs who do not think that force is the answer to everything.

Your own use of language is also interesting. I see that you believe the only alternative to "force" is "appeasement". Have you considered negotiation and compromise, at all? If not, perhaps you ought to give it some thought.

What about Israel? All Arabs mucho impresso?

Apparently, they are. None of them have even thought about invading Israel lately.

countezero: "None of them have even thought about invading Israel lately."

On the contrary, millions of Arabs daydream about that all the time. Young Arabs are inundated in angry reactionary rhetoric about the future destruction of Israel, and it's the direct result of Israeli apartheid, chiefly enabled by the USA. The anger will outlast the assymmetry of power if Israeli ethnic segregationism is not abolished.

15ofthe19:

I have a problem with blanket statements like "Arabs do respect force". Do you mean all Arabs? Or just the ones with the wherewithal to impose force?

Look at odeadp's statement again: "They only understand force. Just like any Arab thug." Take out the word "Arab", and you have a true statement. But putting the word "Arab" in that sentence is just stereotyping an entire people to make yourself feel comfortable.

The fact is, you don't have to look far to find Arabs who do not think that force is the answer to everything.


You are a product of western society. You understand other language. Not just force. But Arab thugs who are a product of a caveman tribal war society are not. They understand ONLY force. Sure, it's applicable to Italian thugs as well. But we're not talking about them, are we. We're talking about Arab thugs from the Middle East. I can spend half a paragraph to narrowly define which particular group I'm talking about, but what's the point? We're talking about Hizballah, aren't we?

I don't know if all well-meaning leftists twist language the way you do, and if they do it on purpose or not, but honestly, you're splitting hairs over what my words may mean, and how they are not applicable to all Arabs. But you know very well (or at least you should know) that I'm not referring to all Arabs. By dragging the discussion towards where you're dragging it, you're diminishing it. We're wasting time and getting offtopic with me defining it narrowly enough for your convenience.

Please get over the self righteous anti racist speech and get on to the topic at hand. My best friends at work are Muslim so I am not "racist" or "anti-Islam". When you get beyond that, that's when we can talk about the issue, which is Arab thugs in the Middle East.

As I said earlier, you are a product of a polite society where dialogue is the way to go, and the terms "tribal culture" and "Arab thugocracy" are foreign. I actually know what it is, as I've lived and experienced both. I didn't learn about it from Wikipedia. In your rosy world (which is actually an ideal world which I hope all cultures will reach at some point) the individual counts, pacifism and dialogue are the way to go, and people are rational, in general. I.e. when threatened with overwhelming force they understand that it isn't worth it - they value their life over a principle (which is twisted in itself, but let's say it isn't, for argument's sake).

In the Middle East it's a bit different.

countezero: "None of them have even thought about invading Israel lately."

On the contrary, millions of Arabs daydream about that all the time. Young Arabs are inundated in angry reactionary rhetoric about the future destruction of Israel, and it's the direct result of Israeli apartheid, chiefly enabled by the USA. The anger will outlast the assymmetry of power if Israeli ethnic segregationism is not abolished.

Actually it's the direct result of decades of fascist genocidal propaganda by the likes of Nasser, Saddam, Gadafi, Khomeini, the Wahabi nazis in Saudi Arabia, and the rest of them, enabled and encouraged by the USSR.

Before this fundy pan-Islamic bullshit started it was revolutionary ideas put into these zeal-filled minds by Soviet communists, arming them with Soviet weapons, teaching them how to lead the Soviet / fascist / strongman style, etc. etc.

Then this monster grew and grew, and now we have Arab youth who are zombies just like their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents, first fed on a nationalist communist diet, how Teh Jew wants to steal their land, prevent Arab Revolution, and subjugate Arabs "just like the Americans do all over the globe", and now Teh Jew is "the killer of prophets who drinks Muslim childrens' blood".

It's about who Israelis are, not what they do. You think giving up a few dozen square kilometers of land is gonna make the Arab world chillax? What will make them relax is to reverse more than 60 years of disgusting propaganda. Good luck with that... :m:

Did you know that during WWII, 90% of Jews lived in the Soviet Union?

Apparently the Israeli model of society (The Land of Israel belongs to the Jews) does not mirror western democracy but Euro-Russian Ethnocracy.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=78705

Did you know that during WWII, 90% of Jews lived in the Soviet Union?

Apparently the Israeli model of society (The Land of Israel belongs to the Jews) does not mirror western democracy but Euro-Russian Ethnocracy.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=78705

tangent

Did you know, Alf (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjo_GoJ03ps) originally comes from Saudi Arabia?

not a tangent

I think 1000 years of Russian influence is a great deal greater than 60 years.

So that's what we got from Fallujah - respect. Lots and lots of respect, in 2005 and 2006 and 2007. Or do we need to do some more pounding ? Petreaus has been wimping out - giving them guns and money and stuff.
The way I understand it, the Americans were very quick to rebuild the town after kicking AQ's ass there. 2 things came out of it:
1) Americans ended up looking like pussies (the message of toughness didn't come all the way through), BUT
2) AQ were kicked out anyway, and they stayed out. Today Falluja is a much better place to be at than a few years ago.

That [Israel being peaceful] was a joke, right ?

The IDF was withdrawn from South Lebanon. Israeli forces did not bomb Hizballah despite Hizballah actively supporting the terrorist networks in the "west bank" and Gaza. The IDF let Hizballah arm itself to the teeth and acquire >20,000 rockets that were pointed at Israeli cities (and later used) with out stopping the arms flow.

The IDF and the Israeli gov't just sat there like stoned teenagers, looking at all this crap and not doing anything. The results are clear:

1) "Palestinian" networks of terrorism grew and improved
2) Hizb got ballsy and attacked IDF positions in Israel-"proper" several times
3) 2006 war

In one simple sentence, Israel has lost its deterrence. I don't think Barak will take any of this shit anymore. I dare Hizb to try anything when this man is the Defense Minister :)

The way I understand it, the Americans were very quick to rebuild the town after kicking AQ's ass there. 2 things came out of it:
1) Americans ended up looking like pussies (the message of toughness didn't come all the way through), BUT
2) AQ were kicked out anyway, and they stayed out. Today Falluja is a much better place to be at than a few years ago.



The IDF was withdrawn from South Lebanon. Israeli forces did not bomb Hizballah despite Hizballah actively supporting the terrorist networks in the "west bank" and Gaza. The IDF let Hizballah arm itself to the teeth and acquire >20,000 rockets that were pointed at Israeli cities (and later used) with out stopping the arms flow.

The IDF and the Israeli gov't just sat there like stoned teenagers, looking at all this crap and not doing anything. The results are clear:

1) "Palestinian" networks of terrorism grew and improved
2) Hizb got ballsy and attacked IDF positions in Israel-"proper" several times
3) 2006 war

In one simple sentence, Israel has lost its deterrence. I don't think Barak will take any of this shit anymore. I dare Hizb to try anything when this man is the Defense Minister :)

barak is he not the nut fuck who wants to commit genicide

barak is he not the nut fuck who wants to commit genicide

I think you are the nutfuck who wants to commit genocide.

Barak is the most decorated soldier in IDF history. A former commando himself, a former prime minister, the first ever PM (to my knowledge) that offered parts of Jerusalem to that piece of scum (may he burn in hell for eternity) Arafat, and probably the best defense minister in the last decade. If only he was around in 2006 :(

I think you are the nutfuck who wants to commit genocide.

Barak is the most decorated soldier in IDF history. A former commando himself, a former prime minister, the first ever PM (to my knowledge) that offered parts of Jerusalem to that piece of scum (may he burn in hell for eternity) Arafat, and probably the best defense minister in the last decade. If only he was around in 2006 :(

is he not the guy who said he wanted to inflict a holocaust upon the palestians. a holocaust infers the wish to commit genocide.
and how can you come to the moronic view that I in some way support genocide. Go through all my posts and you will not find on instance of me advocating genocide. Could you please explain what makes you think i want to commit genocide against anyone?

otheadp:

I don't know if all well-meaning leftists twist language the way you do, and if they do it on purpose or not, but honestly, you're splitting hairs over what my words may mean, and how they are not applicable to all Arabs. But you know very well (or at least you should know) that I'm not referring to all Arabs. By dragging the discussion towards where you're dragging it, you're diminishing it. We're wasting time and getting offtopic with me defining it narrowly enough for your convenience.

Yes, yes. It takes effort not to lump entire nations or races or sexes into one convenient basket. It takes effort not to paint people as faceless copies of a standard "type", but to recognise them as individuals.

For some, the effort is too great, and is indeed a "waste of time". Obviously.

Please get over the self righteous anti racist speech and get on to the topic at hand. My best friends at work are Muslim so I am not "racist" or "anti-Islam". When you get beyond that, that's when we can talk about the issue, which is Arab thugs in the Middle East.

Remember how we got onto this discussion in the first place? It was because somebody decided to describe an entire group of people as "cockroaches".

What do you want, if not "anti-racist speech"? Do you really prefer racism and mindless stereotyping? Do you think that is productive?

As I said earlier, you are a product of a polite society where dialogue is the way to go, and the terms "tribal culture" and "Arab thugocracy" are foreign. I actually know what it is, as I've lived and experienced both. I didn't learn about it from Wikipedia. In your rosy world (which is actually an ideal world which I hope all cultures will reach at some point) the individual counts, pacifism and dialogue are the way to go, and people are rational, in general. I.e. when threatened with overwhelming force they understand that it isn't worth it - they value their life over a principle (which is twisted in itself, but let's say it isn't, for argument's sake).

In the Middle East it's a bit different.

Now look who is being condescending and self-righteous.

Your implication that members of Hezbollah do not believe that the individual counts, or that they are irrational, is the reason why you will never really understand them. They are "other" to you because you make them that way. You deny their humanity. You deny that you share any common desires or human decency with them. You think they are "cockroaches" - not really human at all.

How do you react to people who regard you as a "cockroach"? Do you invite them to negotiate? Do you seek compromise? Or what?

Then this monster grew and grew, and now we have Arab youth who are zombies just like their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents, first fed on a nationalist communist diet, how Teh Jew wants to steal their land, prevent Arab Revolution, and subjugate Arabs "just like the Americans do all over the globe", and now Teh Jew is "the killer of prophets who drinks Muslim childrens' blood".

It's about who Israelis are, not what they do. You think giving up a few dozen square kilometers of land is gonna make the Arab world chillax? What will make them relax is to reverse more than 60 years of disgusting propaganda. Good luck with that... :m:

Do you believe that all the fault is on the Arab side?

Do you think that, just maybe, there may be some Jewish people who regard and treat Arabs as "cockroaches", and who are therefore rightly resented by their victims?

Or can you really only see one side of this story?

I do not think that any human being should be "squashed like a bug". That's not justice. It's revenge. There is a difference. All that is required for society to protect itself is to lock up serial killers, out of harm's way. "Squashing them like bugs" is just revelling in unnecessary violence - essentially indulging in the same kind of blood lust that the serial killer enjoys. As I said, you're just joining them when you do that.

Where have I "defended" serial killers? You're reading things into my posts that simply aren't there. Get some perspective.Where have you defended serial killers? You've just done it again. Trying to shield the poor, defenseless serial killer from the punishment he well deserves. Look at this:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:X9aVwlHlDZyXbM:http://www.justice.org.uk/jshrn/JUSTICE-logo.jpgand this:http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/081C670A-21B2-4212-8967-2B27ED31A80E/0/Justice.jpg
The idealized image of Justice. She has the scales in one hand to weigh the evidence, and the sword in the other to carry out the right and just sentence.

That is justice. Justice is not an old woman afraid to carry out the sentence once a verdict has been rendered.

Where have you defended serial killers? You've just done it again. Trying to shield the poor, defenseless serial killer from the punishment he well deserves. Look at this:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:X9aVwlHlDZyXbM:http://www.justice.org.uk/jshrn/JUSTICE-logo.jpgand this:http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/081C670A-21B2-4212-8967-2B27ED31A80E/0/Justice.jpg
The idealized image of Justice. She has the scales in one hand to weigh the evidence, and the sword in the other to carry out the right and just sentence.

That is justice. Justice is not an old woman afraid to carry out the sentence once a verdict has been rendered.

justice is also supposed to be just

Look at this:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:X9aVwlHlDZyXbM:http://www.justice.org.uk/jshrn/JUSTICE-logo.jpgand this:http://www.bradford.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/081C670A-21B2-4212-8967-2B27ED31A80E/0/Justice.jpg
The idealized image of Justice. She has the scales in one hand to weigh the evidence, and the sword in the other to carry out the right and just sentence.

That is justice.

Were is justice exactly? :bugeye: What happens when verdict is "innocent"...will he get his sentence with the sword?

15ofthe19, Mr. G, and anybody else too lazy to read back to post #63 above:
You presume to lecture beyond your natural station.

I said what I meant. If you wish to speak for me, earn my vote. Otherwise, bugger off.
Referring to even a serial killer as a "cockroach" actually diminishes his crime. Saying he is a cockroach implies that he is not a human being, and therefore cannot be held to the moral standards expected of human beings. Saying he is a cockroach implies that no human being could possibly commit such crimes. The fact of life is very different.
Bullshit. A serial killer is to be held to the exacting standards of being a squashed, morally reprehensible human being.

Semantics is a little girl's parlor game.
We need to recognise that human beings can and do sometimes act in despicable ways.
We need to recognize that despicable human beings are automatically put down by less despicable human beings.
Al Qaeda members are human beings. We can only hope to solve the problem of Al Qaeda (and serial killers, for that matter) by understanding the motivations of the people involved and recognising that these are people nonetheless, although their actions lie far outside the bounds of what is considered ethical and proper by most human beings.
Bullshit.

We solve the problem of them by killing them. Then we go looking for those who would coddle them at our expense, and hold their hands as if they are the same as us, and then teach them the errors of their ways.

...attempts to pretend that people you don't like are non-human may be comforting and satisfying, but all such attempts mask the real impact of realising that these people are human too.
Maybe, for the moment.
One other point worth making is that the very people condemned as "cockroaches" and the like are being condemned for the very reason that they regard others as cockroaches themselves. So, to labelling them in this way is essentially to join them - to lower yourself to their level.
I'm at their level only if I'm dead, too.
I'm happy to answer questions, but only AFTER you've read the above.
It would seem that quantum entanglement with reality escapes your best efforts.

madanthonywayne:

Where have you defended serial killers? You've just done it again. Trying to shield the poor, defenseless serial killer from the punishment he well deserves.

No. The punishment he deserves is to be locked up for life, spending years reflecting on the life he might have had if he hadn't committed his horrific crimes. And who knows? He might even come to realise why his actions were morally wrong, during those years in prison.

If you kill him, he goes out in a blaze of glory - just like he imagined he would. You give him what he wants.

The same thing applies to killing terrorists.

That is justice. Justice is not an old woman afraid to carry out the sentence once a verdict has been rendered.

You mistake humanity for weakness.

Mr. G:

You presume to lecture beyond your natural station.

Meh. Whatever. What do you think your "station" is? Something above mine, obviously. Ok. If it massages your ego.

I said what I meant.

Maybe you need to take some lessons in clear communication. Most of what you write is unintelligible - almost defiantly so. Though probably you think you're showing your wisdom and superiority to mere mortals when you fail to communicate.

If you wish to speak for me, earn my vote.

I certainly do not wish to speak for you, but it sounds like you need somebody to do it. You're doing a lousy job on your own behalf.

We need to recognize that despicable human beings are automatically put down by less despicable human beings.

Of course you assume moral superiority, as you assume superiority in all things.

James... calling Mr.G's posts indecipherable nonsense is the easy way out. He makes plenty of sense if you read it twice. Come on. Make the effort :)

As for assuming moral superiority, I *am* morally superior to any thug from Hizballah or AQ. If you can't see that you've got your head up your ... you can figure that one out.

Try not to give yourself a heart attack as you're doing your best to defend the indefensible and humanize the inhuman. You mean well, but you're just making it worse for these cockroaches' victims.

Can you give me one example where someone is morally superior to someone else?

So after the USS Cole, now Israeli warships enter Lebanese territory.

Lebanese Army: Israeli warship enters Lebanon's territorial waters

The Lebanese army says that an Israeli warship has entered Lebanese territorial waters. The army says Monday's incident was discovered when an Italian ship working with the United Nations peacekeepers in Lebanon spotted the Israeli vessel.

It isn't common for Israeli warships to enter Lebanese waters although Israel's military planes frequently violate Lebanese airspace in the country's south. (AP)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3520654,00.html

So after the USS Cole, now Israeli warships enter Lebanese territory.

Good. Barak won't take Hizb's shit like the previous 2 incompetent idiots did.

Hizb now have more weapons than they had before the 2006 war. The world and the ever-so-helpful UN peace keepers are allowing the re-armament, and any mention of it, and you're called a "racist". Somebody needs to enforce UNSCR 1701 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1701).

Good. Barak won't take Hizb's shit like the previous 2 incompetent idiots did.

Hizb now have more weapons than they had before the 2006 war. The world and the ever-so-helpful UN peace keepers are allowing the re-armament, and any mention of it, and you're called a "racist". Somebody needs to enforce UNSCR 1701 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1701).

Looks like they need the arms, especially since Israel will not stop invading them on some pretext or the other. I wonder if Israel has ambitions to annex part of Lebanon (for "security" reasons, which is a laugh since they are the aggressors and occupiers who are expanding their settlements) Their greed for land is getting out of hand.

Israel will not stop invading them on some pretext or the other.

:roflmao:

Did you take too many Ritalins?

I bet they want to get into Lebanon and make a new line for "security" reasons. Water sources perhaps? Billy may know.

I bet they want to get into Lebanon and make a new line for "security" reasons. Water sources perhaps? Billy may know.

OCD and paranoid delusions... What a gal! :cool:

OCD and paranoid delusions... What a gal! :cool:

Where was it that the Israelis wanted to draw a line last June? The Litani River?:cool:

Where was it that the Israelis wanted to draw a line last June? The Litani River?:cool:

So dazed and confused! Someone help this child :)

:roflmao:

Did you take too many Ritalins?

i am guessing you don't know how ritalin works

i am guessing you don't know how ritalin works

I am more than guessing that you don't.

I am more than guessing that you don't.

i know exactly how it works

i know exactly how it works

I'm not sure you know how spelling and punctuation works though. :bugeye:

otheadp:

James... calling Mr.G's posts indecipherable nonsense is the easy way out. He makes plenty of sense if you read it twice. Come on. Make the effort :)

How about a deal? I'll make the effort once he starts making an effort.

As for assuming moral superiority, I *am* morally superior to any thug from Hizballah or AQ.

Of course you'll consider yourself morally superior to any "cockroach".

You're not adding anything new here, and it seems you either missed my point, or just chose to ignore it. I note that you couldn't find any response to the specific questions I asked you.

Try not to give yourself a heart attack as you're doing your best to defend the indefensible and humanize the inhuman. You mean well, but you're just making it worse for these cockroaches' victims.

There's only one way to break the cycle of violence in the middle east, and that's for the perpetrators to recognise their common humanity.

Your approach of labelling people as sub-human and advocating their extermination has been tried for years, and it hasn't worked so far.

Can you give me one example where someone is morally superior to someone else?

Many. The only rational basis on which to judge a person's morals is by his actions. You are skipping that step when you ascribe a lack of morality to a person according to his membership of a group or race or religion.

Of course you'll consider yourself morally superior to any "cockroach".
Not because AQ and Hizb are cockroaches. Because they chop off heads, worship death, and are proud to be baby killers. Come on mate, try to absorb it. You've ignored these facts long enough :)

There's only one way to break the cycle of violence in the middle east, and that's for the perpetrators to recognise their common humanity.
Oh, you product of western values, you! :rolleyes:

That's been tried, tested, and failed. 60 years, mate! Do you think you are the only one who thought of this?

Many. The only rational basis on which to judge a person's morals is by his actions. You are skipping that step when you ascribe a