Topic: Beslan, North Ossetia...

[SSH]

Umm, I think you'll find that there was plenty of terrorism going on as part of the South African struggle for freedom. Nelson Mandela says so himself in "Long Walk to Freedom".

Also, to suggest that there are no childish adults in the world is ridiculous. Look at Road Rage, divorce rates, abuse statistics...

Also, to suggest that Hitler's invasion of Poland was spontaneous is a gross over-simplification. There are so many more factors to it, not least the resentment created by the Versailles treaty... whihc was a childish act of punishement by the Allies that never achived any monetary benefit for themsleves and increased hatred in the Germans.

And Bin Laden didn't come out of a vacuum. CAn you deny that unquestioning American support of the state of Isreal, and the US attempts to prop-up and overthrow various middle-east rulers was not at all provocatory?

The difference between a chldish and a mature attitude is that the childish always lashes out in response to a percieved hurt and will do everything to get retribution. The mature considers all the consequences and will do everything to avoid escalation.

FOr example, the movie "The Sum of all fears" has its faults, but the point is that mutual destruction can only be avoided by one person NOT retaliating.


Also, has anyone spotted the irony of the Isrealies building a wall around their own ghetto of palestinians?

[Darth Mandarb]

I have been staying out of political discussions recently (just 'cause they tend to get heated) but I thought I'd chime in here just a little bit.

I really don't think terrorists understand 'peace-talks'.

Their hatred is too deeply ingrained into them for that.

I don't like it, but I really think military action is the only way to deal with them.  Imagine this scenario ... a team of U.N. diplomats meets with an Al-Qaeda operative to discuss the ceasation of hostilities.  They meet, shake hands, and then the bomb goes off killing them all. 

Terrorist don't want peace, they want their enemies dead.

Violence begets violence (as SSH pointed out) ... I just don't think (as I've said before) that we've been out of the trees long enough for human nature to change to the point that we aren't a violent species.

Ironic isn't it ... the fact that the violence in our 'human nature' is the very thing that shows how similar we all truely are?

[DGMacphee]

The problem with the Islam, is that it allows a bunch of Mesiah-disguised politicians brainwash millions of followers.

Strange. I thought Bush was doing the same thing with Christianity. (You like that one, Farlander?) 

[Nacho]

1) But the main item of the fight was a pasive subject, Mandela, in a prison. Anyway, when the claims are so obvious, terrorism can sometimes not be an obstacle, but it never helps.

2) Where in my post have you read that there is no childish in the world? Man, sometimes the will of reply is so big that people just invents lines...  

3) The invasion of Poland was not spontaneous, but it can never be an answer to a opression to the polish to the germans.  If we talk about german opressed we should ask the French and the British. In any case, my example was more related of what an evil state can archieve whereas the civilizate part lose times in useless peace conversations.

4) People is allways free to choose... If a person choose to hot three planes against civilians because he thinks that a country is provocating him, I think he is evil. I think that the behave of the Central Government in Spain has been quite provocative against Valencia, Catalunya, Pays Basque... But it haven´t passed thru my mind to put a bomb in Vallecas... not for any sensible mind. Bin Laden is not fighting against the US for their behaviour in Middle East, that probably gives a fuck to him. He is earnign money by Saudi Arabia for it, and it helps it business of weapon and drug dealing. Don´t trust the Arab propaganda.

5) Who gives you the divine inspiration too say that the peacifist option is more mature than the belicist? Do you have a magic cristal ball or something? I have expressed three examples of what a neutral attitude against the "aggressives" does. Put here an example of a a big conflict with terrorist who has happily ended with conversations and we will discuss on it. I´ve enjoyed this thread because both sides have expressed their opinions and how they would sollute the problem. Now all finishes with a "You´re an inmature group of childish guys who just do not think of the future consequences!"? You are so much better than that, Andrew.  

6) In the sum of all fears we were talking of two sensitive leaders who wanted to save its life and the life of their people, whereas when we talk of terrorists we talk of evil people who gives a fuck against their army, ´cos they just want to keep a war who benefits them, how can you compare?

[Nacho]

The problem with the Islam, is that it allows a bunch of Mesiah-disguised politicians brainwash millions of followers.

Strange. I thought Bush was doing the same thing with Christianity. (You like that one, Farlander?) 

* Farlander thumbs up!!! 

[SSH]

1) But the main item of the fight was a pasive subject, Mandela, in a prison. Anyway, when the claims are so obvious, terrorism can sometimes not be an obstacle, but it never helps.

I'm sorry, but the truth is that terror can work. Nelson Mandela says in his book that it was a necessary part of the struggle in South Africa. How did the state of Israel come to be founded? MI5 papers have been released showing that there were plots to assasinate British ministers in the 40s.

I wish it wasn't true, but it is.

3) The invasion of Poland was not spontaneous, but it can never be an answer to a opression to the polish to the germans.  If we talk about german opressed we should ask the French and the British. In any case, my example was more related of what an evil state can archieve whereas the civilizate part lose times in useless peace conversations.

quote]
4) People is allways free to choose... If a person choose to hot three planes against civilians because he thinks that a country is provocating him, I think he is evil. I think that the behave of the Central Government in Spain has been quite provocative against Valencia, Catalunya, Pays Basque... But it haven´t passed thru my mind to put a bomb in Vallecas... not for any sensible mind. Bin Laden is not fighting against the US for their behaviour in Middle East, that probably gives a fuck to him. He is earnign money by Saudi Arabia for it, and it helps it business of weapon and drug dealing. Don´t trust the Arab propaganda.quote]
4) People is allways free to choose... If a person choose to hot three planes against civilians because he thinks that a country is provocating him, I think he is evil. I think that the behave of the Central Government in Spain has been quite provocative against Valencia, Catalunya, Pays Basque... But it haven´t passed thru my mind to put a bomb in Vallecas... not for any sensible mind. Bin Laden is not fighting against the US for their behaviour in Middle East, that probably gives a fuck to him. He is earnign money by Saudi Arabia for it, and it helps it business of weapon and drug dealing. Don´t trust the Arab propaganda.
The Northern Ireland situation is much better than it has been in the 70s and 80s and that is thanks to peace dialogs. South Africa did eventually come round, mainly peacefully. Independence in South America and Africa have cases of both mainly peaceful and mainly bloody change.

4) People is allways free to choose... If a person choose to hot three planes against civilians because he thinks that a country is provocating him, I think he is evil. I think that the behave of the Central Government in Spain has been quite provocative against Valencia, Catalunya, Pays Basque... But it haven´t passed thru my mind to put a bomb in Vallecas... not for any sensible mind. Bin Laden is not fighting against the US for their behaviour in Middle East, that probably gives a fuck to him. He is earnign money by Saudi Arabia for it, and it helps it business of weapon and drug dealing. Don´t trust the Arab propaganda.

But many of his fighters beleive that he is, and that is in some ways more important than his real motives

5) Who gives you the divine inspiration too say that the peacifist option is more mature than the belicist? Do you have a magic cristal ball or something?

Did I say that? Who's making up things now? I said maturity was doing as much as possible to avoid violence. Hitler abused the trust of Chamberlain but then the Cuban missile crisis ultimately went the other way.

By the way, the word is "belligerent", not "belicist" 

I have expressed three examples of what a neutral attitude against the "aggressives" does. Put here an example of a a big conflict with terrorist who has happily ended with conversations and we will discuss on it. I´ve enjoyed this thread because both sides have expressed their opinions and how they would sollute the problem. Now all finishes with a "You´re an inmature group of childish guys who just do not think of the future consequences!"? You are so much better than that, Andrew. 

I was calling the terrorists childish, not anyone posting here.  Anyway, the solution, I think, is to offer genuine hope to those who believe they are being oppressed. Would it be wrong to show the children of palestine hope that they wont be forced out of their homes by an Isreali army of soldiers and wall-builders and hope that they won't be killed in retribution for the action of a desperate man who happened to have the same ethnic background as them. Would it be wrong for the people of Chechnya to have a hope that one day they can rule themselves and not have politicians forced on them by Russia, even though some of the people who say they want that disgustingly killed a bunch of innocent children.

And as for terrosit leaders benefitting from terrorism, I think it is arms manufacturers who benefit most from all this.

[Barcik@Work]

What do you mean by "deny", Barcik?
Do you think I don't believe violence exists?

I'm saying that it pisses me off that every time something awful happens, the first thing that comes to people's minds is to use military force to solve it. I'm just saying it's pretty strange that after all this time, we haven't come any longer.

Every conflict there is today, is there because people tried to solve it by using violence. It's a vicious spiral.

The Bloody Sunday incident rather trigged than soothed the conflict in Northern Ireland - the military intervention was intended to take the wind out of the IRA, but it just inflamed it.

Your own little skirmish? Will the conflict between Israel and Palestine cease until you solve it by diplomacy? Please don't give me a million excuses to why the Palestines are so incapable of reasoning, I'm not taking sides or anything.
Just ask yourself if it will end before at least one man puts down his gun, takes some beating without retaliating, and says "it was worth it for the sake of getting closer to peace."

It's easy to say that a pacifist is naive, and that has always been your main argument, Barcik. Don't take it for granted. I haven't spent all the years I'm ahead of you sitting idly in my appartment, lulled by hippies and ideologists.

And yet, you do go to some wrong extremes. Wasn't my "own little skrimish" started when Arabs refused to accept the UN's diplomatic solution of the conflict back in 1947? True, many conflicts have emerged out of a violent solution. But others were caused by passiveness.

And truly, I haven't got a clue when and how the conflict here would end. Nobody knows (where Nacho's Kisinger quote comes in). Maybe it will take diplomacy, and maybe it will take brute force. My guess, is that it will be the perfectly accurate mixture of the two.

[SSH]

And yet, you do go to some wrong extremes. Wasn't my "own little skrimish" started when Arabs refused to accept the UN's diplomatic solution of the conflict back in 1947?

No

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/story/0,9061,961081,00.html

[Barcik]

This article is very inaccurate, and furthermore, irrelevent to what I posted.

Yes, there were small groups of Zionist terrorists, called the Etzel and the Lehi, both with an extremely 'peaceful' agenda compared to what happened in Beslan. Their most well know act was the explosion of the King David hotel in the Jerusalem, which was used as the headquarters of the British army in the land of Israel. Tens of civlians, soldiers and British officials were murdered, despite the fact that the people who worked in King David received an anonymous phone call warning of the attact some time before it happened. The attack was massively criticized by most of the Jewish settlement, and completely ruined the reputation of both these organizations. In fact, "Ha-Haganah" (The Defence), the biggest Jewish military group which later truned into the IDF, even helped the British army capture some of the terrorists.

But how does this directly relate with the Arab-Israeli conflict and what I said, SSH?

[Nacho]

I thought that you were telling childish to the people who agree with  the "bellicisterant" (     ) way, not the terrorists... It´s been really a relief. I am tired to hear that I suck because "I like war", that I am an idiot, or a preson without soul. As I said in this thread, I deffend military actions because I think they finally save lives. I remember that there was a very unpolite guy in Tripoli, putting bombs in planes and all that, who became very pasive when some bombs felt down in his palace...

Anyway, I keep my opinion that violence does not help. Sometimes the right of the demmands are so huge that no matter if violent acts have been an obstacle. That happened in South Africa, the Apartheid was alone in the world, no longer accepted by the rest of the countries, and no government can survive in that situation.

In Catalonia and Basque Country, terrorism has been an obstacle, and these counties hasn´t started being considered serious and received authonomy till their terrorist groups finished or redouced its acts (Terra Lliure in Catalunya and ETA in Basque country).

In Ireland it all started when the IRA announced a cease fire. When they threat to use weapons again, they spoil all the process, but not for fear, just because people is annoyed of sitting to discuss in the same table with people who has a gun in his jackett.

[SSH]

This article is very inaccurate, and furthermore, irrelevent to what I posted.

It was simply quoting what was in the MI5 archives...

But how does this directly relate with the Arab-Israeli conflict and what I said, SSH?

You said:

Wasn't my "own little skrimish" started when Arabs refused to accept the UN's diplomatic solution of the conflict back in 1947?

No, the current Israeli - Palestinian conflict dates back before then, during which time there were Isreali terrorist acts and ultimately Isreal gained statehood. My point was that this was a case were terrorism worked.

Also,  it might be fairer to say "Wasn't my "own little skrimish" started when a majority of the population and and a majority of non-state landowners refused to accept the UN's diplomaticly pressured by the USA proposalof the conflict back in 1947?", although, if the Arabs HAD accepted it, would Israel then have NOT gone on to occupy huge areas NOT par tof the 1947 resolution? I'm skeptical...

[jetxl]

I also have stayed out of political discussions. (because somebody wants to piss me)

Chechnya once had a peacefull president, but he got killed. (shot in the back by one of his bodyguards) When he died he took the chance of peace and diplomacy with him.
Now Chechnya excists out of clans. Each clan wants to rule all and thinks the other clans are bandits. They destroy villages, kill the men and rape the women. (it happened before)
Russia is supporting one clan.

I very much agree with Nacho. Petter, violence is in the human nature. One can complain about it, one can criticize it, but one mustn't deny it. I would love it to be so that if I refused to join the IDF, a terrorist from the Hammas wouldn't attack me if he had the chance. But it wouldn't.
Nor is being ultra-violent right. One mustn't also deny the power of diplomacy, negotiations and speech. The answer lies somewhere betweent those two ends. If only someone knew where.

You know the difference between wrong and right.
You know that you can't make an omlete without breaking some eggs.
You know the awnser.

I thought that you were telling childish to the people who agree with  the "bellicisterant" (     ) way, not the terrorists... It´s been really a relief. I am tired to hear that I suck because "I like war", that I am an idiot, or a preson without soul. As I said in this thread, I deffend military actions because I think they finally save lives. I remember that there was a very unpolite guy in Tripoli, putting bombs in planes and all that, who became very pasive when some bombs felt down in his palace...

Anyway, I keep my opinion that violence does not help.

To start a war, you need soldiers. Soldiers are people. People don't want to be in the army. The army has a communistic way of thinking. "You are a cogweel in the lean green fighting machine!". No induviduels, only orders. Not my cup of tea.

If you're not that good at school, and your carreer choises would be A) Garbage man B) Soldier C) Dealer.

I would choose A because the drugs scene can't be trusted, and being a soldier isn't a job but a way of life. You'll never be the same again.

I think you are more of a B person, though.

I remember that there was a very unpolite guy in Tripoli, putting bombs in planes and all that, who became very pasive when some bombs felt down in his palace...

He stopped to keep his posission of power, not because he saw the light.

[Nacho]

If its me the person who you think wants to piss you, please excuse me, we started a negative spiral but it has to stop some day... If I have the possibility to attend some Mittens again I wouldn´t like to go avoiding people and all that... You can post with no fear or any special care.

I don´t really understand your stalement about the martial behaviour in the army on your topic... On the other side, I am a good student and I work in a hotel, far away of being a garbage man, a soldier or a dealer.

***(I just want to believe that you were not putting soldier or garbage man as something despective...)***

About Gadaffi, what matters is that he hasen´t paid more guys to put bombs in planes.

[Barcik]

But how does this directly relate with the Arab-Israeli conflict and what I said, SSH?

You said:

Wasn't my "own little skrimish" started when Arabs refused to accept the UN's diplomatic solution of the conflict back in 1947?

No, the current Israeli - Palestinian conflict dates back before then, during which time there were Isreali terrorist acts and ultimately Isreal gained statehood. My point was that this was a case were terrorism worked.

Personally, I regard the feuds between Arabs and Jews prior to the 1947 resolution as the roots of the current conflict, but no more. It had only begun to be a true 'skrimish' when the supervising British forces left.
And I still don't see what does Jewish terrorism against the British has to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By the way, there were many more reasons than those few attacks that caused the British to leave the land of Israel.

Arabs HAD accepted it, would Israel then have NOT gone on to occupy huge areas NOT par tof the 1947 resolution? I'm skeptical...

It's such a shady case of "what if" history, that it is hardly worth wasting words on. Anyway, I don't see why you are so sure the newly found State of Israel would rush into war when far outnumbered, among other disadvantages.

[jetxl]

If its me the person who you think wants to piss you, please excuse me, we started a negative spiral but it has to stop some day... If I have the possibility to attend some Mittens again I wouldn´t like to go avoiding people and all that... You can post with no fear or any special care.

I agree.

I don´t really understand your stalement about the martial behaviour in the army on your topic... On the other side, I am a good student and I work in a hotel, far away of being a garbage man, a soldier or a dealer.

It's easy to say "send some soldiers to attack the country from the terrorists" but those soldiers are people too. They don't want to fight or die if they don't have to. Kerry fought in Vietnam and afterwards he protested agains it.
I'm not saying that you are dumb or that everybody who joins the army is dumb.
But as we have seen in farenheit 9/11 it's the lower class who end up in the army.

I think that you would choose B) because you have more faith in the army.

[Nacho]

Nah... I had the possibility to attend to the military service as an Second-lieutenant  because I had the COU (former spanish pre-uni studies), which could have been cool, because the instructors are not officers, they´re Sargents  but I didn´t want.

As for "the lower class ends in the army" I can´t really tell, because I haven´t been in the US for that long for making an idea (I wouldn´t trust just in one film, though). In spin, that stalement is true, because the salary is very low... they had to admit people with little IC (I think 85, wasn´t Forrest Gump who had 80?) because people just didn´t want to join. They´ve been forced to admit south americans, which is weird...

But I don´t know in America... I must say that the idea of marines I have is pretty good, because the only former marine I know is Yanksplit, a kind guy, smart with a lovely humor. Who is that guy (Who says 100X100 avatars are too big?) he is in the army, nowadays, and he seems to be pretty smart too.

The other former marine I know is Denny, a ficticial character from the Fox series "Las Vegas"... he is cool! 

[Barcik@Work]

But as we have seen in farenheit 9/11 it's the lower class who end up in the army.

It's not always for bed. Generally, the lower class consists of people of lesser intelectual abilities than the other ones. The military can often be the last option of a good career to a person with no education.

[jetxl]

Who is that guy (Who says 100X100 avatars are too big?) he is in the army, nowadays, and he seems to be pretty smart too.

I still think Alynn would rather be home.
http://www.agsforums.com/yabb/index.php?topic=15146.0#msg185793

But as we have seen in farenheit 9/11 it's the lower class who end up in the army.

It's not always for bed. Generally, the lower class consists of people of lesser intelectual abilities than the other ones. The military can often be the last option of a good career to a person with no education.

So poor people are "forced" into the army. That's just my point.

[Barcik]

Forced? I am forced into the army, and I am not poor. And no poor person must go to the army. He can study, he can work, he can rest, and he can use it as a last resort if his abilities are limited. Forced? Otherwise you would say he has no opportunities because he is poor.

[jetxl]

Forced? I am forced into the army, and I am not poor. And no poor person must go to the army. He can study, he can work, he can rest, and he can use it as a last resort if his abilities are limited. Forced? Otherwise you would say he has no opportunities because he is poor.

Being drafted is different. It's a crime in your coutry if you don't go.

Also, I know two guys who are in the army/navi.
One guy is an old classmate. He was better at school then me. Later on he dropped out of college because it was to hard for him. He didn't knew what to do so he joined the navi.
The other guy is the brother of a friend of mine. He isn't real smart, but bit of a jock. He want's to be the best in sports and all. He joined the army and thinks it's great.

Both people were not forced. They came from the working class and it was or the army/navi or unimployment line.

Poor people are like everbody else. The most people rather lie in bed then go to school, watch tv instead of doing homework and hang around with friends then go to work.
But if you need money to support yourself, and your folks didn't had the money to put you trough college...the army is a realistic option. You can only hope that there won't be any wars.