BF2S Forums Happy Death of Al Zarqawi DAY!!

Darth_Fleder wrote:

sundiver wrote:

sundiver wrote:

We will never beat terrorism with the use of force.

whittsend wrote:

Do you suggest flowers?

Well flowers are always a good start but diplomacy will probably work better.

Neville Chamberlain couldn't have said it any better.

To the spineless one who left this...
Today 07:01:50 -1 Happy Death of Al Zarqawi DAY!! oh, so the fact that we did nothing before 911 rules that out 

While it may sound oh so mature, reasonable and peace loving, having a policy of using diplomacy to deal with terror will only breed more terror. The moment you begin to negotiate with people who employ the use of clandestine bombings, the kidnapping and execution of captives, hijacking or other forms of terror you give immediate credence to their methods. Now every Tamir, Dick and Osama will see that in order to get what they want, all they have to do start conducting a campaign of terror until we see that 'Oh, they must be terribly upset with us to use such brutal and barbaric tactics, they must have a legitimate complaint' to bring us to the diplomatic table. It is a recipe for more terror, not less.

As for Neville Chamberlain, he was representitive of those who also wished for peace and diplomacy. The problem was that he was dealing with someone who also viewed attempts at diplomacy as a sign of weakness. Your comment Bubbalo regarding Chamberlain is irrelevant, the circumastances may have been different, but the basic premise remains that these people will view negotiation as a sign of weakness and will exploit it.

As for helping the Palestinians, they have a governement of their own. It is their responsibilty to take care of their own refugees and turn their people away from a mantra of hatred in order for them to come into the international forum as a responsible body. When they learn to play ball in a civilized fashion, they will start getting what they want and or need. I know several Palestinian families here in the U.S. and though they live in the lap of luxury (I don't mean the U.S. in general, these people live in million dollar plus homes) when the subject of the middle east comes up their solution is not to help their compatriots in refugee camps, it is to drive the Israelis into the sea...or worse. Until people come to the understanding that unrelenting hatred is NOT the answer, they must be dealt with in the only way that they understand, force. Do you not think that over the last half-century, your methods have not been tried...time and time again? As for getting them away from their idealistic crusade, this is inculcated from early childhood. What do you suggest? Taking them where and re-educating them?

As for the negative karma terrorist, If I left -1 for every post that I disagreed with I would not have enough points in the day. While I may vehemently disagree with Marconius, Bubbalo, Xietsu...et. al on a great many issues I have never left a -1 for simply disagreeing with them. Negative karma should be reserved for flagrant vulgar attacks not a simple disagreement of opinion, just my .02.

Israelistan, anyone? LoL. But...USA does need allies in the Middle East, and Israel was the beginning of this establishment.

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-10 12:13:37)

Well, maybe Israels or Palestinians view is not proper way to handle that question. And I don't have special sympathy for either of them. Please answer my question, don't post a site. That site has nothing to do with it.

"And I don't have special sympathy for either of them." I put it a bit badly. I meant that I don't choose sides on this question.

Just one lil' question:
I heard in the news that the US are going to maka a DNA test on the dead body of Zarqawi,
but do they have any proven DNA samples from him to refer upon? otherwise this test should
be useless...

Bubbalo wrote:

Darth_Fleder wrote:

Neville Chamberlain couldn't have said it any better.

He was dealing with a pitched battle, terrorists don't fight those.

d3v1ldr1v3r13:  You are wrong.  Osama Bin Laden was an ally of the US originally, but started drifting away.  He became an outright enemy when the US landed troops in Saudi Arabia to attack Iraq, as they were on holy land, and he viewed that many Christian soldiers on that land as an affront to Muslims every can't see how he might, you're clearly dumber than you sound (which would be pretty dumb).

I thought they don't want anyone who isn't muslim on their land.  But I'm not sure.

PekkaA wrote:

Site you posted didn't give me any answer to question I asked. And I did read it carefully. To me it definetly seemed like a story told from Israeli perspective, wouldn't use it to teach history. So, according to your latest post, do you explain US help with something that happened during cold war? And how does that "reason" justify denying humanitarian help from palestinia? I just can't see your logic.

ps. Thanks anyway for civilized conversation. Wanna see karma messages I have received?

Your welcome. My wife was born quite near the Finnish border BTW...in Му́рманск (Murmansk).

Well, I am sorry that wouldn't use that article to teach history with, as I stated before, it contains quite a bit of factual information and can be cross checked with a number of sources. In part, the U.S.'s support of Israel is derived from the cold war. Israel is also a nation that most resembles the U.S. in it's government and ideals. Over the past 60 years we have developed a strong and vital alliance which does not necessarily need to come unraveled because the U.S.S.R. has. They also have not turned on us as some countries in the region have.

Your karma comment actually has a bearing on the 'Palestinian' refugee problem. In a lot of ways they are reaping what they and the surrounding Arab nations have sown. As was mentioned in the article, there was no state of 'Palestine' prior to the British mandate. The indigenous Arabs were and are of the same ethnic background as what are now known as the Jordanians. The current 'Palestinian' refugees are the result of numerous attacks upon Israel by neighboring Arab states who continue to use them as pawns in their quest to eliminate the state of Israel. It is politically convenient to have them in such a refugee status because of the sympathy that their plight draws from some in the West.

I'm not getting answer to my question. You earlier said that palestinians don't deserve humanitarian help because they have their own government (which btw in my opinion is not even excuse to deny such help). I asked why Israel deserves such a huge amount of all kind of help from USA, after all they have much better organized government, don't they? And you dodged with a lecture of middle-east history (by using biased sources).

Yes, I know Murmansk very well. Part of it belonged to Finland before WWII. There were nickel mines in Petsamo, that are assumed as one of main reasons why soviet union started war against Finland.

PekkaA wrote:

d3v1ldr1v3r13, first of all, I like your last two posts much more than previous ones. Those contain many aspects that I agree. But for sure I didn't mean UN peacekeeping missions or humanitary help when I used term "military action". Sorry for my english, maybe I should have used "act of war". At least Finnish peacekeepers can't use their weapons against other people. (not using term human being, because it seems offend many, and makes me look like a hippie to you) By all means, be a patriot. Jealous? Hmm, I have been in army and been trained as infantry fighting in city. (rappels, sewers etc. don't know english term for my rank). And of course I'm ready to defend this small piece of earth if necessary. Keyword is defend.

And thats what we are doing, defending, defending things like 9/11 from happening again, defending places like London, from any of that shit happening again.  I certainly was saddened when I heard that they got attacked so cowardly.  I dont even live there!  And thats the problem, youre so willing to defend, but you arent willing to sacrifice for the people in the world that dont have it as good.  People that are living in fear, fear to do anything for that matter.  I respect you for serving in your army, and im sure you did a damn fine job defending that little piece of land, but how much did you really sacrifice to make other peoples lives better?  Ive already given 5 years, and I plan to give a whole lot more, as long as people like us are needed, I am going to do my job to its extent, anywhere it needs to be, ill be there to help em out.  Theres a difference between serving, and defending, and sacrificing and giving a shit.

Spearhead wrote:

I thought they don't want anyone who isn't muslim on their land.  But I'm not sure.

They want a Muslim government, which would likely lead to restrictions on who could be near holy sites.

d3v1ldr1v3r13 wrote:

And another guy Bubbalo, from having an ounce of respect for this guy in how he debates to all but losing is just cause he cant keep an intelligent debate going.

Could you elaborate on how you see this?  Or anyone who has the same view, for that matter.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-06-10 20:01:36)

PekkaA wrote:

I just can't accept Bush's or anyone elses idea of  preventive defense. It would be excuse to do almost anything. I didn't mention me being in army to gain brownie points. Just to point out that maybe I know what I'm talking about. Come on, you're working over there ie getting paid of what you do. I wouldn't exactly call it sacrificing for your country . Or would you do it for free or if it put your life to danger?

the last time our country was attacked, people enlisted voluntarily by the droves to fight for our country.

So the answer would be ...............yes

Honestly I'm hapy that the bastard's dead. Still, I am concerned that his death will strengthen his postion. His followers were all into making a martyr out of him and no doubt there will be those who will rise to take up his mantel.

Still, one less evil cunt to worry about. Good on those who got him.

Edit: Remember when discussing terrorism - One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Last edited by Tyferra (2006-06-10 20:16:07)

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

the last time our country was attacked, people enlisted voluntarily by the droves to fight for our country.

So the answer would be ...............yes

At which time they were fighting an armed aggressor, who was directly threatening the US.  Hardly comparable.

Only you would see no parallels between Pearl Harbor and 911..amazing