By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Discussion: Terrorism, Israel, Hamas, etc

Xen on 13 January 2009
Kasz216 said:
megaman79 said:
We need to stop reffering to countries or groups as "good" or "evil". Its not a movie, a cartoon. I think we could learn lessons if we bothered to educate ourselves about our own nations and its history. Its not always positive, look at Great Britain over the last 400 yrs, or Australia and our attempted extermination of indigenous aboriginals or America, even the USA is guilty of gross crimes.

The trouble is this stereotype of im good and your not just doesn't work. Israel is the aggressor in this conflict, despite the rocket shelling (how many israeli's have died vs what 900 pal), and it is quite obvious judging by the death toll. Ofcourse, Israel is not evil or just good but neither is Gaza.

Death tolls don't decide agressors.

Who is attacking first does.

Just because the agressor is somewhat incompetant at attacking doesn't mean they aren't the agressor.

When the US screwed up the Bay of Pigs invasion it was still the agressor even though it lost.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 



Around the Network
vlad321 on 13 January 2009
Kasz216 said:
megaman79 said:
We need to stop reffering to countries or groups as "good" or "evil". Its not a movie, a cartoon. I think we could learn lessons if we bothered to educate ourselves about our own nations and its history. Its not always positive, look at Great Britain over the last 400 yrs, or Australia and our attempted extermination of indigenous aboriginals or America, even the USA is guilty of gross crimes.

The trouble is this stereotype of im good and your not just doesn't work. Israel is the aggressor in this conflict, despite the rocket shelling (how many israeli's have died vs what 900 pal), and it is quite obvious judging by the death toll. Ofcourse, Israel is not evil or just good but neither is Gaza.

Death tolls don't decide agressors.

Who is attacking first does.

Just because the agressor is somewhat incompetant at attacking doesn't mean they aren't the agressor.

When the US screwed up the Bay of Pigs invasion it was still the agressor even though it lost.

 

 

Is that supposed to excuse civilian deaths? Especially since most of the population isn't supporting Hamas?

What you are sasyinig would basicall y mean it would be fine for the Iraqis to nuke the US, no matter what the casualties, since we are the agressors there.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Xen on 13 January 2009
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
megaman79 said:
We need to stop reffering to countries or groups as "good" or "evil". Its not a movie, a cartoon. I think we could learn lessons if we bothered to educate ourselves about our own nations and its history. Its not always positive, look at Great Britain over the last 400 yrs, or Australia and our attempted extermination of indigenous aboriginals or America, even the USA is guilty of gross crimes.

The trouble is this stereotype of im good and your not just doesn't work. Israel is the aggressor in this conflict, despite the rocket shelling (how many israeli's have died vs what 900 pal), and it is quite obvious judging by the death toll. Ofcourse, Israel is not evil or just good but neither is Gaza.

Death tolls don't decide agressors.

Who is attacking first does.

Just because the agressor is somewhat incompetant at attacking doesn't mean they aren't the agressor.

When the US screwed up the Bay of Pigs invasion it was still the agressor even though it lost.

 

 

Is that supposed to excuse civilian deaths? Especially since most of the population isn't supporting Hamas?

What you are sasyinig would basicall y mean it would be fine for the Iraqis to nuke the US, no matter what the casualties, since we are the agressors there.

Well, who elected it then?

All those civilian deaths are not deliberate, they are collateral damage. Was there ever a war without many civilian deaths?

The Israeli military wouldn't kill civilians deliberately. It goes against Jewish faith and army code. Not to mention international treaties and standarts.

 

 



vlad321 on 13 January 2009
Xen said:
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
megaman79 said:
We need to stop reffering to countries or groups as "good" or "evil". Its not a movie, a cartoon. I think we could learn lessons if we bothered to educate ourselves about our own nations and its history. Its not always positive, look at Great Britain over the last 400 yrs, or Australia and our attempted extermination of indigenous aboriginals or America, even the USA is guilty of gross crimes.

The trouble is this stereotype of im good and your not just doesn't work. Israel is the aggressor in this conflict, despite the rocket shelling (how many israeli's have died vs what 900 pal), and it is quite obvious judging by the death toll. Ofcourse, Israel is not evil or just good but neither is Gaza.

Death tolls don't decide agressors.

Who is attacking first does.

Just because the agressor is somewhat incompetant at attacking doesn't mean they aren't the agressor.

When the US screwed up the Bay of Pigs invasion it was still the agressor even though it lost.

 

 

Is that supposed to excuse civilian deaths? Especially since most of the population isn't supporting Hamas?

What you are sasyinig would basicall y mean it would be fine for the Iraqis to nuke the US, no matter what the casualties, since we are the agressors there.

Well, who elected it then?

All those civilian deaths are not deliberate, they are collateral damage. Was there ever a war without many civilian deaths?

The Israeli military wouldn't kill civilians deliberately. It goes against Jewish faith and army code.

 

 

Ok so then say iraqis nuke the US right now. By your logic it's fine, and we elected the government which went there, so we elected the agressors.

Your logic is far too biased in one direction....

 



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Xen on 13 January 2009
vlad321 said:
Xen said:
vlad321 said:
Kasz216 said:
megaman79 said:
We need to stop reffering to countries or groups as "good" or "evil". Its not a movie, a cartoon. I think we could learn lessons if we bothered to educate ourselves about our own nations and its history. Its not always positive, look at Great Britain over the last 400 yrs, or Australia and our attempted extermination of indigenous aboriginals or America, even the USA is guilty of gross crimes.

The trouble is this stereotype of im good and your not just doesn't work. Israel is the aggressor in this conflict, despite the rocket shelling (how many israeli's have died vs what 900 pal), and it is quite obvious judging by the death toll. Ofcourse, Israel is not evil or just good but neither is Gaza.

Death tolls don't decide agressors.

Who is attacking first does.

Just because the agressor is somewhat incompetant at attacking doesn't mean they aren't the agressor.

When the US screwed up the Bay of Pigs invasion it was still the agressor even though it lost.

 

 

Is that supposed to excuse civilian deaths? Especially since most of the population isn't supporting Hamas?

What you are sasyinig would basicall y mean it would be fine for the Iraqis to nuke the US, no matter what the casualties, since we are the agressors there.

Well, who elected it then?

All those civilian deaths are not deliberate, they are collateral damage. Was there ever a war without many civilian deaths?

The Israeli military wouldn't kill civilians deliberately. It goes against Jewish faith and army code.

 

 

Ok so then say iraqis nuke the US right now. By your logic it's fine, and we elected the government which went there, so we elected the agressors.

Your logic is far too biased in one direction....

 

What kinda comparison is Iraq nuking the USA to this? nuking a country is a last ditch measure, this is an ordinary war - not unlike other wars where there are always civilan casualties.

 



Around the Network
vlad321 on 13 January 2009
Xen said:
vlad321 said:
Xen said:

Well, who elected it then?

All those civilian deaths are not deliberate, they are collateral damage. Was there ever a war without many civilian deaths?

The Israeli military wouldn't kill civilians deliberately. It goes against Jewish faith and army code.

 

 

Ok so then say iraqis nuke the US right now. By your logic it's fine, and we elected the government which went there, so we elected the agressors.

Your logic is far too biased in one direction....

 

What kinda comparison is Iraq nuking the USA to this? nuking a country is a last ditch measure, this is an ordinary war - not unlike other wars where there are always civilan casualties.

 

Alright, they bomb most of Washington D.C. You know... Pentagon, white house, all the admin buildings.... war after all, it's what you do in it. So, by YOUR logic they are jsut fine doing that. In fact we shouldn't balme them at ALL for doing so. In fact people should go support them for doing it. Yeah.... no.

 



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Xen on 13 January 2009
vlad321 said:
Xen said:
vlad321 said:
Xen said:
 

Well, who elected it then?

All those civilian deaths are not deliberate, they are collateral damage. Was there ever a war without many civilian deaths?

The Israeli military wouldn't kill civilians deliberately. It goes against Jewish faith and army code.

 

 

Ok so then say iraqis nuke the US right now. By your logic it's fine, and we elected the government which went there, so we elected the agressors.

Your logic is far too biased in one direction....

 

What kinda comparison is Iraq nuking the USA to this? nuking a country is a last ditch measure, this is an ordinary war - not unlike other wars where there are always civilan casualties.

 

Alright, they bomb most of Washington D.C. You know... Pentagon, white house, all the admin buildings.... war after all, it's what you do in it. So, by YOUR logic they are jsut fine doing that. In fact we shouldn't balme them at ALL for doing so. In fact people should go support them for doing it. Yeah.... no.

 

Almost EVERY place that has a military/armed presense is a legitimate target for bombings. Exceptions being... hospitals.

It's up the civilians to find a safe place devoid of soldiers. As long as you're close to the enemy forces, you could get killed along with hem even though you're innocent. Bombs don't care who they kill.

The Pentagon and White House are PRIME targets, btw. 

 



vlad321 on 13 January 2009
Xen said:
vlad321 said:
Xen said:
vlad321 said:

Ok so then say iraqis nuke the US right now. By your logic it's fine, and we elected the government which went there, so we elected the agressors.

Your logic is far too biased in one direction....

 

What kinda comparison is Iraq nuking the USA to this? nuking a country is a last ditch measure, this is an ordinary war - not unlike other wars where there are always civilan casualties.

 

Alright, they bomb most of Washington D.C. You know... Pentagon, white house, all the admin buildings.... war after all, it's what you do in it. So, by YOUR logic they are jsut fine doing that. In fact we shouldn't balme them at ALL for doing so. In fact people should go support them for doing it. Yeah.... no.

 

Almost EVERY place that has a military/armed presense is a legitimate target for bombings. Exceptions being... hospitals.

It's up the civilians to find a safe place devoid of soldiers. As long as you're close to the enemy forces, you could get killed along with hem even though you're innocent. Bombs don't care who they kill.

The Pentagon and White House are PRIME targets, btw. 

 

 

Exactly, so by your logic it's just fine if the Iraqis basically leveled D.C. and any civilians in it. They should also get the support of 1st world countries to do so as well. Right?



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Xen on 13 January 2009
vlad321 said:
Xen said:
vlad321 said:
Xen said:
vlad321 said:

Alright, they bomb most of Washington D.C. You know... Pentagon, white house, all the admin buildings.... war after all, it's what you do in it. So, by YOUR logic they are jsut fine doing that. In fact we shouldn't balme them at ALL for doing so. In fact people should go support them for doing it. Yeah.... no.

 

Almost EVERY place that has a military/armed presense is a legitimate target for bombings. Exceptions being... hospitals.

It's up the civilians to find a safe place devoid of soldiers. As long as you're close to the enemy forces, you could get killed along with hem even though you're innocent. Bombs don't care who they kill.

The Pentagon and White House are PRIME targets, btw. 

 

 

Exactly, so by your logic it's just fine if the Iraqis basically leveled D.C. and any civilians in it. They should also get the support of 1st world countries to do so as well. Right?

I'm not saying it's OK, I'm saying that things like this happen. It's not to be done indiscriminately either...

 

 



vlad321 on 13 January 2009
Xen said:
vlad321 said:
Xen said:
vlad321 said:
Xen said:
vlad321 said:

Alright, they bomb most of Washington D.C. You know... Pentagon, white house, all the admin buildings.... war after all, it's what you do in it. So, by YOUR logic they are jsut fine doing that. In fact we shouldn't balme them at ALL for doing so. In fact people should go support them for doing it. Yeah.... no.

 

Almost EVERY place that has a military/armed presense is a legitimate target for bombings. Exceptions being... hospitals.

It's up the civilians to find a safe place devoid of soldiers. As long as you're close to the enemy forces, you could get killed along with hem even though you're innocent. Bombs don't care who they kill.

The Pentagon and White House are PRIME targets, btw. 

 

 

Exactly, so by your logic it's just fine if the Iraqis basically leveled D.C. and any civilians in it. They should also get the support of 1st world countries to do so as well. Right?

I'm not saying it's OK, I'm saying that things like this happen. It's not to be done indiscriminately either...

 

 

That's exactly what you are doing by just writing off the civilian casualties because their side were the agressors a few posts up.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835