All Hank, all the time.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Quite frankly, any number greater than 1 is more than enough.

I take it you find no issue with kidnapping soldiers and dragging them across national borderlines?

Is it a number more than 1? I didn't think so, but am willing to be corrected.

And yes, I find issue with killing and kidnapping soldiers, I'm just not sure that I view bombing cities to be an appropriate response.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Have you compared the numbers of dead and injured on each side? Israel was not getting the worst of it, which is one reason it wanted to prolong the conflict to try to do damage to Hezbollah. A few weeks (?) later, this is not looking like the wisest strategy, since Israel appears to have overestimated the damage it was doing. To Hezbollah, if not to Lebanon.

Israel attempted surgically strikes at the enemy. They alreted civilians ahead of time that they were going to attack.

That the enemy cares naught about civilian life, that it uses human shields and puts rocket launchers on the roofs of buildings it fills with handicapped children, is a bit problematic when trying to minimize collateral damage.

What's the over/under on this ceasefire anyway? I give it until Thursday.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I tried to avoid equating the two, only to have Hank put those words in my mouth. Did you not read those posts, or are you just trying to be irritating?

Sometimes, when you ask a question, you do so because the answer is obvious. Here, I said CAIR equates blowing up passenger jets with killing an attack on a military installation that kills an innocent bystander -- because that is what their statement does. Then I said "do you?", knowing full well that the answer is "of course not," and thus hoping to point out the distinction between what you know to be right and what you posited as being an appropriate, positive statement by CAIR.

It was kind of like saying "what they are really saying is this. Is that really what you believe?" Presumably, you would not assume that I was accusing you of believing "that."

What you are now saying is that it's not enough that they condemn the sort of terrorism that offends us the most -- they also have to publicly state that that kind of terrorism is special -- it's worse than everything else in the world. Where does this obligation come from?

The obligation to be leaders of their communities. When they equate the bombing of passenger jets with attacks on military installations, they teach that the latter justifies the former.

And no -- they did not "condemn the sort of terrorism that offends us the most." They published an anemic statement that essentially reads "we think killing people is bad."

Which is worse: 3,000 people dead on 9/11, or 400,000 people dead in Darfur? 9/11 troubles me more, because it's closer to home, but I don't think that everyone should have to feel the same way.

Nor do I.

On the other hand, while Darfur troubles me a lot more than Abu Ghraib, as an American I feel it is my obligation to speak out against Abu Ghraib. And would feel that much more strongly if I were a leader of Americans.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Israel attempted surgically strikes at the enemy. They alreted civilians ahead of time that they were going to attack.

That the enemy cares naught about civilian life, that it uses human shields and puts rocket launchers on the roofs of buildings it fills with handicapped children, is a bit problematic when trying to minimize collateral damage.

What's the over/under on this ceasefire anyway? I give it until Thursday.

No, I think it goes until the end of August. No better time for a little live ammo than Labor Day Weekend and the week before, when Americans won't be paying attention. Let the UN guys back in the day after labor day.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
gosh! you're right they don't. hey, wait. didn't they like, you know, sign it? did they list any titles or anything by their names? how do you get to be in Parliment?

But you're so clever -- you figured out that they represent those parliamentary districts populated solely by crazy Islamic men.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Israel attempted surgically strikes at the enemy. They alreted civilians ahead of time that they were going to attack.

The rest of the world falls for Hezbollah PR, but you've chosen to fall for Israeli PR. "Surgical strikes?" And a number of Lebanese were killed on the roads, so you can understand why the alerts might have been less than fully effective.

That the enemy cares naught about civilian life, that it uses human shields and puts rocket launchers on the roofs of buildings it fills with handicapped children, is a bit problematic when trying to minimize collateral damage.

It's worse than "cares naught about." Hezbollah is strengthened by the fatalities.

What's the over/under on this ceasefire anyway? I give it until Thursday.

That's an excellent question.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But you're so clever -- you figured out that they represent those parliamentary districts populated solely by crazy Islamic men.

Solely? Slave said only 30%. And I said 1%, but 100% of the crazy 1% live there-

At this point I quit. You can't be this dense. You are nothing more than Penske, w/o the humor- or at least the crazed glint in the eye.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Sometimes, when you ask a question, you do so because the answer is obvious. Here, I said CAIR equates blowing up passenger jets with killing an attack on a military installation that kills an innocent bystander -- because that is what their statement does."

No it doesn't, Sidd -- it "condemn[s] all acts of terrorism, whether carried out by individuals, groups or states." It continues to say: "We repudiate anyone or any group that plans or carries out a terrorist act. We welcome early actions by law enforcement authorities against credible threats to the safety of the traveling public."

You are reading into that first sentence an assumption that the reference to state-sponsored terrorism means what you say. If a Bush admininistration official used the same words, though, you would think of Iran or North Korea. The release is titled, "CAIR STATEMENT ON ALLEGED AIRLINE TERROR PLOT." Not "CAIR STATEMENT EQUATING ALLEGED AIRLINE TERROR PLOT WITH AWFUL THINGS DONE BY ISRAEL."

On the other hand, while Darfur troubles me a lot more than Abu Ghraib, as an American I feel it is my obligation to speak out against Abu Ghraib. And would feel that much more strongly if I were a leader of Americans.

I agree with you there. But although I am a Christian, I don't feel an obligation to speak out when Eric Rudolph kills a doctor (e.g.).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Solely? Slave said only 30%. And I said 1%, but 100% of the crazy 1% live there-

At this point I quit. You can't be this dense. You are nothing more than Penske, w/o the humor- or at least the crazed glint in the eye.

See ya. Come on back when you don't feel like being a jackass.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
See ya. Come on back when you don't feel like being a jackass.

What % of people had to agree that Penske was a net-negative before RT kicked him off? I want to be upfront with you. I am starting a petition and need to know how many names I need to get.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Another bad PR move.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm sick and tired of hearing that your political party has a fucking monopoly on this war against terrorism, as if the rest of us don't get it. Your song and dance is lame, and reflects a serious lack of anything serious to say.

Unless he is right, and then that is all he has to say.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree with you there. But although I am a Christian, I don't feel an obligation to speak out when Eric Rudolph kills a doctor (e.g.).

If you were a leader of the chuch to which he professed allegiance, and if he was one of dozens who professed such allegiance and carried out the same kinds of attacks, and if their conduct was supported by many people with in your congregation, then you would either speak out against their conduct in particular*, or I would say that you were part of the problem.



*by "in particular" I mean not saying "killing is bad, whether done by bombers or doctors"


eta: Strike "congregation," insert "denomination."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Unless he is right, and then that is all he has to say.

Your song and dance is lame, and reflects a serious lack of anything serious to say.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If you were a leader of the chuch to which he professed allegiance, and if he was one of dozens who professed such allegiance and carried out the same kinds of attacks, and if their conduct was supported by many people with in your congregation, then you would either speak out against their conduct in particular*, or I would say that you were part of the problem.



*by "in particular" I mean not saying "killing is bad, whether done by bombers or doctors"

OK. I agree. But I don't think that any Muslim, or a Muslim MP, as such has the sufficiently tight relationship with the terrorists/criminals that you are getting at here such that they have some obligation to speak out.