By sending airships to strike the founder of Hamas the palestinian Terrorist/political organization Ahmed Yassin yesterday, the Israeli government knowingly has instigated yet another wave of attacks on their people. This is obvious for all to see, but what is troubling is the fact that not only has Israel been accused of in-acting this form of assassination but the United States is also being held in contempt.

With the war on Islamic fundamentalism that the US is waging overtly and covertly in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and other places world wide, it was only a matter of time before the US was brought into the Israeli/Palestinian conflict outside of the guise of the negotiating arbitrator.

Today National Security advisor Condoleeza Rice reported that the US played no role in the decision to attack and kill the quadriplegic Hamas leader. But that vocalized support was and is not necesary to truly come to the conclusion that the US gives its consent. By simply adhering to the ideals of the Bush doctrine, the Israeli government has been sanctioned to take such actions by the US.

This past weekend protesters marched against the invasion of Iraq, not so much because they believe Saddam Hussein deserves to continue to be the dictator of Iraq. But becuase the long established process of decision making has been abandoned by this administration, in favor of a more volatile idea of pre-emption.

By stating that the US's new policy would be to hunt and kill all those we felt were harboring or carrying out terrorist related activities world wide, we in essence granted that same permission to the rest of the world, despotic regimes, free nations, dictators, and communists countries can all by-pass the long respected protocol and wage their own unilateral wars of "pre-emption".

The days of it being necessary for wars to be sanctioned by a world body are long gone. The US is the sole super power of the world, now that the idea of respecting the decision making ability of a world body has been tossed by the US, the rest of the worlds nations will be soon to follow.

Clearly this policy of unilateralism is dangerous for the world but even worse is the fact that it is dangerous for the US, in that we must now not only worry about terrorist willing to kill American citizenry but all other nations.

Any and every leader that feels threatened real or imagined, can follow the Bush administrations new precedence of "attack at will" to wage war on their enemies or neighbors based solely on the idea that they "thought he had intentions to do us harm". Whats worse is that the United States formerly the voice of reason and morality no longer has a leg to stand on.

By dismissing the world opinion President Bush has weakened the voice of the American people on the world stage. By also ignoring the will of the American people President Bush has undermined the purposefulness of Democracy and in the process created a less stable world (millions have protested this war and the only response given to the public is "free speech is what makes America great).

Now we are the target of yet another Islamic organization and Scott McClelan and Israeli spokesmen are scrambling to inform the world that the US is not involved, but through the Bush administration's new policies I think we are not only involved but have encouraged this behavior, be it right or wrong.

Bush has handed the worlds nations free passes to strike first without cause. Since the end of the second world war, war had begun to tapper off. With this new lease on death the Bush administration has given credence to the independent world domination theory's that spawned the likes of Stalin and Hilter.

Bush and his cronies are a danger to the US and civilization as a whole.

By sending airships to strike the founder of Hamas the palestinian Terrorist/political organization Ahmed Yassin yesterday, the Israeli government knowingly has instigated yet another wave of attacks on their people.

Why is it that when Israel kills someone from Hamas, they are instigating and whenever Hamas bombs a bus or restaurant, that's okay to do?

I don't know why that is, I didn't even know that was the case, and I definintly didn't say terrorist acts against the Israeli people was "Ok".

What I do believe is that the Israeli government should be held to a higher degree of responsibilty. Its only obvious that a occupied people are going to lash out against their occupiers regardless of the race religion or region. I think that far to much emotion and hate drives the attacks on both sides and not enough logic or simple intelligence is used to attempt to "solve" these problems.

There's no question that by striking the founder of Hamas they are encouraging more attacks on Israelis. Israel knows this, America knows this, and the rest of the world knows this, to pretend that killing their leader won't or shouldn't make a difference is silly at best.

Maybe - but it doesn't seem like the Palestinians need much encouraging to mount sucicide attacks on Isreal - killing not well defined targets but hundreds of innocent women and children.

I have no sympathy for groups that encourage kids to strap on explosives wrapped in nails and ball-bearings and then go blow themselves up in busy urban areas or on buses. Sorry - I just don't. They have no legitamate voice or position that is worth anything so long as they do that, even though you seem to believe that the justification is "obvious"

"They have no legitamate voice or position that is worth anything so long as they do that, even though you seem to believe that the justification is "obvious""

I dont believe that the justification of suicide bombers is obvious, just that an increase in attacks on the Israeli people is. Without defending the actions of either faction, I have yet to read a story of a Palestinian child wearing a suicide belt or being encouraged to. What I have read is the story of a boy paid to un known to him, sneak a bomb in a duffle bag across the fence.

My point isn't to vilify the Israelis or Palestinians but to point out that the Bush administrations policies of unilateral assassination and pre-emptive strikes have allowed room for the Palstinians and Israelis to drag us into their tit for tat war.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Why is it that when Israel kills someone from Hamas, they are instigating and whenever Hamas bombs a bus or restaurant, that's okay to do?

Why is it that when someone says they don't like Israel's tactics someone else's answer is..."but what about the Palestinians?"


I have no sympathy for groups that encourage kids to strap on explosives wrapped in nails and ball-bearings and then go blow themselves up in busy urban areas or on buses. Sorry - I just don't. They have no legitamate voice or position that is worth anything so long as they do that, even though you seem to believe that the justification is "obvious"

Why would anyone ever do such a thing? What would it take for you to strap explosives to your body and blow yourself up? How bad would your life have to be to make you proud that your child had become a suicide bomber?

Come on Drew, how can you not have sympathy with people who have been driven to these extremes of behavior?

It's easy to take the high road and label these people "terrorists" and then refuse to negotiate with them because of a label that you have applied. They believe they are fighting for land that was stolen from them and they are correct, it was stolen from them. How ironic it must be for a Palestinian, or a Native American for that matter, to listen to the U.S. preach about Israel's "right to exist" on Palestinian land.

You can call the Palestinians "terrorists" if you want, but their actions are no different than the resistance offered to the Nazi occupiers of France by the French Underground. The Palestinian militants have the support of the palestinian people only because Israels policies make that possible.

It's very different. These bombers are not driven to strap on bombs out of an educated sense of hoplesness - these kids are brainwashed for a start and are uneducated pawns. They simply believe they are dying for a cause and will be given a special place in heaven.

Who said anybody has refused to negotiate with them? Come on - they have been negotiated with over & over. They had huge concessions from the Isreali side in the 90's and they chose instead terrorism.

You can justify it all you like, but brainwashed kids + bomb belts = something to be wiped out. It's like a cancer.

Originally posted by DrewM
It's very different. These bombers are not driven to strap on bombs out of an educated sense of hoplesness - these kids are brainwashed for a start and are uneducated pawns. They simply believe they are dying for a cause and will be given a special place in heaven.

Who said anybody has refused to negotiate with them? Come on - they have been negotiated with over & over. They had huge concessions from the Isreali side in the 90's and they chose instead terrorism.

You can justify it all you like, but brainwashed kids + bomb belts = something to be wiped out. It's like a cancer.

I completely agree with Drew on this one. There's NO acceptable justification for Palestinian tactics, but Isreali tactics are justifiable.

Palestinian sympathizers would change their obnoxious tune in a second if it were Native Americans instead of Palestinians who decided they wanted their lands back and started detonating bombs in local shopping malls.

why is it that the only people the liberals want "freed" in the middle east is the palestinians?

why do the liberals think that by engaging the terrorists they will somehow get even more mad at us and want to kill us even more? in case you didnt notice, they already hate us and want to kill us.

I was watching lord of the rings, fellowhip of the ring the other night on my new big TV, and a certain scene really stuck with me. in the scene the fellowship is in Mordor at the tomb of Balin, and a host of orcs appears to kill them. with the orcs is a giant cave troll. in the scene, the cave troll is smashing through the door, legolas the elf is standing there with his bow, and as the cave troll approachs to smash the elf with his giant club legolas fires a arrow into the trolls shoulder, clearly pissing the troll off. this reminded me of the current attitude of the left towards the terrorists. the terrorists are the cave troll, and they are charging at us, the elf legolas. it doesnt matter id we fire the arrow at it or no, it is still coming at us. the left seems to think that firing an arrow ata cave troll charging you ready to bash your brains in is somehow going to make it mad, even though it is alrweady after you to bash your head in.

trav

You make alot of sense in your comments, but the point is that Hamas wasn't charging America until now. Today the reports out of the Hamas camp has been that they are indeed turning up the volume as a result of the attacks on the shiek.

and I ask you, so what? why are we afraid of them when they should be afraid of us? I am tired of everyone making this terrorist rabble out to be 10 feet tall and bullet proof. I am tired of everyone being so fearful of the terrorists. we need to grab our cahones and stand up, not cower in fear everytime we hit them, waiting for their retaliation. we need to not allow them to access our press and scare all these lilly livered liberals with their threats. why do we care what they say? why do we relay their threats to our population? why do we give them any credit at all? its just maddening to see americans afraid of offending or upseting terrorists. appeasing or ignoring the terrorists is NOT going to make them go away, nor will negotiation. they deal in violence, and can only be dealt with through violence.

I would simply be interested in seeing the Palestinians reactions if the Israelis decided to do the exact same thing back to the Palestinians that is being done to the Israelis, IE, send a suicide bomber into a Palestinian village and blow up a hundred or so random men, women and children that have nothing to do with the Hamas' decisions.

Likening the Israelie response to that of the Palestinians is not correct. I find the Palestinians' actions to be completely dispicable.

And it sickens me that western wartime civics is used to the middle east's advantage time and time again. The middle east uses civilians for human shields and then want to protest when some get killed because they are put in front of a military target. Then they turn around and set off a bomb on a bus or a restaurant and kill people that have absolutely nothing to do with the government.

It's all very, very difficult to respect.

Clearly this policy of unilateralism is dangerous for the world but even worse is the fact that it is dangerous for the US, in that we must now not only worry about terrorist willing to kill American citizenry but all other nations. I read your first post and this sentence really stood out to me. You act as though terrorist orginizations were not already targeting these things. I can name you many examples of terrorists attacking american citizens, american interests, and also other nations citizens and other nations interests. So this seems like a waste of words to me.


You make alot of sense in your comments, but the point is that Hamas wasn't charging America until now. Today the reports out of the Hamas camp has been that they are indeed turning up the volume as a result of the attacks on the shiek. Did you see what our country did to the taliban? Do you really think Hamas wants a taste of what the taliban got? If they think Israel assassinating A leader of Hamas upsets them, how would they feel if their entire operation were targeted and destroyed?

HaVok

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly this policy of unilateralism is dangerous for the world but even worse is the fact that it is dangerous for the US, in that we must now not only worry about terrorist willing to kill American citizenry but all other nations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I read your first post and this sentence really stood out to me. You act as though terrorist orginizations were not already targeting these things. I can name you many examples of terrorists attacking american citizens, american interests, and also other nations citizens and other nations interests. So this seems like a waste of words to me.


The idea or pre-emptive unilateralism suggest that a nation (any nation) can at will, strike a person, government, or organization. This is the power that was given the President by the US Congress in regards to the response to the events of 9-11. With that I believe that we have as the sole super power of the world set a new precedence, one that gives that very same right of unilateralism to others.

I also believe that this places the United States as well as the world in far greater danger from despot's and terrorist. What it says is that it is now Ok for Iran to invade a fellow nation because they feel threatened, it says that its Ok for Mexico to independently invade Nicoragua (sp) if they like, and it says that its ok to assassinate as aposed to arresting suspected terrorist leaders. And as previously stated, the United States no longer has a leg to stand on if we disagree with that opinion in the future, because we initiated it sanctioned.

My point was not to suggest that a bead hasn't already been placed on Americans or others by terrorist groups, but that because the US has accepted and promoted this new stance of unilateralism whats to stop all the other nations, organizations, and crazies of the world from doing the same? (and please don't be under assumption that the worlds nations were already ignoring the rules that have been laid down by the UN, NATO and other world groups, we enforced the rules ie. Iraq war 1).



QUOTE]You make alot of sense in your comments, but the point is that Hamas wasn't charging America until now. Today the reports out of the Hamas camp has been that they are indeed turning up the volume as a result of the attacks on the shiek.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you see what our country did to the taliban? Do you really think Hamas wants a taste of what the taliban got? If they think Israel assassinating A leader of Hamas upsets them, how would they feel if their entire operation were targeted and destroyed?[/QUOTE]


The major flaw in your opinion is that the Taliban was "destroyed" they were not (terrorism is based on an idea not a tangible thing to be broken). As Hamid Karazai and the Coalition of the willing are well aware of, they are now sneaking out of their caves and beginning to rejuvinate their message across the Afghanistan plain while we struggle to keep peace in Iraq. But that is beside the point, the point is that Hamas and the Taliban are not remotely equivilant. Hamas is a terrorist organization that also moonlights as a philathropic/political voice for the Palestinian people.

The Taliban on the other hand were a movement I've heard described as "Amish with guns". They took the government of Afghanistan after the Mujihadeen defeated the Russians in the 80's. The Taliban and Mujihadieen were primarily supported by the Pakistani and United States governments.

To assume that the US will be lobing cruise missiles into the small completely controlled communities of the Gaza strip is silly. Israel has nuclear weapons for God's sake, why would the US protect a nation with Nukes against rock throwing children living in a glorified concentration camp.

Clearly the decisions made by the Bush administration to allow this any thing goes policy has done a great dis service to the United States standing in the world.

Well one thing i do believe, Hamas will not try any terrorist activities in the continental united states while Bush is in office. They may try their luck if Kerry gets the nod, but they know what the Bush response will be.

Let me ask you a question. Are you a Hamas sympathizer? Do you think what we did to the taliban was wrong? I am not accusing you of anything, simply asking a question because your posts seem to have a decidedly "fundamental" perspective to them.

Originally posted by Karankawa
I would simply be interested in seeing the Palestinians reactions if the Israelis decided to do the exact same thing back to the Palestinians that is being done to the Israelis, IE, send a suicide bomber into a Palestinian village and blow up a hundred or so random men, women and children that have nothing to do with the Hamas' decisions.



Do you think those israeli shelling, and missile fire are only killing militants?

How many Palestinians have been killed in this conflict since 2000? How many Israeli's?

the militants make it apoint ot hide behind women and kids. are they supposed to get a free pass forever becasue they are hiding behind civilians like cowards?

You can't say that for every death, you don't know if that's always the case.

Give me a number. Tell me how many have died.

what the hell does it matter how many have died? does the country that has lost more become more right by default then the country that has lost less people? Believe me, the palestinians havent killed fewer Isrealis due to lack of trying or desire. they just have an archaic approach to it.

Yeah they don't have the $15 million the US gives Israel each day!

You just can't use the deaths of one while ignoring the deaths of another. THese are parents, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters on both sides that are dying.

Are you a Hamas sympathizer? Do you think what we did to the taliban was wrong?


As "weak" or "liberal" as it may sound, I disagree with the idea of war and violence being used to solve problems in general, by a terrorist organization or a nation that feels it has no other choice.

I believe that far too many examples have been made throughout history of resolving crisis' and disagreements without resulting to war. From Ghandi, to Martin Luther King Jr. we see on an individual level that non-violence can end in a positive outcome.

The institution of the League of Nations later the United Nations was designed to help solve the issues of world powers under a unified council. These councils and groups primary objective has been to decrease the necessity for war and violence in general. As it stands there are some nations that ignore the conclusions of the UN and like groups. Saddams Iraq was one, Israel is another. The security council is charged with the responsibility of handing down a decision as to how these dismissals of their authority should be handled.

By ignoring the decision by the United Nations Security Council to wait until more evidence showed that Saddam was indeed harboring nuclear biological or chemical weaponry, the US weakened the power of that necessary institution and pushed back the movement to increase peace. Also, although a strong case was made, many argued that war was not necessarily the only answer in Afghanistan, and that not much has changed since, besides the officials names. (the road to Khandahar was paved too).

My point is that the warlords are still controlling the Afghan provinces, the Taliban is creeping back into is station of power, and Hamid Karizai isn't respected outside of his bunker/captiol.

As I've said before fighting terror is not the same as fighting any other army. Terrorist are driven by an idea, an idea isn't tangable. So to kill all the terrorist only increases the ranks of the terrorist organizations by filling the vacume left and strengthens the resolve of those in the groups (the death of the quadripeligic cleric will not decrease any hate for the Israelis or violence). This isn't hard to see, none of the terror groups of the 80's have retired, they've been galvanized by the military attention they get .

I remember the story of Terry Anderson when I was a kid, he'd been kidnapped by a terrorist group in Lebanon in the late 80's. I believe it was the Islamic Jihad or Hezbolah I'm not sure, but he was freed in the nineties, I bought his book. He said amongst other things that the terrorist told him that kidnapping Americans and foreigners didn't work so they wouldn't do it anymore. But they still haven't stopped attempting to terrorize the world, simply because its the idea that needs to be killed.

The only way to kill an idea is to get into the hearts and minds of those terrorist and find a solution to their problem, or else the vicious cycle will continue indefinitly. It has been for Israel and if the US is dragged into their war it will continue for us as well.

Asnwer:No, I genuinely believe in non-violence on all fronts. Yes, I believe the killing of men women and children is wrong even if it is labeled "Collateral Damage". Its no better than the terrorist actively targeting the women and children.

Originally posted by Obadiah Plainma
As "weak" or "liberal" as it may sound, I disagree with the idea of war and violence being used to solve problems in general, by a terrorist organization or a nation that feels it has no other choice.

I believe that far too many examples have been made throughout history of resolving crisis' and disagreements without resulting to war. From Ghandi, to Martin Luther King Jr. we see on an individual level that non-violence can end in a positive outcome.

The institution of the League of Nations later the United Nations was designed to help solve the issues of world powers under a unified council. These councils and groups primary objective has been to decrease the necessity for war and violence in general. As it stands there are some nations that ignore the conclusions of the UN and like groups. Saddams Iraq was one, Israel is another. The security council is charged with the responsibility of handing down a decision as to how these dismissals of their authority should be handled.

By ignoring the decision by the United Nations Security Council to wait until more evidence showed that Saddam was indeed harboring nuclear biological or chemical weaponry, the US weakened the power of that necessary institution and pushed back the movement to increase peace. Also, although a strong case was made, many argued that war was not necessarily the only answer in Afghanistan, and that not much has changed since, besides the officials names. (the road to Khandahar was paved too).

My point is that the warlords are still controlling the Afghan provinces, the Taliban is creeping back into is station of power, and Hamid Karizai isn't respected outside of his bunker/captiol.

As I've said before fighting terror is not the same as fighting any other army. Terrorist are driven by an idea, an idea isn't tangable. So to kill all the terrorist only increases the ranks of the terrorist organizations by filling the vacume left and strengthens the resolve of those in the groups (the death of the quadripeligic cleric will not decrease any hate for the Israelis or violence). This isn't hard to see, none of the terror groups of the 80's have retired, they've been galvanized by the military attention they get .

I remember the story of Terry Anderson when I was a kid, he'd been kidnapped by a terrorist group in Lebanon in the late 80's. I believe it was the Islamic Jihad or Hezbolah I'm not sure, but he was freed in the nineties, I bought his book. He said amongst other things that the terrorist told him that kidnapping Americans and foreigners didn't work so they wouldn't do it anymore. But they still haven't stopped attempting to terrorize the world, simply because its the idea that needs to be killed.

The only way to kill an idea is to get into the hearts and minds of those terrorist and find a solution to their problem, or else the vicious cycle will continue indefinitly. It has been for Israel and if the US is dragged into their war it will continue for us as well.

Asnwer:No, I genuinely believe in non-violence on all fronts. Yes, I believe the killing of men women and children is wrong even if it is labeled "Collateral Damage". Its no better than the terrorist actively targeting the women and children.

Non-violent tactics are not realistic solutions in all situations. Both MLK's and Ghandi's protests occured under civil governments controlled by people that abhor violence. Do you think civil disobedience would mean jacksh*t to Hamas, Al Queada, or Sadaam Hussein? You know what those organizations/people would do to non-violent protesters? They'd simply shoot, torture, or imprison them. That's why you don't see effective non-violent protests under oppressive governing bodies. Basically, non-physical solutions are the only option when all parties involved abhor violence.

I would concede that Isreal's violence tactics aren't going to solve their problems, but I think their approach is debatably effective and morally justifiable and, thus, is above condemnation.

Personally, I don't think there's any possible reconcilliaiton between Palestinians and Isrealis today. The wall/fence Isreal is building is their most effective and best solution IMO, since separation of the people's is going to be the only way to avoid violence.

Yes, I believe the killing of men women and children is wrong even if it is labeled "Collateral Damage". Its no better than the terrorist actively targeting the women and children.

I completely disagree with you. One is intentional and the other is unintentional. That's a big, big difference, fella!

Leper

Non-violent tactics are not realistic solutions in all situations. Both MLK's and Ghandi's protests occured under civil governments controlled by people that abhor violence. Do you think civil disobedience would mean jacksh*t to Hamas, Al Queada, or Sadaam Hussein? You know what those organizations/people would do to non-violent protesters? They'd simply shoot, torture, or imprison them. That's why you don't see effective non-violent protests under oppressive governing bodies. Basically, non-physical solutions are the only option when all parties involved abhor violence.


I'm aware that its highly unlikely that I will be able to convince you or anyone else that nonviolence is always an option, so I wont even try. But what I will tell you is that the logic behind using violence to create peace is unbelievably weak.

The 30 year tit for tat Israeli Palestinian conflict proves that violence only begats violence. Hopefully as the world continues to grow up, it will become more acceptable to solve problems diplomatically rather than militarily. It didn't take nuclear warfare to bring down the Iron curtain. And contrary to popular or Trumans beliefs, a demonstration of the Atomic Bomb on a vast stretch of land would have most certainly convinced the Emperor Hirohito to call it quits without having to take the lives of at least 300,000 Japanese.

It all boils down to getting over fear, the fear of them, what they have, what they think, what they might do. Once you stop letting "them" scare you, the less power the terrorist wields. The ideas they live and die for will never be destroyed by a MOAB, a Cruise missile, or a sidewinder armed predetor drone.

The key to solving problems is solving the problem, and that process never includes violence.

Originally posted by Obadiah Plainma
Leper




I'm aware that its highly unlikely that I will be able to convince you or anyone else that nonviolence is always an option, so I wont even try. But what I will tell you is that the logic behind using violence to create peace is unbelievably weak.

WW1, WW2, Civil War, all solved with violence. all countries involved are still at peace.

Originally posted by Obadiah Plainma
LeperThe 30 year tit for tat Israeli Palestinian conflict proves that violence only begats violence. Hopefully as the world continues to grow up, it will become more acceptable to solve problems diplomatically rather than militarily. It didn't take nuclear warfare to bring down the Iron curtain. And contrary to popular or Trumans beliefs, a demonstration of the Atomic Bomb on a vast stretch of land would have most certainly convinced the Emperor Hirohito to call it quits without having to take the lives of at least 300,000 Japanese.

the only reason there is still a tit for tat violence cycle in israel is because israel has not used the amount of force neccessarry for total victory, which is the only sure fire way for peace. and good luck getting hirohito anywhere near a vast stretch of land for a demonstartation of the A bomb. first of all, we couldnt just call and schedule an appointment with the guy. second of all, there are no vast stretchs of land around tokyo, or anywhere in japan for that matter. i can see it now "Mr Hirohito, its time for your 3 o clock meeting on the vast stretch of land for the amerian a bomb demonstration, should I hold your calls?" LOL, WTF?

Karankawa
I completely disagree with you. One is intentional and the other is unintentional. That's a big, big difference, fella!

Not really. The United States armed forces is well aware that women and children are in the homes they are sending tamahawk missiles into. They are well aware that there is a high probability that women and children would be killed during the "Shock and awe" campaign that began the war in Iraq. Where in the US lobbed over 7000 missiles into Iraqi cities and towns.

These things are well known, they are just dismissed as incidental collateral damage. Terrorist interviewed over the years have given answers very similar to the official opinion of the United States government on these same issues.

The United States armed forces doesn't even make a point to attempt to count the deaths of the "Collateral Damage" they create. And when ever I've heard or read a number from 5 to 5,000, government officials almost always dismiss it as an exaggeration.

The intentions of the terrorist and the intentions of the government seem to be identical.

Terrorism-The use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Travh

I'm not even going to attempt to argue why peace is an option its clear from reading all your posts that you believe as you just stated that the only solution is more violence. But I will respond to your comments about Hirohito.

It wouldn't have been necessary to set up an appointment with the Emperor, all that was necessary was to drop the bomb in a un populated part of Japan. They would have gotten the picture without killing anyone. Secondly this isn't my idea, this was the idea of the scientist that designed and built the actual bomb that was dropped.

A petition was passed throughout Las Alamos Laboratories during that time and it was overwhelming support for a demonstration to be given rather than actually killing the people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The commanding officer hid this information from Truman when the decision was given to him. Also just as we saw several months back when the Enola Gay exibit was opened in Washington D.C., the survivors and relatives of the survivors still harbor alot of anger against the United States for that. Many other nations and groups bring up the droping of the A-bomb as justification for the violence that they perpetuate. My point is that violence only creates more violence.

Although fairly mute, the anger of WWII still festers in the wounds of Germans, French, Americans, and Jews alike. Southerners still gripe about the Civil War. Mexicans are clearly working toward getting their land back, etc etc..... War doesn't solve anything it simply kills people and scares others into in-action or a gorilla war ie. terrorism.

LOL, when was the last time we got attacked by anybody because we dropped the bomb on japan? have we ever? maybe al qaeda flew those planes into the WTC to protest amercans indiscriminantly dropping atomic bombs all over the place. Listen, I am not saying violence is the only way. of course when you have two modern, civilized nations, they can work out their differences diplomatically. you dont see us launching tomahawks at france or germany do you? when you are dealing with a group of people whith a 12th century mentality, you cant reason with them. in case you forgot, we didnt start all of this. we are mearly dealing with it.

The incredible violence in WWII - lead to currently almost 60 years of peace in Europe. Violence breeds violence is a cliche.

Also just as we saw several months back when the Enola Gay exibit was opened in Washington D.C., the survivors and relatives of the survivors still harbor alot of anger against the United States for that. The same can also be said for Americans who survived and relatives who survived Pearl Harbor. Dont forget, we didnt fire the first shot, only the most effective ones.

Also, you make a point to say that by dropping an A-bomb on an unpopulated portion of Japan would have forced Hirohito to surrender. Thats not true. He didnt surrender after it was dropped on a populated area, why would a "threat" have made him do so? :confused:

Originally posted by Obadiah Plainma

The key to solving problems is solving the problem, and that process never includes violence.

I'm just curious how you think the problem can be solved. And I mean specifically, not just generalizations like "have the UN negotiate."

Lionel Hutz

I'm just curious how you think the problem can be solved. And I mean specifically, not just generalizations like "have the UN negotiate."

The question of our generation, How to solve the problem of terrorism. My position is, and has been that terrorism is a result of people that feel as though their concerns are not being addressed. People who have, because of this dismissal taken it upon themselves to forcefully in-act some sort of revenge or justice in order to coerce a nation or group into changing their behavior.

At the same time, displayed in many different nations fight against terror they seem have taken a very similar stance. That is we will bomb, attack, destroy, kill the terrorist in-order to change their behavior. It has yet to work.

You see, the ideas that drove these people to these extremes, (kamakazi styled suicide attacks) be they religiously, politically, or racially motivated, must be dealt with in order to effectively change the mind set of that community. We can send in our entire arsenal of AGM-114 Hellfire missiles into a terrorist camp and unless we kill everyone, we won't come close to affecting the ideology that drives these people to want to strike back, most likely that will only inspire others of their sect to respond with more attacks on our homeland.

Believe it or not there are alot of terrorist organizations across the planet. The American media primarily informs us about those groups that directly apply to us or our interest. Each group has its own agenda and reasons for being, and addressing those issues must be considered first and foremost when attempting to actually resolve the conflict.

From what I've read and understand, Osama bin Laden's Alqeada network has declared a Fatwah on the US primarily because of our support of Israel in the Palestinan conflict as well as our being on Saudi soil during the 1st Iraq war. I'm sure there are many other reasons that I'm not aware of but these are what I've read drove this group to launch attacks on us at home and abroad.

If these are as stated, the reasons for animosity against the US, then it would seem that simple diplomacy could have solved the issues. We financed and trained Al Qeada pre-name change, so its obvious that they would be willing to launch attacks against any presumed enemy. Why wasn't the threat of Al Qeada taken serious enough to attempt to resolve it peacefully just as we would any other global impasse?

Many argue that while the US government portends to be an impartial arbitrator in the Palestinian Israeli discord, they simulatniously side with the Israelis un-fairly. Now I have no horse in this race but, with the encroachment on the Palestinan land being a on going thing. And the world bodies condemning many of the Israeli attacks, it would only be understandable that the occupied would rise up. Just as the French did during the Second World War , just as the Americans did in the Revolutionary War.

I would think that creating a more peaceful Middle East and eliminating the threat of Islamic terrorist to the United States would definitly begin by actually arbitrating the Israeli/Palestinan conflict until it is resolved, without bias. Which means getting to the root of the problem by creating language that is acceptable to both, with the risk of sanctions if not adhered to. The details of their differences are so many that I could not desipher each one in this post (heck I don't even know them all). But a true arbitrator would not allow the situation to end without an accepted resolution.

The acceptance of the decisions negotiated by the UN, US, or other world body is the only way peace can be attained.

"For evey thousand pages produced on the causes of war, there is less than one page directly on the causes of peace" Geoffrey Blainey

This sums up my opinion the best. We've spent centuries attempting to find ways to win via violence and little to no time on how to achieve the goal peaceably. Yet many continue to say peaceful resolutions to problems is not possible. I will continue to disagree.

Originally posted by Obadiah Plainma
I would think that creating a more peaceful Middle East and eliminating the threat of Islamic terrorist to the United States would definitly begin by actually arbitrating the Israeli/Palestinan conflict until it is resolved, without bias. Which means getting to the root of the problem by creating language that is acceptable to both, with the risk of sanctions if not adhered to. The details of their differences are so many that I could not desipher each one in this post (heck I don't even know them all). But a true arbitrator would not allow the situation to end without an accepted resolution.

While I agree that this is a good idea in theory, the reality is that neither side is likely to accept an arbitrated solution. And even if the governments did, the Israeli settlers and the Palestinian terrorists most likely would not. No amount of sanctions is going to stop the hard core believer. Meanwhile everyone else suffers. And I think that's the problem here - no solution will ever get buy-in from all parties, so the stupidity will continue.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
No amount of sanctions is going to stop the hard core believer. Meanwhile everyone else suffers. And I think that's the problem here - no solution will ever get buy-in from all parties, so the stupidity will continue.

Unfortunately you're right. There was hope 10 years ago but now it looks like a dead end.