News- no, it's propoganda

innerSpaceman · 08-03-2006, 10:00 PM

sleepyjeff ... Huh? How do ya figure?

sleepyjeff · 08-03-2006, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

sleepyjeff ... Huh? How do ya figure?

If you "surrender" to someone and they demand that you follow them, you pretty much become them I believe.

So I ask: Is it better to be your enemy on their terms or on your own terms?

wendybeth · 08-03-2006, 10:57 PM

As Mousepod pointed out, it's not just about the Jews. Israel is a non-Islamic presence and it wouldn't much matter if they were Jews, Spaniards or Martians- they want them out. No doubt this makes the Christians in the area a bit nervous, but they're buying the radical's line that it's an Arab thing and hoping they aren't next. (Look at what the Islamic Arabs have been doing to people in Africa). Now, Iran is certainly financing the militias- but what if the radicals are successful? It's going to be a major cluster**** of civil wars then, because let's face it- Iranians aren't Arabs, they are Persians, and both Persian and Arab sides see the other as less than perfect. Even within the Arab groups, there are sub-groups wasting each other because of perceived superiority. Israel is merely a rallying point at this time, and a diversion. If they weren't there to project against and use in an inflammatory manner, then the rads would just turn their attentions to the next group of undesireables. Israel is not the problem here, it's the radical Islamics.

Alex · 08-03-2006, 11:12 PM

Radicals always exist. Everywhere and in every culture.

Mainstream support of radicalism is what waxes and wanes. As iSm pointed out, these conflicts mostly started out as nationalistic (arguments over sovereignty and geography) and have turned religious as the secular government leadership has fallen aside. I would argue this is because the nationalistic argument and the fundamental religious argument have come into alignment, but remove that alignment and the radicals will once again be on the fringe. The mainstream may not entirely condone the methods but tolerate it because the goals are the same. As soon as the mainstream and the fringe have different goals, it'll break down.

wendybeth · 08-03-2006, 11:21 PM

I wish that were true, Alex, but I don't think so. The radicals have far too much momentum to simply stop after they achieve so limited a goal, and the nationalists will be excited by the success and want to carry it further. I point to the Russian Revolution as an example- it began with a radical fringe, swelled with the populist involvement, then was taken over once again by the radicals once the primary objective had been achieved. Same goes for the French Revolution. This is one of the reasons the American Revolution stands out amongst others- we did not (although we came close) fall to the fringe element.

Another example would involve the invocation of Godwin, so I will not go there.

scaeagles · 08-04-2006, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Another example would involve the invocation of Godwin, so I will not go there.

Doesn't make the point any less valid.

SacTown Chronic · 08-04-2006, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

If you "surrender" to someone and they demand that you follow them, you pretty much become them I believe.

So I ask: Is it better to be your enemy on their terms or on your own terms?

It would be far better for my soul to have "them" hammered into "me" over time in a post-surrender environment than to become "them" with IsraeliAmerican vigor moments after the opening bell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Terrorists purposefully target civilians and then hide among their own women and children, and all the while seem to gain the sympathy of the international community as the victims.

Exactly my point. In a blink, Israel willingly becomes the terrorists and pays the PR price.

sleepyjeff · 08-04-2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

It would be far better for my soul to have "them" hammered into "me" over time in a post-surrender environment than to become "them" with IsraeliAmerican vigor moments after the opening bell.

Exactly my point. In a blink, Israel willingly becomes the terrorists and pays the PR price.

I would agree with you except it isn't "in a blink". Surely you can see the distinction between the two sides right now?

08-03-2006, 10:00 PM	#1
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	sleepyjeff ... Huh? How do ya figure?
	Submit to Quotes

08-03-2006, 10:57 PM	#3
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	As Mousepod pointed out, it's not just about the Jews. Israel is a non-Islamic presence and it wouldn't much matter if they were Jews, Spaniards or Martians- they want them out. No doubt this makes the Christians in the area a bit nervous, but they're buying the radical's line that it's an Arab thing and hoping they aren't next. (Look at what the Islamic Arabs have been doing to people in Africa). Now, Iran is certainly financing the militias- but what if the radicals are successful? It's going to be a major cluster**** of civil wars then, because let's face it- Iranians aren't Arabs, they are Persians, and both Persian and Arab sides see the other as less than perfect. Even within the Arab groups, there are sub-groups wasting each other because of perceived superiority. Israel is merely a rallying point at this time, and a diversion. If they weren't there to project against and use in an inflammatory manner, then the rads would just turn their attentions to the next group of undesireables. Israel is not the problem here, it's the radical Islamics. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

08-03-2006, 11:12 PM	#4
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Radicals always exist. Everywhere and in every culture. Mainstream support of radicalism is what waxes and wanes. As iSm pointed out, these conflicts mostly started out as nationalistic (arguments over sovereignty and geography) and have turned religious as the secular government leadership has fallen aside. I would argue this is because the nationalistic argument and the fundamental religious argument have come into alignment, but remove that alignment and the radicals will once again be on the fringe. The mainstream may not entirely condone the methods but tolerate it because the goals are the same. As soon as the mainstream and the fringe have different goals, it'll break down.
	Submit to Quotes

08-03-2006, 11:21 PM	#5
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	I wish that were true, Alex, but I don't think so. The radicals have far too much momentum to simply stop after they achieve so limited a goal, and the nationalists will be excited by the success and want to carry it further. I point to the Russian Revolution as an example- it began with a radical fringe, swelled with the populist involvement, then was taken over once again by the radicals once the primary objective had been achieved. Same goes for the French Revolution. This is one of the reasons the American Revolution stands out amongst others- we did not (although we came close) fall to the fringe element. Another example would involve the invocation of Godwin, so I will not go there. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode