News- no, it's propoganda - Page 13

Gemini Cricket · 08-04-2006, 06:43 AM

I have an answer for you regarding Africa, scaeagles, but maybe I should just keep it to myself.

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.

scaeagles · 08-04-2006, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I have an answer for you regarding Africa, scaeagles, but maybe I should just keep it to myself.

I'd be interested in hearnig. Seriously. Unless you're afraid you're too uneducated and might receive a rebuke.

Gemini Cricket · 08-04-2006, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I'd be interested in hearnig. Seriously. Unless you're afraid you're too uneducated and might receive a rebuke.

Well, I know I'm not all that edumacated. No delusions there.

I think it's a race thing. Totally. I know I may get lambasted for that, but I think it's true. I think as enlightened as we seem to be, this country still has many problems. Race is one of them. If there was genocide going on in a white country where the people getting slaughtered looked like people in one's own suburb, the television coverage of the events would hit home to many more people. I'm not saying everyone in our country is racist, but I'd say a good portion of it is.

Sorry for the derail.

Stan4dSteph · 08-04-2006, 07:20 AM

Which African conflict are we discussing? A lot of the conflict in Africa is traced back to tribal conflicts, pre-colonization.

Gemini Cricket · 08-04-2006, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stan4dSteph

Which African conflict are we discussing? A lot of the conflict in Africa is traced back to tribal conflicts, pre-colonization.

I was talking about pretty much all of it. I was referring to the lack of focus the US media and politicians seem to have about the thousands and thousands of people dead from genocide, disease, famine... ie. Rawanda, Somalia.

scaeagles · 08-04-2006, 07:43 AM

It's all over, and in fact much of it is Muslim sect against Muslim sect.

A very recent article from Janes talking about what is happening in Somalia and the Sudan and how Bin Laden definitely has designs on large portions, if not all, of Africa.

The Sudanese conflicts are largely the Northen Islamic peoples against the Southern Christians.

There is Muslim/Christian conflict all over Nigeria (though there are arguments that this is primarily over resources and that the battle for those scarce resources are bringing people together by religion to fight for them).

And an interesting find on Ethiopia from Time.

While the roots of the conflicts are not always (or even usually) religious, Islamics leaders have oft been quick to latch onto the geopolitical situation and turn the ide into an effort to expand their influence through violence and intimidation.

Ghoulish Delight · 08-04-2006, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

granted, mousepod. But perhaps the conflict is usually put in those terms, because - unlike with the Russians or the French - - the Arabs have been fighting the Jews for century upon century.

eh, yes and no. To go back to your Spain example, Moorish-controlled Spain was historically one of the friendliest eras/areas for Jews to live in.

scaeagles · 08-04-2006, 09:41 AM

I would post a link to Charles Krauthammer, but it is a (free) subscription site, and I realize most don't like links to subscription sites. It discusses the efforts made by Israel to avoid civilian casualties, usually at an expense of their soldiers facing greater danger. The last four paragraphs from a recent column -

"On Wednesday CNN cameras showed destruction in Tyre. What does Israel have against Tyre and its inhabitants? Nothing. But the long-range Hezbollah rockets that have been raining terror on Haifa are based in Tyre. What is Israel to do? Leave untouched the launch sites that are deliberately placed in built-up areas?

Had Israel wanted to destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, it would have turned out the lights in Beirut in the first hour of the war, destroying the billion-dollar power grid and setting back Lebanon 20 years. It did not do that. Instead it attacked dual-use infrastructure -- bridges, roads, airport runways -- and blockaded Lebanon's ports to prevent the reinforcement and resupply of Hezbollah. Ten thousand Katyusha rockets are enough. Israel was not going to allow Hezbollah 10,000 more.

Israel's response to Hezbollah has been to use the most precise weaponry and targeting it can. It has no interest, no desire to kill Lebanese civilians. Does anyone imagine that it could not have leveled south Lebanon, to say nothing of Beirut? Instead, in the bitter fight against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, it has repeatedly dropped leaflets, issued warnings, sent messages by radio and even phone text to Lebanese villagers to evacuate so that they would not be harmed.

Israel knows that these leaflets and warnings give the Hezbollah fighters time to escape and regroup. The advance notification as to where the next attack is coming has allowed Hezbollah to set up elaborate ambushes. The result? Unexpectedly high Israeli infantry casualties. Moral scrupulousness paid in blood. Israeli soldiers die so that Lebanese civilians will not, and who does the international community condemn for disregarding civilian life?"

Gemini Cricket · 08-04-2006, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

scaeagles, I am astounded with how obtuse you are about the practices of Israel. Go get yourself an education, boy. I do not have the wherewithal to school you myself, but you really are demonstrating too much ignorance to conduct a fair conversation on this subject.

Jeeez Louise.

iSm, I must say this remark seems beneath you. I'm stunned.
I know scaeagles does not need defending but... sheesh.

Okay, I've defended scaeagles and Nephy Love in the same week. I'm devolving into a neo-con.

08-04-2006, 06:43 AM	#121
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	I have an answer for you regarding Africa, scaeagles, but maybe I should just keep it to myself.
	Submit to Quotes

08-04-2006, 07:20 AM	#125
Stan4dSteph Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: East Bay Area, CA Posts: 3,156	Which African conflict are we discussing? A lot of the conflict in Africa is traced back to tribal conflicts, pre-colonization.
	Submit to Quotes

08-04-2006, 07:43 AM	#127
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	It's all over, and in fact much of it is Muslim sect against Muslim sect. A very recent article from Janes talking about what is happening in Somalia and the Sudan and how Bin Laden definitely has designs on large portions, if not all, of Africa. The Sudanese conflicts are largely the Northen Islamic peoples against the Southern Christians. There is Muslim/Christian conflict all over Nigeria (though there are arguments that this is primarily over resources and that the battle for those scarce resources are bringing people together by religion to fight for them). And an interesting find on Ethiopia from Time. While the roots of the conflicts are not always (or even usually) religious, Islamics leaders have oft been quick to latch onto the geopolitical situation and turn the ide into an effort to expand their influence through violence and intimidation.
	Submit to Quotes

08-04-2006, 09:41 AM	#129
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I would post a link to Charles Krauthammer, but it is a (free) subscription site, and I realize most don't like links to subscription sites. It discusses the efforts made by Israel to avoid civilian casualties, usually at an expense of their soldiers facing greater danger. The last four paragraphs from a recent column - "On Wednesday CNN cameras showed destruction in Tyre. What does Israel have against Tyre and its inhabitants? Nothing. But the long-range Hezbollah rockets that have been raining terror on Haifa are based in Tyre. What is Israel to do? Leave untouched the launch sites that are deliberately placed in built-up areas? Had Israel wanted to destroy Lebanese civilian infrastructure, it would have turned out the lights in Beirut in the first hour of the war, destroying the billion-dollar power grid and setting back Lebanon 20 years. It did not do that. Instead it attacked dual-use infrastructure -- bridges, roads, airport runways -- and blockaded Lebanon's ports to prevent the reinforcement and resupply of Hezbollah. Ten thousand Katyusha rockets are enough. Israel was not going to allow Hezbollah 10,000 more. Israel's response to Hezbollah has been to use the most precise weaponry and targeting it can. It has no interest, no desire to kill Lebanese civilians. Does anyone imagine that it could not have leveled south Lebanon, to say nothing of Beirut? Instead, in the bitter fight against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, it has repeatedly dropped leaflets, issued warnings, sent messages by radio and even phone text to Lebanese villagers to evacuate so that they would not be harmed. Israel knows that these leaflets and warnings give the Hezbollah fighters time to escape and regroup. The advance notification as to where the next attack is coming has allowed Hezbollah to set up elaborate ambushes. The result? Unexpectedly high Israeli infantry casualties. Moral scrupulousness paid in blood. Israeli soldiers die so that Lebanese civilians will not, and who does the international community condemn for disregarding civilian life?"
	Submit to Quotes