Bush backs down from the Road Map

[deep]

Why drag MLK or Ghandi into this?


If Ghandi was killed by the British occupiers in India they would not have called it an assasination. I would have.








as?sas?si?nate


To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.






It is an extra-judicial execution.

These killings are outside of all law.

There are many killed as collateral damage. These other people have been murdered.


Timothy McVeigh was not killed by a helicopter gunship launching a missile into an apartment building.


Palestinians are no less human than U S citizens.

 

[Dreadsox]

 

[nbcrusader]

as?sas?si?nate


To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons.


It is an extra-judicial execution.

These killings are outside of all law.

There are many killed as collateral damage. These other people have been murdered.


Timothy McVeigh was not killed by a helicopter gunship launching a missile into an apartment building.


Palestinians are no less human than U S citizens.

So, I guess by this definition, if the U.S. killed bin Laden, it would be an assassination.

 

[najeena]

The fact that we support murder and assasination at all is a sad relection of our world.

 

[Scarletwine]

So, I guess by this definition, if the U.S. killed bin Laden, it would be an assassination.

I would. We are suppossed to be better than the terrorist and believe in the Rule of Law.

I wouldn't be sad about it but I don't think it's the rright way to handle the situation. Death during an attack is a different thing altogether.

 

[deep]

Terrorist


is a commonly used catch phase along with ?ticking bomb? to justify the killing of certain individuals.







The ANC used weapons and violence to further their agenda. They received support from the communist in the Soviet Union.

Nelson Mandela refused to renounce violence.

Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld called Nelson Mandela a terrorist.
They supported his imprisonment and did not think he should be freed.

 

[deep]

So, I guess by this definition, if the U.S. killed bin Laden, it would be an assassination.

Perhaps, but I do not think the very many nation's would condemn it.

Sharron tactics are wrong and condemn by almost everybody.

Even Candi Rice spoke against it, albeit from both sides of her mouth, being sure to say Israel has the right of self-defense.

 

[Scarletwine]

I'm freaking sick of anyone that doesn't agree with the administration's policies being a terrorist. I suppose I fit in that category along with the teachers union.

I would defend the US in everyway possible. In todays terms the UK should have assassinated Washington.

 

[nbcrusader]

I'm freaking sick of anyone that doesn't agree with the administration's policies being a terrorist.

You're right. For all of Hamas' diplomatic efforts, they should be given a seat at the table.



The 9-11 Commission could have stopped once they learned arrest warrents were issued for bin Laden.

 

[Dreadsox]

I would defend the US in everyway possible. In todays terms the UK should have assassinated Washington.

Washington was a general waging war. I would not have called it assassination.

Although, your comparison of the patriots who fought for freedom against a tyrranical King to a terrorist organization is kind of sad.

Of course, I must be reading the wrong history books.

 

[Dreadsox]

If I may point out....after the last "assassination" of a Hamas leader the man had this to say.....

"We love martyrdom and we seek martyrdom," Rantissi said. "Our leaders and followers will continue to fight until we achieve martyrdom."

http://www.marchforjustice.com/8.22.03.mournshanab.php

Ask and you shall receive.

 

[AchtungBono]

You're right. For all of Hamas' diplomatic efforts, they should be given a seat at the table.



The 9-11 Commission could have stopped once they learned arrest warrents were issued for bin Laden.

Excuse me??????? Hamas??? DIPLOMATIC efforts???? what exactly are you talking about?

Since its establishment in 1987, the Hamas has only one effort on its agenda...the TOTAL destruction of the state of Israel. Not only did Hamas NOT join any of the peace negotiations - from Madrid, thru Oslo - but they INTENSIFIED their attacks against us, starting with the first wave of suicide bombings in 1993 following the signing of the Oslo Accords (which, by the way, called for the Palestinian Authority to disarm them and other terrorist organizations, and to arrest their leaders).

Even Yassar Arafat's P.L.O, long dedicated to the destruction of Israel, was willing in the beginning to lay down their weapons and co-exist with us. The Hamas and Jihad NEVER agreed to this, and the about-face of Yassar Arafat,(who turned once more to violence), combined with the impotence of the Palestinian Authority, have left us with NO negotiating partner whatsoever on the Palestinian side.

The peace process is doomed to fail as long as the terrorists are not being dealt with. And seeing as no one on the Palestinian side is willing to deal with them, its up to US (as I said before).

I believe that there ARE people on the Palestinian side who are sick of the "wild west" atmosphere which prevails now in the West Bank and Gaza, and who are willing to sit down with us in honest, direct and serious negotiations, but who are afraid to speak out for fear of their lives, and this situation will continue as long as the Hamas and Islamic Jihad rule the streets.

One last thing, Haled Mashal - the Hamas leader who is sitting in Damascus - said that the killing of Rantisi put the final nail in the coffin of the Road Map plan....what a LAUGH! As IF the Hamas accepted the road map - or indeed ANY peace plan between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

The only "Road Map" that the Hamas and Jihad are following is the road map that leads them into our cities to murder our citizens.

I say, bring them down FIRST and only then will the atmosphere be healthy enough to restart negotiations for a long and lasting peace between our two nations.

 

[Dreadsox]

That was called sarcasm in his post. It was in reference to the post about everyone opposed to Bush being terrorists.

The face with the rolling eyes before the post gives it away.

There are those here who are sympathetic to Hamas and believe that Israel is at fault though.

 

[verte76]

Washington was a general waging war. I would not have called it assassination.

Although, your comparison of the patriots who fought for freedom against a tyrranical King to a terrorist organization is kind of sad.

Of course, I must be reading the wrong history books.

I'm not aware that Washington led terrorist squads. No, he didn't. He led colonials who were mad as hell at the King because they were being taxed without representation and they just wanted their own government.

 

[DrTeeth]

It's all relative really.

 

[AchtungBono]

That was called sarcasm in his post. It was in reference to the post about everyone opposed to Bush being terrorists.

The face with the rolling eyes before the post gives it away.

There are those here who are sympathetic to Hamas and believe that Israel is at fault though.

In that case, I apologize......I didn't notice the rolling eyes.

 

[nbcrusader]

Excuse me??????? Hamas??? DIPLOMATIC efforts???? what exactly are you talking about?

Yes, sorry for the heavy dose of sarcasm.

When Hamas sends a "diplomat" to Israel, they are usually carrying a couple of pounds of C-4 around their waist.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

There are those here who are sympathetic to Hamas and believe that Israel is at fault though.

The two don't go hand in hand: many believe Israel should take its share of the blame for the situation, whilst also condemning violence perpetrated by Hamas or any other organisation.

That said, I'd be interested to know who here is sympathetic to Hamas.

 

[Scarletwine]

The early militias especially in New England could easily be called insurgents and then later evolve into an army. As could the Iraqi's.

DrTeeth is exactly right - its relative.

It's also being called a WAR on Terror making those at Guantanimo prisoners of war or enemy combatants, ect.

 

[Klaus]

nbcrusader:

For me the israel government behaves like the terrorists when they continue to kill people without a fair trial.

 

[Dreadsox]

The two don't go hand in hand: many believe Israel should take its share of the blame for the situation, whilst also condemning violence perpetrated by Hamas or any other organisation.

That said, I'd be interested to know who here is sympathetic to Hamas.

Maybe I should have chosen my words better......sorry.

Does anti-zionist sound better?

 

[Dreadsox]

Hello, it is a war. Do we put soldiers on trial before we fire? No.

This was not some innocent Palestianian walking down the street.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Does anti-zionist sound better?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. Are you equating anti-zionism with support for Hamas? Or just saying that there are people here who are anti-zionist?

 

[STING2]

The early militias especially in New England could easily be called insurgents and then later evolve into an army. As could the Iraqi's.

DrTeeth is exactly right - its relative.

It's also being called a WAR on Terror making those at Guantanimo prisoners of war or enemy combatants, ect.

Thats a generalization about the militias of New England. These militias were formed in towns all over New England over a century before the Revolutionary War to defend the towns against attacks by Indians. They were necessary for the survival of the population in those days.

It is simply absurd to compare them to Saddam Loyalist and foreign terrorist in Iraq who use Women and Childern as human shields and who's goals are NOT Democracy and human rights!

 

[STING2]

Excuse me??????? Hamas??? DIPLOMATIC efforts???? what exactly are you talking about?

Since its establishment in 1987, the Hamas has only one effort on its agenda...the TOTAL destruction of the state of Israel. Not only did Hamas NOT join any of the peace negotiations - from Madrid, thru Oslo - but they INTENSIFIED their attacks against us, starting with the first wave of suicide bombings in 1993 following the signing of the Oslo Accords (which, by the way, called for the Palestinian Authority to disarm them and other terrorist organizations, and to arrest their leaders).

Even Yassar Arafat's P.L.O, long dedicated to the destruction of Israel, was willing in the beginning to lay down their weapons and co-exist with us. The Hamas and Jihad NEVER agreed to this, and the about-face of Yassar Arafat,(who turned once more to violence), combined with the impotence of the Palestinian Authority, have left us with NO negotiating partner whatsoever on the Palestinian side.

The peace process is doomed to fail as long as the terrorists are not being dealt with. And seeing as no one on the Palestinian side is willing to deal with them, its up to US (as I said before).

I believe that there ARE people on the Palestinian side who are sick of the "wild west" atmosphere which prevails now in the West Bank and Gaza, and who are willing to sit down with us in honest, direct and serious negotiations, but who are afraid to speak out for fear of their lives, and this situation will continue as long as the Hamas and Islamic Jihad rule the streets.

One last thing, Haled Mashal - the Hamas leader who is sitting in Damascus - said that the killing of Rantisi put the final nail in the coffin of the Road Map plan....what a LAUGH! As IF the Hamas accepted the road map - or indeed ANY peace plan between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

The only "Road Map" that the Hamas and Jihad are following is the road map that leads them into our cities to murder our citizens.

I say, bring them down FIRST and only then will the atmosphere be healthy enough to restart negotiations for a long and lasting peace between our two nations.

 

[Scarletwine]

I'm aware of the US militia's history and I do not find the comparison absuird from King George's point of view.

I don't believe the militia's are all made up pf Loyalists and foreign terrorists. Many are now made up of Nationalists against the occupation of their country as seen by the Sunni & Shiite combined support.

That does not mean I'm not deeply sorry for the loss of US lives. I just also care about "collateral damage"

 

[STING2]

I'm aware of the US militia's history and I do not find the comparison absuird from King George's point of view.

I don't believe the militia's are all made up pf Loyalists and foreign terrorists. Many are now made up of Nationalists against the occupation of their country as seen by the Sunni & Shiite combined support.

That does not mean I'm not deeply sorry for the loss of US lives. I just also care about "collateral damage"

There are plenty of differences between the New England militia and the terrorist in Iraq to make any comparison absurd in my view. Try starting with the goals and grievences of each.

Opinion polls in Iraq have shown that the majority of people in Iraq want the occupation to continue, support the war that removed Saddam, and have a better life today than they did before the war started. The poll is in the WAR forum if you have yet to check it out.

It is well known fact that there are foreign terrorist in Iraq and that the vast majority of the opposition to the coalition over the past 12 months has come from the Sunni Triangle which is the base for Saddam Loyalist.

The vast majority of Iraq has been calm compared to the Sunni Triangle.

Sadr and his 10,000 man militia do not speak for the rest of the 15 million Shia's that have consistently supported the occupation over the past 12 months.

There has been very little combined support between Sunni and Shia elements and its simply a mis-representation when people take the few links there are and blow them up into this country wide mass revolt which is not the case.

 

[pax]

There has been very little combined support between Sunni and Shia elements and its simply a mis-representation when people take the few links there are and blow them up into this country wide mass revolt which is not the case.

This I agree with. The Sunni and the Shia factions are not, all of a sudden, going to decide to start getting along and plotting a revolution in the spirit of cooperation and friendliness. Even if isolated parties have decided to work together for the time being, that doesn't necessarily mean much of anything. But that doesn't mean that even disjointed rebellions aren't going to cause a lot of trouble and aren't going to spread.

I would feel a lot better about this whole war thing if, in addition to reopening schools and fixing up roads and the like, we actually had some kind of do-able power share in place for the "handoff"--which, if we don't get one in place, is going to be a disaster, mark my words.

 

[nbcrusader]

Hello, it is a war. Do we put soldiers on trial before we fire? No.

This was not some innocent Palestianian walking down the street.

 

[Dreadsox]

Just to clarify there is a BIG difference between the tactics of say a Sam Adams.....and the "Sons of Liberty" verses the minutemen.

I could see the King viewing the early actions of those disobedient colonists as being that of terrorists.

I do not equate the Continental Army and George Washington as the same.

I think we are BLENDING the actions of pre-war with the actual war.