• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

“Disproportionate Attacks”

Read the intro. We should have:


  • Total voters
    12
Iriemon said:
In the pictures of the destroyed buildings you showed in another thread, have the survivors of Lebonese civilians killed by Isreali bombs been provoked to retaliate against Israel? Or would that be illegitimate?

i woudl say it is illegitimate
because mo0st of the dead in Lebanon were in all likelihood Hezbollah, who brought this on themselves
the rest were killed because they either supported Hezbollah or failed to leave the area when Israel notified them to
 
Kelzie said:
Except the only reason that there was a military incursion by Israel was that they were arresting people who fire rockets on them. They were quite clearly in the right.
That's soooo obvious. The people who fail to see it must be trying extremely hard to keep their eyes closed.
 
Iriemon said:
If we are hit with a nuke we are entitled to respond in kind against those responsible. The question is should we fire off nukes now on the proposition that we *may* be hit by a nuke some day in the future? That was the argument for first strike against the S.U.

Pre-emptive nuclear strikes is not necessarly what I have ever suggested.

You aren't thinking through this. You are making blanket statements without the substance. I appreciate that you always like to maintain a higher morality, but morality has little to do with survival. Consider this...

"Against those responsible?" And who is responsible for Al-Queda? Who is responsible for Hezbollah in Lebanon? - Lebanon doesn't claim them. What Islamic country ever claims responsibility for their terrorist organizations? Who claims the lone suicidal bomber from "Palestine?" - not Hamas. Shall we simply launch nukes into the locations where these terror organizations headquarter and kill millions of civilians? Isn't that the same thing as going in conventionally after Hezbollah and killing civilians that are in the way?

You're just not getting what I have been saying. To the horror of our enemies, no one can stop progress - and everything progresses. Iran wants nuclear muscle. The evolution of terror weapons have gone from the smallest of bombs to the biggest and most deadliest they can build. The more deaths that a desperate suicidal Islamic Radical offers his god, the better his work on earth. What makes you think that Islamic terrorist organizations will never get their hands on a nuclear device?

Our enemies have a great advantage over us. They are able to inflict great damage upon the west without claiming responsibility. Thus far, they have learned that our civilization does not have the stomach to do what is necessary to protect ourselves. We care too much about lines in an airport and gas prices. We care too much about shedding crocodile tears and blaming ourselves for every attack. We care too much about "proof" despite common knowledge. A portion of our civilizations will simply go back to the Saddm/WMD issue everytime a WMD threat is mentioned and prefer to accept that "they mean us no harm."

Being hit with a nuke is not the threat. No country would dare launch on us or an ally - not with Bush at the helm anyway. A nuke in a suitcase is the threat. And when it detonates, we are going to be left with two options - wait for the next one as we scramble for proof of where it came from or launch on our enemies and accepting where it probably came from. Of course....if this all occurs after Iran gets nukes...they will simply start launching as well.
 
Last edited:
Hobbes said:
What exactly are you suggesting we do to deal with this problem now? How could we deal with Radical Islam all at once?

Can't do it all at once. It will take generations, in which, Muslims are going to have to do for themselves. The west cannot repair a religion and the environment in which so many Muslims live futureless and in desperation. This is an Islamic problem that only Muslims can fix. We can only provide support and opportunity (most of which is non-military action). And of course, we need to stop our position of looking for the immediate gain by ensuring "stability" in the Middle East at all costs. Until Saddam's toppling, it had become governmental and intellectual habit.

However, their are immediate reactions that we should be facing with more unity and boldness. I would suggest that the world stop pandering to the sentiment that "if we antagonize them, they will kill us."

- Hezbollah festered in Lebanon for two decades. They are an internationally recognized terrorist organization. The UN (which is represented by many dictators and tyrants who don't represent the mass of their people) knows exactly what they are. Half of the Middle East recognizes them as terrorists and the other half recognizes that their sole purpose for existing is to destroy and commit genicide. Yet no one did nothing. Even now, France refuses to send more than the minimum of support to keep them suppressed (Largely because of their Radical element and prior riots). Other "allies" will follow suit and the violence will continue another day when more civilians will die.

- Al-Queda attacked the U.S. military for a decade and was allowed to strengthen under the Tali Ban in Afghanistan with no retaliation. This was internationally known. Yet until 9/11, no one did nothing.

- Ahmenadejad, in Iran (which is merely an extension of the true religious power that oppresses their society), publicly declares the devine glory of the future destruction and genocide of another civilization (a western ally). He boasts his determination for nuclear power as he continues to uphold the traditional role of maintaining and supporting the "defenders of Islam" in Lebanon. Yet, no one has done anything. Of course, as we have all become quite familiar with, there is a whole bunch of deliberating.

This is just the three most obvious cases. There are dozens of Islamic terror organizations within the Middle East and dozens more organizations in Africa and Asia that gain power through death or simply wish to murder "non-believers" in response to mostly imagined and exxagerated injustices. Yet, we are largely doing nothing. Our culture in the west has us trained to accept that it is only "honorable" to defend oneself when the trigger is pulled. However, waiting around for our people to inevitably die before we act is suicidal and western governments are failing at their protection.

Al-Queda, the Tali- Ban, and Hezbollah were well known threats. We payed for our tolerations and willful ignorance. Should we wait to pay for our willful ignorance until after a terrorist organization detonates a nuclear device? Imagine where we would be today if we acted in the 80's? Where will we be tomorrow for not acting today?
 
Last edited:
Voidwar said:
A silly bone, thrown to naive doves.

Incendiaries killed way more Japanese.

Silly bone? So we DON'T regret being the only country in the world who used an A-bomb against another country? Interesting logic I suppose. Personally I thought being America, and a land that recognizes the basic freedoms granted to all individuals, that we wouldn't again cause that much devistation against innocent civilians in an act of war. I guess you think less of the US than I do.
 
Indy said:
Silly bone? So we DON'T regret being the only country in the world who used an A-bomb against another country?
-I- don't. War is war, and dropping those bombs saved more Japanese than it killed -- say nothing about the number of Americans that didnt have to die invading Japan.

Personally I thought being America, and a land that recognizes the basic freedoms granted to all individuals, that we wouldn't again cause that much devistation against innocent civilians in an act of war.
Interesting logic. We have been ready to again use nukes, on a moment's notice, since at least 1947, and we retain that readiness to this very moment.
 
Kelzie said:
I can almost see their point. But only almost. The problem is that the international community is trying to draw a line between jus as bellum and jus in bello. It might be argued, from a jus in bello stance, that Israel's response is disproportionate.

When someone rains missles down our your citizens for the purposeful killing of your citizens, commits an act of war by an unprovoked attack on your military on your soil and vows to commit genocide against there is no such thing as a disporportionate response less than totally inalalaiton and destroying their ability to harm you again.

Many international organizations have already stated that Israel did not take enough care to minimize civilian casualties and disruption to their lives,

And those people are idiots and utterly bias'd against Israel to make such a statement in light of the fact that those casulaties are solely the responsiblity of Hezbollah who illegally used them as shields. If you want to cite disproportional responses this is it, where is thier porportional comdemnation of Hezbollah for causing those casualties?

at least in proportion to their importance of their stated goal.

What would be proportional to preventing our being destroyed?
 
Indy said:
Silly bone? So we DON'T regret being the only country in the world who used an A-bomb against another country? Interesting logic I suppose. Personally I thought being America, and a land that recognizes the basic freedoms granted to all individuals, that we wouldn't again cause that much devistation against innocent civilians in an act of war. I guess you think less of the US than I do.

I ahve no problem with the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan
and i believe certain circumstances could arise in teh future that would necissitate their use again
 
Indy said:
Silly bone? So we DON'T regret being the only country in the world who used an A-bomb against another country? Interesting logic I suppose. Personally I thought being America, and a land that recognizes the basic freedoms granted to all individuals, that we wouldn't again cause that much devistation against innocent civilians in an act of war. I guess you think less of the US than I do.

You think less of the country that did what it could to stop the war as quickly as possible with the least amount of civilian AND military casualites? That is very strange logic.
 
Put me in the "Agree that nuking Japan was the best option" category.

Had we not, Hirihoto would not have been able to justify surrender to his advisors and people, and the end result would have been the complete destruction of the Japanese people. Not that I would have cared, as they were the enemy, but more importantly, countless Allies lives were saved.
 
Indy said:
Silly bone? So we DON'T regret being the only country in the world who used an A-bomb against another country?

I sure don't, and I'll tell you who else doesn't, Japanese who know enough about the last days of WWII to understand that the BOMB saved them from losing the Kuriles and being cut in half just like Germany was.

Indy said:
Interesting logic I suppose. Personally I thought being America, and a land that recognizes the basic freedoms granted to all individuals,

See, you're one of the doves we threw that silly bone to.

Indy said:
that we wouldn't again cause that much devistation against innocent civilians in an act of war. I guess you think less of the US than I do.
I reckon I THINK, a lot more than you, considering that our nation underwent a 40 year cold war with a policy of MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION. That's 40 years that our "on paper" policy was, we will turn the whole Soviet Union to glass if you throw one nuke at us. So thanks for your warm and fuzzy contribution, Lonesome Dove. :roll:
 
so if a guy sucker punches you in the face, do you turn around, stand there, and give him time to contemplate his next move? or do you find the nearest chair and see if you can fit it into his rectum?

win at all costs. period.

its either that, or be defeated.
 
Originally posted by ProudAmerican:
so if a guy sucker punches you in the face, do you turn around, stand there, and give him time to contemplate his next move? or do you find the nearest chair and see if you can fit it into his rectum?

win at all costs. period.

its either that, or be defeated.
It is partly your fault for putting yourself in a position to be sucker-punched!
 
ProudAmerican said:
so if a guy sucker punches you in the face, do you turn around, stand there, and give him time to contemplate his next move? or do you find the nearest chair and see if you can fit it into his rectum?

win at all costs. period.

its either that, or be defeated.

Jesus would say offer him the the other cheek. But what did He know about these things.
 
Originally posted by Voidwar:
I reckon I THINK, a lot more than you, considering that our nation underwent a 40 year cold war with a policy of MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION. That's 40 years that our "on paper" policy was, we will turn the whole Soviet Union to glass if you throw one nuke at us. So thanks for your warm and fuzzy contribution, Lonesome Dove.
And thanks to the upcoming mid-term elections, your bullshit, war-mongering, un-American ilk will soon be out of power and out of government.
 
Iriemon said:
Jesus would say offer him the the other cheek. But what did He know about these things.


I never once claimed to be anywhere near as good as Jesus.

;)

not to mention, Jesus was WILLING to die for mankind. Id rather defeat the other guy at all costs and keep on living.
 
ProudAmerican said:
I never once claimed to be anywhere near as good as Jesus.

;)

not to mention, Jesus was WILLING to die for mankind. Id rather defeat the other guy at all costs and keep on living.

Don't worry, I wasn't confused about thinking you, in any way, would do what Jesus would do.

You asked a rehtorical question. I gave you the answer of one man. Or God, depending upon your view of things.
 
Don't worry, I wasn't confused about thinking you, in any way, would do what Jesus would do.

one can only wonder why you brought it up then.

You asked a rehtorical question.

I asked a very serious question. one you failed to answer. Care to give us your response?
 
ProudAmerican said:
one can only wonder why you brought it up then.

I asked a very serious question. one you failed to answer. Care to give us your response?

Depends on the circumstances, if it was just me who was at risk, and further violence was not threatened, I might not, tho' I cannot say in the heat of the moment I might act differently, to be honest. I would not stick a chair up his rectum.

As a Christian, I consider what Jesus says about how we should act; though I admit I am not always successful.
 
As a Christian, I consider what Jesus says about how we should act; though I admit I am not always successful.

you and I are alike in this regard then.

I think Jesus teaching are very important, I am also well aware however that Jesus never had to deal with modern day islamofacists.

I would not stick a chair up his rectum.

a chair might not be available. your foot however?????
 
ProudAmerican said:
you and I are alike in this regard then.

I think Jesus teaching are very important, I am also well aware however that Jesus never had to deal with modern day islamofacists.

Your example was about someone striking your cheek. Jesus spoke specifically about that.

If you are a Christian, and if you think Jesus is God, you don't think God's instruction on how to respond to someone striking your cheek is relevant?

a chair might not be available. your foot however?????

I must have missed that part in Jesus' sermon.
 
Your example was about someone striking your cheek. Jesus spoke specifically about that.

so if I use another example we are cool then?

lol

If you are a Christian, and if you think Jesus is God, you don't think God's instruction on how to respond to someone striking your cheek is relevant?

lol. get off the "striking your cheek" bit. I think Jesus taught us how we should act. I also think he understood we are human and may not react the way we are supposed to.

I must have missed that part in Jesus' sermon.

you have already admitted you may lose your temper in such a situation and not act according to Jesus teachings.....so what are we debating exactly?
 
ProudAmerican said:
so if I use another example we are cool then?

If you are ready to give up on this one.

lol. get off the "striking your cheek" bit. I think Jesus taught us how we should act. I also think he understood we are human and may not react the way we are supposed to.

It is not my "striking the cheek" bit. It is Jesus': "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:39.

I agree we frequently do not do what we are supposed to. But it is what we are supposed to do, because that is what God says.

you have already admitted you may lose your temper in such a situation and not act according to Jesus teachings.....so what are we debating exactly?

What we are supposed to do.
 
If you are ready to give up on this one.

nahh, I have this under control.

What we are supposed to do.

we both agree on what we are "supopsed" to do. I dont believe I ever disputed that.

I do find it odd that you are quoting me scripture, and basically giving me a serman, when you yourself have admitted you may not be able to follow his teachings under certain circumstances.

odd.
 
ProudAmerican said:
nahh, I have this under control.

we both agree on what we are "supopsed" to do. I dont believe I ever disputed that.

I do find it odd that you are quoting me scripture, and basically giving me a serman, when you yourself have admitted you may not be able to follow his teachings under certain circumstances.

odd.

Well then we are agreed. Even though we sometimes fail to do what God has taught us, we agree that if an evil person comes up and hits you, the proper thing to do is offer him the other cheek. We should not stick a chair up his ***.
 
Back
Top Bottom