This is a discussion on Apocalypse When? Our enemies are contemplating attacks worse than 9/11. within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by ExSoldier Okay, I've been here five years and over four thousand posts and I don't know how to multi-quote. Shooter X was ...
"He went on two legs, wore clothes and was a human being, but nevertheless he was in reality a wolf of the Steppes. He had learned a good deal . . . and was a fairly clever fellow. What he had not learned, however, was this: to find contentment in himself and his own life. The cause of this apparently was that at the bottom of his heart he knew all the time (or thought he knew) that he was in reality not a man, but a wolf of the Steppes."
[QUOTE=Hopyard;1388767]Pulling out of Golan to see how Assad would react would be an act of national suicide for Israel. You misinterpreted what I wrote. I did not mean it would be an act of suicide for us. I do wonder why you think we should tell someone else to take chances and risk their lives. Ehud Barak and President Clinton offered up everything you now say should be done to Arafat, and it got them an Intifada. [QUOTE]
And Arafat is dead. Just because I proposition one girl in a bar and get slapped does not mean the next one is going to slap me too.
Historically the various terrorist groups that have acted against the United States have cited our on going support for Israel as one of the major reasons for the attacks. It is the responsibility of a government to protect its' citizens. What does the preamble of the Constitution say?
So how does supporting Israel, which has cost hundreds of American lives, square with that? It is not the job of the U.S. government to protect the world. It is the job of the U.S. government to protect the American people. Yes there are times where U.S. intervention abroad does protect American lives and American interests, but how is that the case here? Our support of Israel was not for the purpose of so much of protecting Israel as it was to attempt to block Soviet influence in the region. If the politics had been reversed we would have been backing the Arabs. And lets not forget we talking about a country whose air force attacked a U.S. naval vessel killing 34 sailors and has been caught multiple times spying on us. How many other countries would we treat this way?We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
He is a peculiar dude that likes his job. So the question is can we get what we want from him while strengthening his position? We will never know if we don't ask.Assad is a peculiar dude. He is highly educated. He was a practicing physician and eye surgeon in England. He has the intellectual skills to do the right thing and negotiate a settlement. He unfortunately lacks the internal political prowess or desire to leave his neighbor to the west, Lebanon, alone. He is the primary supplier of Hezbollah in Lebanon, which keeps the Lebanese civil war he initiated boiling constantly at a low level. Is he someone who can be trusted? He probably has an eye on Jordan as well-- you likely do not recall when his dad attempted to invade Jordan.
So we cant believe anything they say but we should believe what they said?Assad can't be trusted. And not one of the neighbors of Israel can be trusted--with the possible exception of Hussein of Jordan. The only thing they say that can be trusted is their promise to someday somehow wipe Israel off the map, which means mass slaughter in plain English. If you think that would be an OK result than your position makes sense. Otherwise, it is a foolish position.
The Arabs meant what they said in 1947; they meant it in 1967; they meant it in 1973; and they mean it still today, peace treaties and all notwithstanding.
Just accosted me thirty six years ago? If I jumped behind a dumpster and put my hand on my weapon every time I saw someone that I had a fight with in third grade would you say I am behaving rationally?[QUOTE]If you had to live under that sort of threat, how much trust would you have in your neighbor's word?
Would you turn your back on someone who just accosted you on the street and said "I'm gonna kill you, you
)&*T(*(*&(Te343!!! ? If you had a defensive position that protected you tll the cops showed, would you leave it? Well the Arab neighbors not only made the threat, but went to war 3 times to do just that. Why would Israel give up a defensive position. It makes no sense to ask that.
Why do you expect a nation to act differently than Israel acts and ignore the threats of its neighbors, even aid them, by giving up ground needed for defense from the BG. Such a policy wouldn't make sense in an SD situation on the street and it makes no sense in the Isreali-Palestinian conflict.
So the question is how can we get them to see that profit potential in such a way that they believe it is in their best interest to pursue it?The true pity, is that the intellect and ingenuity which exist on both sides could be turned to productive purposes and turn the region into an exceedingly prosperous place for all. But, it won't happen. It won't happen any more than the Latin countries will give up their culture of corruption to gain prosperity. It is just the way it is, and it isn't as you say, Norman Rockwell.
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
Are you confusing the losses of marines in Lebanon in a failed attempt to protect Lebanon from Syria with protecting Israel?
You see, Syria was the aggressor against Lebanon, and still largely is. Our marines, 200 I believe, lost their lives in the bombing of their barracks in Lebanon. But, that had nothing whatsoever to do with Israel and everything to do with Syrian aggression against its neighbor (Lebanon) which was no different in intent and purpose than Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The goal was to take over Lebanon and make it part of Syria.
Are you confusing our invasions of Iraq, first to protect Kuwait and then, who knows why, with losing lives to protect Israel. That had nothing to do with Israel.
This idea of yours that we have lost hundreds of troops protecting Israel is incorrect. Until you reevaluate it you are not able to be particularly credible in your view on this issue.
Some basic history lessons. We sent no forces to fight for Israel in 1947/48. We demanded they, England, and France, withdraw from Suez in 1956; a colossal mistake in judgment by Ike. Certainly we sent no forces.
We sent no troops to aid Israel in 1967, nor in 1973, nor in their battles with Lebanon/Hezbollah. Nixon did send supplies in 1973, but no combat forces whatsoever.
mcp wrote: "Just accosted me thirty six years ago? If I jumped behind a dumpster and put my hand on my weapon every time I saw someone that I had a fight with in third grade would you say I am behaving rationally?"
Don't know how old you are, but you seem to think 36 years ago is ancient history. You also ignore the fact that the threats are renewed daily, and acted upon daily with rockets and terrorism.
You also ignore the fact that both Assad and Saddam H. were politically, Bathists. That isn't something to be ignored. There is a reason why the Bathists had to be disbanded post-Saddam.
Peace will come to the region when the various tyrants and dictators involved decide they want peace. We have seen this happen twice; once with Egypts Sadat, once with Hussein Jr. of Jordan. It can happen again with Assad, but not by giving up Golan first.
Indeed, if you look at how Egypt regained Sinai after the 1973 war, you will note that Sadat made the peace overture and that was greeted with a willing return of Sinai. Assad (and you) need to consider that the model for success already exists. It is his (Assad's) choice to follow it, and he has chosen to remain intransigent.
Anyway, I think we have hijacked this thread and so this is all I will say on the matter. I'm done.
No I was referring to civilians that have been killed by terrorists that targeted U.S. citizens because of U.S. assistance to Israel.
How different are we from our neighbors to the North? Yet how many Americans have been targeted by terrorists compared to Canadians?
Why are we targeted and they aren't? Is there something we can learn from this?
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
We are dealing with irrational beliefs which have been ingrained by Wahabi-influenced imams and politicians across many different countries. It will not change because we do something different. It is not about us. It is about their irrational belief system.
Believe otherwise. It's what they want. It's what their propaganda machine continues to spew out through CAIR and other groups. It is what the mainstream media continues to publish. Keep on believing...but, you better stay armed. Because they will be on our doorstep.
He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliott
The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
OK it is about their belief system.
What is it about their belief system that seperates us from Canada, New Zealand, or Australia?
What is so different about their cultures from ours that we get singled out and they don't?
All of us have troops in Afghanistan right now so it cant be that.
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
When all the planning and prep is being done at "higher" levels, and the major response strategies being considered and practiced are going to have effect at such levels, what preparations are ever going to involve John Q. Public?When the barbarians are at the gate, you need to do more than lock up - and we haven't even done that yet.
Seems to me that the effects of such planning and prep can only be elsewhere if all planning and all prep is elsewhere.
What I'm getting at is the simple point of there being so many open venues that have little hardening that's been done, and so many communities where few outside of law enforcement and the "first responders" community have been guided through any preparations of any substance.
Imagine, then, how a physical attack will go down at any juicy venue you can think of: DisneyWorld; any grade school or high school in the country; the local mall, or Mall Of America; any church facility; and so on.
At such facilities, little exists to thwart the entry of a handful of people who desire to enter but then subsequently cause mayhem and destruction. I shudder to think what will happen on the day when a score of 12-person teams decide to crank up the rhetoric and take it to Main Street. They won't have much in their way, for all the large-scale planning that's being done elsewhere without John Q. Public's involvement.
Still, edr9x23super makes an important and simple point. So long as the decay is knocking out the supports from the structure, why risk all-out physical attacks that may end up reversing what appears to be a very effective destruction of the society from within?
Last edited by ccw9mm; November 30th, 2009 at 10:43 AM. Reason: clarity