Jordan: Explosions

[Ocean Breeze]

? The opposite of a coward is brave, nothing else

:roll: :roll: :roll:

neocon black/white thought modality. Nothing more. No latitude.......

these folks are TERRORISTS.........and giving them any adjective within the framework of "coward/ brave " or other such crap is total nonsense.

are all neocons this narrow minded.???? No wonder one cannot discuss anything with them...... unless it fits their limited version of things. :roll:

 

[moghrabi]

Re: RE: Jordan: Explosions

No I am not naive at all. I just know how the Israelis work and the article proves my point. They are either part of the game or they did not care about anybody other than their own people.

It's the job of a government to care for it's own people.

It is also their job as part of the countries against the war on terror to share intelligence to save other people.

Yes, but that all depends on the relationship that Israel and Jordan have worked out on intelligence. Israel could probably give the U.S., for example, an unspecified warning and the U.S. would likely take it seriously. Do we know for a fact that Jordan would do the same? Unless we do, we can't assume that Israel purposely withheld the information from Jordan to hurt them, because they could have withheld the information because they would have to be specific and reveal a source. Since it is possible that this is the case, to automatically assume some evil Israeli conspiracy is unfounded.

There is a mutual relationship and a peace treaty between the 2 countries. Why is it only when America is involved, Israel has to share the intel. There are people (innocent going to die.

About the conspiracy theory you just mentioned. You gave me another reason to look at you as naive. You don't understand international politics very well. You are too safe in your comfort zone to believe that Israel will do such thing.

 

[Shiva]

Re: RE: Jordan: Explosions

I did not change my mind. They are not cowards for 2 reasons:

1) anyone going to his death with a smile is not a coward. The cowards are sitting in their planes bombing away in the safety of their planes. Once they get down, you see shit dripping through their pants.

Have you personally witnessed this shit dripping from the pants of American soldiers? You must have had a privileged view of their rear-ends.

I think you're forgetting people can and do shoot down American soldiers. They do face danger when they're in the air. It happens less often, but it does happen, and those who take the skies know they could be killed. You're also overlooking the fact that the majority of U.S. soldiers in Iraq are on the ground, not in the sky.

2) Not cowards because they are fighting for what they believe in. Freedom from the US interference with their government and daily lives. Stealing their wealth so Americans can live in comfortable way while they have to haul water to their bathrooms.

Americans are fighting for something they believe in, too.

 

[moghrabi]

Re: RE: Jordan: Explosions

Americans are fighting for something they believe in, too.

I agree. Americans are fighting for what they belive in - A lie from their master killer.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

so what message did they hear ??? and then reject??? and why??

( what the hell is this aquiesce to the terrorists thing , some neo cons have??? Don't they realize that by engaging with them militarily ........they not only aquiece but fullfill the terrorist ambitions for more and continued war??? but then just as the terrorists have their "holy war" agenda.........neo cons have their own war agenda......but it is based on different motives.)

I love how you've assumed that I'm some sort of neocon just because I disagree with you. I'm a small 'l' liberal (which means, no affiliation with the Liberal Party). I'm centre of the road, with some left leanings on social policy.

This 'aquiesce to the terrorists' thing can be explained thus- if someone uses violence against you, and you give them what they want, then they will use violence again and again to achieve their goals. You display that you're afraid of them, weak, and unwilling to defend yourself. That will embolden the group using violence to use more violence and push for more because they know you can be pushed around. That's why governments don't negotiate with terrorists. Hell, that's why Trudeau didn't negotiate with the FLQ!

:roll: :roll:


your definition of aquiesce is more like extortion.

nothing is as black/white as you seem to imply. Use of force in return for force is NOT always the best option and nor the WISEST. Perpeting the cycle of violence is the least advisable route of action...... and that is why the generic "fight back" is just too much of a catch phrase to be meaninful. there is a time and place for all .......and it takes good judgment. a lot of wisdom and intelligence to know just how to handle most of these situations. Overkill is not the solution and we are seeing it .....as there has been NO dent in the terrorist problem. But the americans don't really care all that much as long as it does not hit them on THEIR soil. There is a psychology in play here too. they measure the "success" in their "war " on terror (an oxymoron) by the fact that there has been no outside attack on their homeland. And that is about as false a reading of the situation as one can get.

 

[Shiva]

? The opposite of a coward is brave, nothing else

:roll: :roll: :roll:

neocon black/white thought modality. Nothing more. No latitude.......

Um, actually, it's a language either/or modality. It's known as antonyms (word with opposite meanings, for the less literate). What that means is that the antonym (or opposite meaning word) of coward is brave. If they're not a coward, if they're the opposite of a coward, they have to be brave. That's how language works, and it's rather sad you haven't learned that as yet.

It's also pathetic that you have to call me names personally ('neocon') simply because I disagree with you. Your argument must be pretty weak if you can't say something to counter my point and have to attack me personally. How threatened you must feel to have to call me names!

these folks are TERRORISTS.........and giving them any adjective within the framework of "coward/ brave " or other such crap is total nonsense.

Uh...I was calling them terrorists...

are all neocons this narrow minded.???? No wonder one cannot discuss anything with them...... unless it fits their limited version of things. :roll:

Hey, you're the one throwing around labels and trying to put me down by calling me names like narrow-minded and a neocon. Seems to me that you're the one with a problem because you can't accept that people have the right to dissent from your particular point of view. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me narrow minded, and it's rather pathetic that you're so arrogant to assume that just because I disagree with you I must have some problem in understanding things.

 

[Shiva]

Re: RE: Jordan: Explosions

Americans are fighting for something they believe in, too.

I agree. Americans are fighting for what they belive in - A lie from their master killer.

Bush never killed anyone personally, and they attacked Saddam for Christ's sake, not Mother Theresa. It isn't as if Saddam's regime didn't have any blood on its hands, either.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Americans are fighting for something they believe in, too.

ARE they??? and what might that be??? the lies from their Lie-master??? or some feeble freedom pitch.??? Is this why it is so nec for them americans to torture , maim and kill ......??? and how is that different from other forms of terrorism???

 

[Shiva]

your definition of aquiesce is more like extortion.

nothing is as black/white as you seem to imply. Use of force in return for force is NOT always the best option and nor the WISEST.

But where did I say it was the best option or the wisest? I'm just pointing out that for the time being, they have to use force or else appear weak. Long term they have to do something politically on the ground to deal with things as well, or else of course, they will face a cycle of violence that will never end.

Perpeting the cycle of violence is the least advisable route of action...... and that is why the generic "fight back" is just too much of a catch phrase to be meaninful.

Sure, but that doesn't just apply to the Americans. It takes two to fight, and the terrorists could take a step back as well to prevent the cycle just as easily as the Americans. The responsibility to do so is on both of them.

there is a time and place for all .......and it takes good judgment. a lot of wisdom and intelligence to know just how to handle most of these situations. Overkill is not the solution and we are seeing it .....as there has been NO dent in the terrorist problem.

Hey, I do agree that American strategy has been pretty crappy. They're definitely not achieving the goals that they want, and they've been performing shockingly below world expectations.

But the americans don't really care all that much as long as it does not hit them on THEIR soil.

If you put anyone in an, 'it's your or me', sort of situation, they're going to choose themselves over others. They'd rather Americans didn't die. Well, so would I if I were American.

There is a psychology in play here too. they measure the "success" in their "war " on terror (an oxymoron) by the fact that there has been no outside attack on their homeland. And that is about as false a reading of the situation as one can get.

Well, according to their criteria they have been successful so far. But they've been making a lot of people angry so it probably won't work long term, I give you that.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

? The opposite of a coward is brave, nothing else

:roll: :roll: :roll:

neocon black/white thought modality. Nothing more. No latitude.......

Um, actually, it's a language either/or modality. It's known as antonyms (word with opposite meanings, for the less literate). What that means is that the antonym (or opposite meaning word) of coward is brave. If they're not a coward, if they're the opposite of a coward, they have to be brave. That's how language works, and it's rather sad you haven't learned that as yet.

It's also pathetic that you have to call me names personally ('neocon') simply because I disagree with you. Your argument must be pretty weak if you can't say something to counter my point and have to attack me personally. How threatened you must feel to have to call me names!

these folks are TERRORISTS.........and giving them any adjective within the framework of "coward/ brave " or other such crap is total nonsense.

Uh...I was calling them terrorists...

are all neocons this narrow minded.???? No wonder one cannot discuss anything with them...... unless it fits their limited version of things. :roll:

Hey, you're the one throwing around labels and trying to put me down by calling me names like narrow-minded and a neocon. Seems to me that you're the one with a problem because you can't accept that people have the right to dissent from your particular point of view. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me narrow minded, and it's rather pathetic that you're so arrogant to assume that just because I disagree with you I must have some problem in understanding things.

whining will get you no where.....but keep trying. :wink: (neo cons is being used in the general sense of the word........as it is the neocons that see war as the solution to all their issues at the moment. Could care less what your personal political affiliation is......... as that is not the topic. Neo con mentality is. ..as it runs interference with constructive solutions to problems.

(and with due respect: save the lectures for the classroom......they do divert attention. )

 

[Shiva]

Americans are fighting for something they believe in, too.

ARE they??? and what might that be??? the lies from their Lie-master??? or some feeble freedom pitch.??? Is this why it is so nec for them americans to torture , maim and kill ......??? and how is that different from other forms of terrorism???

Bush has turned out to be a liar, but I think it's fair to say that people didn't realise the extent of it until it was too late. They implicitly believed their government after a time of great tragedy and their trust was betrayed. Some Americans are still in denial over it. But those who followed Bush (outside of his personal circle who orchestrated everything and were in the know) did so with good faith and good intentions.

 

[Shiva]

whining will get you no where.....but keep trying. :wink: (neo cons is being used in the general sense of the word........as it is the neocons that see war as the solution to all their issues at the moment. Could care less what your personal political affiliation is......... as that is not the topic. Neo con mentality is. ..as it runs interference with constructive solutions to problems.

Then you've misunderstood what I've said because I never claimed war was the answer.

(and with due respect: save the lectures for the classroom......they do divert attention. )

You realise you're lecturing me when you say that? Follow your own advice.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

The responsibility to do so is on both of them.

absolutely .....and on this we agree. :wink: This is why it is (IMHO ) so imperative NOT to exclude any options. the dynamics of a situation changes , and one must have all ones diplomatic tools and other tools available for use in the most productive/ appropriate way.

one does NOT annouce stuff like : "we don't negotiate with terrorists". some things are better and wiser left unsaid... even though that might be the action of choice.

 

[moghrabi]

But those who followed Bush (outside of his personal circle who orchestrated everything and were in the know) did so with good faith and good intentions.

Good intentions???? These are war criminals. They are killers. They are blood thirsty.

The same brush you painted a dictator (Hussein) should be used to paint the American dictator and his cronies.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

If you put anyone in an, 'it's your or me', sort of situation, they're going to choose themselves over others.

........and that (IMHO) is why it is imperative NOT to do that. Avoid stupid remarks like" with us or against us"...... as then the lines are drawn and an impasse is inevitable.

 

[moghrabi]

The responsibility to do so is on both of them.

absolutely .....and on this we agree. :wink: This is why it is (IMHO ) so imperative NOT to exclude any options. the dynamics of a situation changes , and one must have all ones diplomatic tools and other tools available for use in the most productive/ appropriate way.

one does NOT annouce stuff like : "we don't negotiate with terrorists". some things are better and wiser left unsaid... even though that might be the action of choice.

Or saying to Arab in general "This is a crusade". What a frecking idiot.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

I'm just pointing out that for the time being, they have to use force or else appear weak.

nope they don't. and what is this thing about "appearing" weak??? Is that some pride thing ??? Is appearance more important than intelligently working at smart strategies to resolve a grave issue???


Ya know..... Would be smart strategy to "appear" weak but actually "be" strong.........as in the quiet but effective strength. Far too much emphasis is spent on appearances while not resolving the issues.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

The responsibility to do so is on both of them.

absolutely .....and on this we agree. :wink: This is why it is (IMHO ) so imperative NOT to exclude any options. the dynamics of a situation changes , and one must have all ones diplomatic tools and other tools available for use in the most productive/ appropriate way.

one does NOT annouce stuff like : "we don't negotiate with terrorists". some things are better and wiser left unsaid... even though that might be the action of choice.

Or saying to Arab in general "This is a crusade". What a frecking idiot.

absolutely ! and what it says too........is that the idiot in question has NO comprehension of the Arab mentality, psychology...... and that puts him at a serious disadvantage. So the result is that the "terrorists' continue to have the upper hand.......all the while being very familiar with the american mindset and what is important to americans.

saying crap like "they hate our freedoms" is nothing more than comedy hr for those that see the larger picture and the terrorist groups too.

 

[moghrabi]

I'm just pointing out that for the time being, they have to use force or else appear weak.

nope they don't. and what is this thing about "appearing" weak??? Is that some pride thing ??? Is appearance more important than intelligently working at smart strategies to resolve a grave issue???


Ya know..... Would be smart strategy to "appear" weak but actually "be" strong.........as in the quiet but effective strength. Far too much emphasis is spent on appearances while not resolving the issues.

It is called the American Ego, OB.

 

[Shiva]

But those who followed Bush (outside of his personal circle who orchestrated everything and were in the know) did so with good faith and good intentions.

Good intentions???? These are war criminals. They are killers. They are blood thirsty.

The same brush you painted a dictator (Hussein) should be used to paint the American dictator and his cronies.

As I said, those who followed Bush outside of his personal circle who orchestrated everything and were in the know had good intentions. What that means is that Bush and those who were in his circle had bad intentions. I would also throw in those who were in the military and did the things at Abu Ghraib into that group, but with the qualification that they are not the entire U.S. military, so we should keep perspective about the average soldier. I string all these wrongdoers high right alongside Osama and his ilk.

absolutely .....and on this we agree. Wink This is why it is (IMHO ) so imperative NOT to exclude any options. the dynamics of a situation changes , and one must have all ones diplomatic tools and other tools available for use in the most productive/ appropriate way.

I totally agree.

one does NOT annouce stuff like : "we don't negotiate with terrorists". some things are better and wiser left unsaid... even though that might be the action of choice.

Hmmm...I disagree somewhat. I think it was right to say they don't negotiate with terrorists because they need to project an appearance of strength and an unwillingness to give in easily (otherwise other people who have nothing to do with the existing conflict would think this was a way to get the U.S. to do what you want). On the other hand, the U.S. did simultaneously give into certain demands of Osama like removing troops from the Islamic holy land in Saudi Arabia, and I think that was right.

You have to say you don't negotiate, but to a certain extent you have to negotiate. You just don't want other enemies outside of a particular conflict to know that because then they'll use violence automatically to pressure you, too.