Jordan: Explosions

[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.

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.

I don't fully blame the moron. I don't think he read a book about the crusades and their implications.

 

[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.

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.

Anyone following an illegal order during a war is committing an illegal crime. Even the soldiers. They all know by now that they are fighting and dying for a lie. They can refuse orders. Why are they still serving the moron.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

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.

I understand what you're saying .........but (ya heard that one coming , didn't cha??;-) .......this is why IMHO......it is much wiser to make no such statements.......as it boxes oneself into a corner that one may have trouble getting out of ..........as we see happening . Playing it close to the chest is always smarter and it also depends on HOW this is phrased. Bully phrases don't cut it. Does anyone really think that the "terrorists" take bush seriously??? They are not fools and know a lier when they see one........ and that too plays against the bush regime.

 

[Shiva]

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???

It has nothing to do with pride. If someone comes and beats you up and steals from you, sees you're weak and that you have no ability to protect yourself, it's likely that anyone who sees that happen and isn't of good character will try to take advantage of you, too.

 

[moghrabi]

It has nothing to do with pride. If someone comes and beats you up and steals from you, sees you're weak and that you have no ability to protect yourself, it's likely that anyone who sees that happen and isn't of good character will try to take advantage of you, too.

Thank you. That is exactly what the US is doing to the ME. They beat on them, steal from them. Interfere with their daily lives. Tell their government how to run their countries and so on. Well now they are fighting back their only way. If they had all the power of the US, then we will see a conventional war.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

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.

:lol:


this is known as falling for the bush crapolla (lies ) . It is also known as gullible. It does not take a rocket scientist to have figured out BEFORE the invasion in Iraq that Iraq had nothing to do with 9=11 so the 9-11 factoid that some resort to.......does not wash.

Remember the anti war demonstrations WORLD WIDE. All those protestors were making a statement too......and a constructive one........but did the bushman listen?? hell no. He was hell bent for leather for this invasion....... and as he said "with us or against us"..............so now he has most of the world against him........ Hope he likes his new and well earned perch.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

It has nothing to do with pride. If someone comes and beats you up and steals from you, sees you're weak and that you have no ability to protect yourself, it's likely that anyone who sees that happen and isn't of good character will try to take advantage of you, too.

Thank you. That is exactly what the US is doing to the ME. They beat on them, steal from them. Interfere with their daily lives. Tell their government how to run their countries and so on. Well now they are fighting back their only way. If they had all the power of the US, then we will see a conventional war.

absolutely. !!

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Jordan: Explosions

I guess they want more war brought down on them.....

and only an idiot would oblige them.

]\



Wrong

Only an idiot WOULDN"T oblige them.

"There is only one answer to a dynamite bomb, and it is best delivered with a Winchester rifle." Teddy Roosevelt

 

[Colpy]

In retrospect, I think the extremist Islamist are screwing themselves. My bet is that the vast majority of victims of this bombing are Muslim. Certainly the vast majority of victims of these murderers in Iraq are Muslim. How long before the Islamic community becomes a little fed up?

I know this is a bit simplistic, and that Islam is not a monolith, but one has to wonder.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Re: RE: Jordan: Explosions

I guess they want more war brought down on them.....

and only an idiot would oblige them.

]\



Wrong

Only an idiot WOULDN"T oblige them.

"There is only one answer to a dynamite bomb, and it is best delivered with a Winchester rifle." Teddy Roosevelt

of course there are those that thrive on fighting, killing and wars . Perpetuating the cycle of violence gives them sadistic pleasure.

For the love of guns..... :evil: :evil: my , it must be so empowering in their perverse minds. Hard to believe that braun can be that important to some........while the brains are left to atrophy...

 

[Jay]

? 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. )

So the terrorists are neo cons.....interesting point of view.

 

[Jay]

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.

Why not? Only Arabs are allowed to offend people? It's OK for Arabs to burn and stomp all over the American Flag...but don't say "crusade" to an Arab. Whatever.

 

[missile]

Why would the crusade word offend them? They won most of the battles anyway.

 

[Jay]

An artical that was brought to my attention recently.

http://www.crisismagazine.com/feature2.htm

War Without End: A Brief History of the Muslim Conquests

 

[missile]

I've said this before: The only way to battle those who do not fear dying,is to give them what they ask for..Death! Negotiations are futile.

 

[moghrabi]

Why would the crusade word offend them? They won most of the battles anyway.

True missile. However, when you use the word Crusade you are declaring war against Muslims. Muslim people reside in every corner of the world. It is like I declare war on all white people because my christian neighbour's dog bit and killed my cat.

 

[Jay]

Senior Palestinians among 56 dead in Jordan hotel bombs


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-1866129,00.html

 

[Nascar_James]

Just heard that the citizens of Jordan protesting against the tragic terrorist attacks and are calling for the death of their fellow citizen, al Zarquai.

Let's hope they get their wish....

 

[moghrabi]

We all wish he is captured or killed. The question is does he really exist in real life or is there a bigger game being played here?

 

[Jay]

Why would the crusade word offend them? They won most of the battles anyway.

True missile. However, when you use the word Crusade you are declaring war against Muslims. Muslim people reside in every corner of the world. It is like I declare war on all white people because my christian neighbour's dog bit and killed my cat.

Can you expand on this statement for me? Thanks.