|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/07/2006 : 00:18:12 [Permalink]
|
Ok, lets kick this off.
beskeptigal said:
quote:
Don't you think it's time to start out smarting the terrorists instead of trying to smash them with revenge and the mistaken belief one can always win with military might? Has no one learned anything from Vietnam and past guerrilla wars and the 60 years of getting no where in this one?
What evidence do you have to support the claim that you cannot always win with military might? If you lack the compassion to be moved by the human cost of armed conflict, and you posess superior military strength and the will to use it, you can indeed settle any issue with military might. To claim otherwise is a denial of reality.
quote:
But keep in mind, Dude, that every person in the Middle East is not a terrorist. If we forget that, we make the entire group the "enemy". That's how wars happen.
Here you accuse me of painting "every person in the middle east" as a terrorist. When I protest you just ignore me and say that you can "detect" my opinion when I am merely asking questions about an issue that confounds me.
quote:
At the same time, people also don't realize what a statement like, "people who declare you don't have the right to exist" really says. It says ALL the Arabs, ALL the Palestinians as if they were all the same when they are as mixed as any group; and in addition to that, it fails to recognize how many Israelis have said the Palestinians should be absorbed by other Arab countries and they only made up the claim to the land of Israel, but really didn't have a country in the first place. As if Israel moved into vacant land and these folks only started complaining later.
Here you, again, accuse me of lumping together "all" arabs when I have clearly done no such thing. You are straw-man arguing, and accusing me of racism. Fallacious argumentation, again.
quote:
I don't think either side recognizes the right of the other to exist no matter how they mouth the words. How often do you hear that Israeli leaders in the past and currently have said such things as Golda Meier saying, "There is no such thing as a Palestinian."
Here you engage in magical thinking. You not only claim to know my opinion, but the opinion of all jews as well.
I'll addres the whole Golda Meier thing here:
You present this misquote of her words here, and when you do you imply that she is a racist and a bigot. You cherry pick, and you straw-man here as well. Her comments are about the LACK of a palestinian state, yet you twist it into a racist remark. Then, when I point out this error to you, and direct you to her correcting the common misquote of her words, you accuse her of trying to clean up her comments to avoid the appearance of racism.
quote:
Well, for starters, your resopnse to what I said and what I provided evidence for that Israel also claims, "there is no such thing as a Palestinian". You could ask me for more evidence rather than taking 5 minutes to find the PR campaign to cover up Meier and many other Israeli sentiments.
Uh huh. It is a PR campaing to cover up sentiments. Only because your position relies so heavily on the percieved racism of the jews against arabs.
quote:
Dude, I am not saying you think what I said overtly. I'm trying to point out it's an unconscious underpinning most people are unaware of. I think if you ask most people specifically, "Are all Arabs or all Muslims terrorists?", they will say of course not. But unconsciously, our language betrays subtle differences in what we think we believe and what we act on. In other words, it's easy to forget collateral damage is not OK. One slips into the mindset, those people near the terrorists somehow are expendable. That isn't the way you'd feel if it was your child or loved one. But by this subtle dehumanizing of people who are not involved we somehow say collateral death is OK. It is unconscious, subtle, revealed by certain language.
More magical thinking. You are so biased that you think you can magically detect my opinion when I have not expressed one beyond frustration with the issues in this case. Yet somehow you have detected that I think the people living near terrorists are expendable.
More importantly, when I ask you to explain your methodology of opinion detection you just ignore me.
quote:
Think about it. Some of these civilians support Hezbollah. Would that be the case if their children were being used as human shields?
Pelastinians send their children to military training camps. Young children, less than 10 y/o, at that. Iranian state TV encourages children to become suicide bombers. I am unfamillair with the doctrine of hizbollah, but it seems unlikely that it is to much different than the fundamentalist diatribe espoused by those groups who have close ties with them.
quote:
I would think that the amount of money spent on bombs could build a pretty good rocket defense system.
Unevidenced assertion. Missile defense systems are notoriously unreliable. In the first bush's Iraq war there were hundreds of patriot missile batteries deployed to defend Israel, and dozens of Iraqi rockets still hit Israeli cities. The short range rockets that hizbollah uses are and even more difficult target than the Iraqi SCUDs.
quote:
So either Israel has crappy intelligence, (unlikely), or they want to beat the civilians down regardless of Hezbollah using human shields.
Two problems with this. It has already been pointed out to you that you are presenting a false dichotomy. You totally ignore the much more likely explanation; that Israeli weapons are not up to the same accuracy standards as US weapons and that it was a mistake to drop a shell/bomb on that basement full of noncombatants.
The second problem is your fully unevidenced assertion that Israel is deliberately targeting civillians.
quote:
Israel has a long history of brutality against civilians with the purpose of discouragi |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 01:43:59 [Permalink]
|
Go download google earth:
http://earth.google.com/
Zoom in on southern Lebanon.
Discover for yourself how populated that area is.
Then tell me that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians instead of the vastly more likely scenario, where some of their munitions have just simply missed their target and hit civillians due to the close proximity of those civillians.
Is it messed up? Yeah, it is.
But it isn't the deliberate thing you claim it is.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 08:21:05 [Permalink]
|
Dude, I find your assessment of beskeptical's role in this discussion border-line absurd and totally inappropriate. Almost everything you call a "logical fallacy" is based on assumptions and a total ignoring of the context of this conversation. You claim several times that be presents her opinions as facts... gee, well that's funny since every time you cite such a presentation, I look at it and think to myself, "Yeah, duh, she's expressing her opinion." Seems you are engaging in your own magical thinking. She has said so several times that she has come to different conclusions than other people in this discussion based on different info she has been exposed to over the years. We are discussing politics, and so a lot of analysis is obviously going to be based on guesses about motivations and the opinions of others based on a variety of indications.
You say that annecdotes are not evidence, but beskeptical has said in other conversations (and you've been around long enough to notice) that she is well aware of that. None-the-less, when having a conversation of this nature, it is completely appropriate to mention personal annecdotes. She offered up that personal info specifically in the context of disclosure because of the accusation of bias. Doing a little of your own cherry picking, Dude?
Dude wrote: quote:
Again, you accuse me of something I have never stated. I am merely pointing out that you have cherry picked a single mis-quote by a 30 year dead Israeli leader and tried to make it into a factual statement that reflects a majority opinion of jews and the basis of current Israeli policy....
When the hell did she claim it was a majority opinion?
quote:
(beskeptical) It might be easy enough to say Hezbollah targets were among the civilians, but the evidence isn't so clear. At least read the HRW reports on their observations.
(Dude)But to claim that rockets fired by hizbollah into israeli ciries isn't clear evidence of their intent to attack civillians? Reality check.
Thought I'd point out this little nugget of hypocrasy. Beskeptical offers up a skeptical opinion over Hizbollah's tactics and intent and then suggests further research. In response, Dude turns her skepticism into a "claim" and instead of citing evidence to support the opposite claim, he merely sarcastically states "Reality check". Dude, you are guilty of committing the same "fallacies" that you accuse beskeptical of.
Beskeptical does seem to bob a little back and forth between being simply skeptical and having a bias agaist the leadership in Israel. However, she's repeatedly attempted to put her perspective in context of both what info she's been exposed to over the years, personal experiences that might have tainted her objectivity, and she's always urged on more examination of evidence. She's also been totally polite and has expressed open-mindedness, despite any biased language. I don't agree with everything she's said here. But the accusation of "fallacies" is inappropriate and distracts from the meat of the conversation. Calling "fallacy" paints her as either stupid or a liar. I agree with many of Dude objections, but not as they are labeled as logical fallacies. Unlike Kil, Dude is condesending and blatently hypocritical, which is especially annoying since beskeptical has a long history of being a calm and intelligent voice on SFN. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 08/07/2006 08:22:44 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 08:35:34 [Permalink]
|
Thinking more on this issue, maybe I am starting to understand beskeptical feelings, even if I do not agree with all her analysis. Israel is the only country in that area that possesses nukes. Israel has international support, including the strong support of the USA. So even though Israel is this tiny little country surrounded by other countries filled with people who hate and/or refuse to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, in terms of military might, Israel is the top dog. Dude is correct that with having enough military might and disregard for human loss, the top dog can always win. But first of all, does Israel have enough military might to defeat the type of enemy that Hezbollah is (which is, according to the analyists I've been listening to on NPR, extremely difficult)? Second of all, assuming Israel is that militarily strong, would such action be worth the human loss?
I said something like this already, but perhaps it bears repeating: Hezbollah has a goal and is taking appropriate actions toward that goal. To go after Hezbollah non-militarily would be to try to change their hearts and minds. But Israel already has the same goal as us far-off Americans discussing this issue. We want peace in the middle east that includes a safe and stable Israel. However, in the past, Israel has taken military actions which seem to go against that goal, whether they meant them to or not. Israel's leadership has clearly decided to attempt to stamp out Hezbollah. In that effort, they have killed ten times as many civilians as their enemy. Yes, Hezbollah was the aggressor, but Israel has gone far beyond equal response, and there are clear short-term political advantages for Israel's current leaders in doing so.
Maybe beskeptical's hardline attitude toward Israel mostly reflects that she does identify with Israel more than their enemies, and thus, she strongly feels they should know better. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 10:24:15 [Permalink]
|
Note to everyone, both sides in every conflit lie to suit their own aims.
You have no way of knowing if it is or is not deliberate, however the UN bombing was certainly suspect as that position has been on Israeli maps for ten years and they called for a stopage of bombardment for 6 hours prior to the fatal blast.
Also suspect is the claim that Hezbollah did not use the area for assualts, that in no way justifies the strike in my opinion as the UN could have been warned off.
This is similar to the Al-Jazeera assassinations by the US in Iraq.
Is isreal over-reacting? If the enemy uses tactics which require such a response they are just as culpable.
Note: I blame Truman, what a bone-head. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 11:20:43 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
She has said so several times that she has come to different conclusions than other people in this discussion based on different info she has been exposed to over the years. We are discussing politics, and so a lot of analysis is obviously going to be based on guesses about motivations and the opinions of others based on a variety of indications.
Nonsense. She is claiming that Israel has a policy of deliberately inflicting civilian casualties. The evidence she offers to support it? A HRW report that scores high (in just 3 paragraphs) on the crackpot index and an anecdote from a relative. To support such and extraordinary claim she would need a copy of the IDF's rules of engagement and/or a copy of the Israeli government policy which calls for the deliberate inflicting of civilian casualties and the rational for it.
quote:
When the hell did she claim it was a majority opinion?
That is the implication. She may not have said it was a majority opinion, but that is what she is implying. She cherry-picked a misquote (two fallacies in one) of a Israeli leader who has been dead for 30 years and from there claims that this alleged opinion is still prevalent enough to influence Israeli politics on a national scale. Unsupported claims, straw-men, cherry picking, and false assumptions are all logical fallacies.
quote:
Unlike Kil, Dude is condesending and blatently hypocritical, which is especially annoying since beskeptical has a long history of being a calm and intelligent voice on SFN.
"Take your ball and go home", "no logical fallacies" (this one was especially funny, because Kil and I both pointed out an extremely obvious false dichotomy to her before she posted that), "You can't point out any fallacies here and now you are just backpeddaling", and so on.
Yeah, she is the voice of calm and reason.
quote:
You claim several times that be presents her opinions as facts... gee, well that's funny since every time you cite such a presentation, I look at it and think to myself, "Yeah, duh, she's expressing her opinion." Seems you are engaging in your own magical thinking.
If she were merely expressing her opinion,then she would have prefaced her comments with "In my opinion, or IMO". She has drawn a conclusion without a shred of evidence to support it. She has taken the leap from a fact (Israeli bombs have hit civillian targets) to an extraordinary claim (they did it deliberately) and she cannot support that claim.
If she had left it qualified as merely opinion, and stated that she had no evidence to support the claim, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
quote:
But first of all, does Israel have enough military might to defeat the type of enemy that Hezbollah is (which is, according to the analyists I've been listening to on NPR, extremely difficult)?
Israel does have the military power to destroy them, we sell them anything they want. The analysts on NPR (and other news outlets) are all working with the assumption that civilian casualties are unacceptable and must be minimized. If you change that, then hizbollah could be destroyed in a few weeks, along with hundreds of thousands of noncombatants and the majority of the infrastructure in southern Lebanon. The stretch of land they Hizbollah controls on the Israeli border isn't all that large. The use of a couple hundred MOABs (massive ordinance air burst) on the populated areas would eliminate almost all of the human population of that area. They could do the same thing to the southern half of Beruit that is controlled by Hizbollah.
The cost, in $$, would be far less than what Israel has probably paid so far.
They are obviously unwilling to pay the human cost of that plan though.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 13:16:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
...If, in your view, Sharon was carrying out a plan that was part of the Israeli strategy, and you don't see how a bias is required in order to reach such a conclusion, oh well. I don't think the facts in the case support that conclusion. You could claim that it was a covert operation I suppose but there is no evidence to support such a claim. So if you are comfortable with your conclusion, even though it is speculative and unsupported, I guess that's it then......
Glad we are OK as far as friends go, that's the most important. I also understand your position a bit better now.
I think we are only disagreeing here on whether to consider the country or only the individuals responsible.
I know with overwhelming supporting evidence the USA has been responsible for thousands of cases where we caused immense suffering in many countries among their citizens while we promoted something that benefited the US, usually corporate interests. Most people who elected the officials responsible for the policies would never support such a policy if they knew about it. And most often, it has been a small number of people in office responsible. I doubt very many in the US Congress even know the extent of atrocities ordered by the Administrative Branch. Just as with the public, people don't want to know. I still consider the US responsible for these cases.
It's quite different that someone in a high office was responsible than were it a group of soldiers at the bottom. But there is a distinction when it's a rogue operative vs covert policy. Still, someone made a decision and gave orders. That differs from a group action. If it were in the US, the Administrative Branch would be totally responsible and the Legislative and Judicial Branches wouldn't have anything to do with directly setting defense policy or strategy.
So my question to you is, was the Defense Minister the scapegoat for an event at least tacitly approved by the section of government who controls the strategy? What did Sharon think he was accomplishing? Or was it someone under Sharon and Sharon just took the heat as failing to provide oversight?
I do have a bias assuming guilt until proven innocent in these cases because of the extensive history of the US taking so many actions with horrendous consequences for many people. The Kissingers, the Nixons, the Reagans, and the Bushes who actually are responsible for many atrocities against human beings simply boggles the mind. They have to consider the large number of people which are injured or killed less than human. It is that same mentality that has allowed the current situation with Israel to become what it is today. Had the people in power recognized everyone as being as human as those in their personal circles, there wouldn't be very many people angry enough to carry out a terrorist act. But that just isn't how the world is.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 13:50:03 [Permalink]
|
I appreciate you guys responding to Dude as I started to and ran out of energy after the first couple of points.
Dude, I was only trying to present a different view and I apologize that when doing so it sounded like I was pointing out your personal prejudices. I did not mean that and tried to say so but was further misunderstood. I only meant the language used by everyone from the news media to the forums reflects language which tends to see both sides as collectively guilty. It is along those same lines Kil felt I was applying collective guilt. We all have a point of view. We all have past experiences that color how we perceive events going on.
I'd still like to address issues rather than our opinions since I believe there are many worth discussing.
The evidence that overwhelming military might is not working is exactly that, after 60 years it hasn't worked.
The fact Hamas and Hezbollah have civilian support is evidence military might has not convinced people to quit supporting them in order to not be bombed or have one's house bulldozed.
There are problems on the Israeli side with groups of citizens who are extremists. It is a mistake to ignore them as is often done when describing Israel's intentions or actions. For example the matter of the settlements ever increasing in Occupied Territories is rarely mentioned when an Israeli government spokesperson gets on the news and says, "We kept our part of the agreement and the Palestinians did not keep theirs."
There is a huge problem with Madrassas and indoctrinating Palestinians and other Arab citizens from childhood on up to join the jihad. It is my opinion this is generated by people trying to solidify their own personal power, in particular the desire for religious leaders to be the governing leaders all over the Middle East. Many are succeeding and that results in more control over the indoctrination. This cannot be addressed by military force. It only takes a tape recorder to get the lessons out as the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran proved in the 70s.
There have been successes against the indoctrination. Those successes need to be built upon. Publicity about the indoctrination would certainly be better than publicity for leveling a 10 story apartment building in Beirut. I think this is one area the Israeli PR machine has failed to do a good job. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 13:53:35 [Permalink]
|
Valiant said:
quote:
It is confirmed policy that Isreal, until February of 2005, bulldozed the homes of family members of suicide bombers.
Not disputing that, and I already said I didn't dispute it. But those homes were not demolished with the residents still inside. I said it was messed up, but it falls far short of being "brutal" or indiscriminate, and it doesn't end in the death of anyone.
RE your links:
quote:
While not proof of a policy, it does give reasonable speculation that it might be a policy in direct conflict of the Geneva Convention.
The links you provide are to single small-rocket attacks against structres where enemy leaders were in residence. There may be a legitimate concern as to the legality of this kind of action under the Geneva Convention and Laws of Land Warfare, but it is not a clear-cut one. It is also a far far cry from the idea that there is a policy in place that calls for civillian casualties to be deliberately inflicted.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 13:56:44 [Permalink]
|
| Wiki has a detailed account of the Sabra and Shatila massacre explaining the political and military reasons Sharon would have been involved. I'll leave it to everyone to draw their own conclusions whether it was Israeli strategy or rogue actions that led to the atrocity. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/07/2006 13:57:14 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2006 : 14:07:47 [Permalink]
|
Human Rights Watch reports and many observers question the claim of Israel that civilians haven't been targeted.
As I said, civilians needs to be defined. Is Israel including sympathizers in the definition? What evidence or criteria is Israel using to determine a target is indeed Hezbollah? I don't think bombing sympathizers or a site that a rocket was fired from 24 hours earlier are legitimate targets. Others might say they are. You need those definitions in order to even investigate let alone reach a definitive answer. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/07/2006 14:08:39 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2006 : 08:24:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
beskeptigal:
The evidence that overwhelming military might is not working is exactly that, after 60 years it hasn't worked.
If Israel hadn't used overwhelming military might when whole countries attacked them several times in the past, they wouldn't be here today. I'm sure you didn't mean the The Yom Kippur War, or any of those kinds of wars…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2006 : 12:29:58 [Permalink]
|
But the Yom Kipper War didn't end the problems, did it.
I'm not condemning all military responses. I'm just saying without improving the lives of the Palestinian people, the fighting will not likely end.
I got this e-mail back from Landrum Bolling today. He wrote Madness unlimited in the Mideast. that I linked to in a previous post:
Dear Friend:
Thank you for the supportive kind words. I'm a very old man (92) but still
very active (Thanks be to the Good Lord). I still go frequently to the
Middle East -- three times in the past year -- and I read the Israeli press
every day. What potects me from getting too upset over the inescapable
attacks from pro-Israel Right-or-Wrong types is that I know so many
wonderful Israelis and American Jews who see this horrible conflict exactly
as I do. Also I'm cheered constantly by the outspoken crtics in the Israeli
press, particularly reporters and editorial writers for Ha'aretz which I
read regularly, thanks to the Internet.
Keep the faith .... in the potential good in all us faltering human beings.
Landrum Bolling
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2006 : 01:39:52 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
quote:
Dude, I was only trying to present a different view and I apologize that when doing so it sounded like I was pointing out your personal prejudices. I did not mean that and tried to say so but was further misunderstood.
What you have done in this thread is present unsupported and rashly drawn conclusions without supporting evidence.
The mere fact that an Israeli bomb lands on civilians, in an extremely populated area where enemy combatants are dug in, is not evidence of some intent to deliberately kill civilians.
This, combined with your straw-man interpretation of my comments, and your obvious willingness to overlook the logical inconsistencies in your own posts, serves to illustrate your personal bias on this topic.
Can you at least admit that you have no evidence to support your claim that Israel is deliberately targeting civilians?
As for your request to "define civilians", it is a little late in the thread to go that route. How can you possibly have made the claim you did if you weren't sure what a civilian was? The flaw in that should be fairly self evident.
quote:
Human Rights Watch reports and many observers question the claim of Israel that civilians haven't been targeted.
So? What evidence do they have? Some interviews with civilians who have had their shit blown up cannot reasonably be considered evidence here. Same for "observers" who have seen civilians getting their shit blown up. What methodology are they using to differentiate between a deliberately targeted artillery shell, and one that was misfired or blown off-course by unexpected weather?
The whole idea that there is a deliberate policy in place to inflict civilian casualties is ludicrous. The Israeli army essentially operates the exact way the US army does(because we established their military by training their people and selling them their weapons). The soldiers are trained and expected to comply with the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Land Warfare.
For every artillery shell that gets fired there are dozens of people in on the decision to fire. There are, literally, thousands of people involved in all the target selection and decisions to fire being made daily there now. It stretches rational thinking beyond the breaking point to suspect they are all in on it and OK with it (it=deliberate bombing of civilians).
(edited for spelling) |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 08/10/2006 01:44:04 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
