Comments on THE ISRAELIS ARE FUCKING PRICELESS

Go to STOP THE WARS!! - Add a comment - Go to THE ISRAELIS ARE FUCKING PRICELESS

Corbin Dallas,

I don't know of anything in the Geneva Conventions that would have required our revolutionary soldiers not to "take cover."

The point is we need to fight terrorism the way Damon said was done in the U.K., through the targeted use of police-type force. No serious person is suggesting that terrorists cannot be dealt with through force. But some basic protections apply no matter whom we are dealing with.

posted by Dylan24 on August 22, 2006 at 9:53 AM | link to this | reply

sorry about the typos

posted by Shams-i-Heartsong on August 21, 2006 at 12:31 PM | link to this | reply

Corbi, Comon wake up

more and more of us want lasting pease worldwide and bigger stick diplomacy is not only anti Christian , it doesnt work.  Lets bury this war machin; it is dead!  War is totally difunctional as a strategy these days.  End it.  And end the causes of terrorism.  My question is when will greed quit being the rule of the day?

posted by Shams-i-Heartsong on August 21, 2006 at 12:30 PM | link to this | reply

But even if terrorists and zealous militants do not respect the Geneva Conventions, we still have to! Because we are supposed to be a civilized, human-rights-respecting nation.

So in our revolutionalry war......we should have marched in lines allowing ourselves to be picked off one by one instead of taking cover?  that was the established method of warfare at that time....

The proper approach now would be for demanding a revision of the  Geneva Accord to adjust for the modern times.

posted by Corbin_Dallas on August 21, 2006 at 10:21 AM | link to this | reply

Dylan...

...spot on, mate!

We tried to do the same while fighting the (US funded) IRA through thirty years of real terrorism (as opposed to the Bush-created sham we have today). Our soldiers and our people were not always successful, and there were some attrocities.

But it was NEVER British policy to wipe out entire villages, simply on the basis there may have been IRA men operating from there.

It was NEVER OK for British soldiers to kill innocent civilians - and on the odd occasion that did happen, there was always a public outcry, and always a public enquiry.

Now, the US and Israel just seem to act with complete impunity.

D

posted by DamonLeigh on August 21, 2006 at 10:07 AM | link to this | reply

Corbin Dallas

If I may boldly jump in with an answer to your question, I think you are correct that the answer is NO. (I gather you think so.)

But even if terrorists and zealous militants do not respect the Geneva Conventions, we still have to! Because we are supposed to be a civilized, human-rights-respecting nation. These are the things that are supposed to distinguish us from the insurgents in Iraq, from the Islamists in Al Qaeda.

We don't defeat these types by acting like they do!

I trust Damon will fill in any holes I left in this line of thought. 

posted by Dylan24 on August 21, 2006 at 8:34 AM | link to this | reply

very good

odd that what the American People receive in the news is so one-sided.  and that people will continue to support this (although fewer are).

thank you again for reminding us of Israel's continuing violations and the U.S. continuing to turn a blind eye toward them.

this is a one sided government, yes it is.

all sides should be treated equally.  maybe the unequal treatment is the main underlying cause for the continued terrorism.

posted by Xeno-x on August 21, 2006 at 6:57 AM | link to this | reply

Answer this honestly......

Does Hezbollah, Hamas, or Iraqi insurgents abide by the rules laid out by the Geneva Convention?

posted by Corbin_Dallas on August 21, 2006 at 6:09 AM | link to this | reply

Very well put, DamonLeigh. I am inclined to agree that Israel is most

definitely Bush's proxy in his failed and failing War on Terror.  I have stated and will continue to state (until facts prove otherwise) that this is just so much smoke and mirrors to get at the real targets, Syria and Iran.  We'll see.  And you're right -- this conflict was punitive, not surgical.

posted by saul_relative on August 20, 2006 at 10:30 AM | link to this | reply

the post is very strong and i am interested to read more

posted by naorem on August 20, 2006 at 10:23 AM | link to this | reply