Israel... what do you think?

[~Invisible fox~]

so what ur opnion on the war that was 3 years ago KMA?

[[KMA]Avenger]

the same opinion i have about all wars...

1, the only winners are those that are racking in the huge profits from arms sales, corporations landing HUGE contracts and those with agendas who use war to hide and further said agendas.
2, its a waste of life on both sides.
3, there has never been a winner in ANY war, only survivors.
4, the civilian populations on both sides are ALWAYS the biggest victim.

as Edwin Starr said "WAR, huh, yeah what is it good for absolutely nothing".

[~Invisible fox~]

the same opinion i have about all wars...

1, the only winners are those that are racking in the huge profits from arms sales, corporations landing HUGE contracts and those with agendas who use war to hide and further said agendas.
2, its a waste of life on both sides.
3, there has never been a winner in ANY war, only survivors.
4, the civilian populations on both sides are ALWAYS the biggest victim.

as Edwin Starr said "WAR, huh, yeah hat is it good for absolutely nothing".

i have to agree with you.. sometimes the government wars after something they lose while warring, and beside .. war shall be the last solution.

[Dubby_CompGamerGeek2]

I say nuke the damn region until its uninhabitable. And guess what its not about the Israelis or Palestinians.

I've often had similar thoughts...

Don't forget to take Mecca with you.

Is it the right way to take care of problams ? violence ? if u think so your nothing better then terrorist .

Of course it's not the right way, but given the millennium after millennium of never-ending fighting and wars over this relatively small patch of desert that happens to be in the middle of 3 continents...

It's hard for people like myself whose dreams of world peace have died a terrible death not to wonder:

If we just nuked the holiest sites of the 3 major religions that seem to be at the root of the problem, maybe it would all be magically easier somehow...

but the Muslims, Christians and Jews would just fight endlessly ever after about whose fault it was that the place got nuked,
whose responsibility it is to clean it up,
and why the other side should go back to the stone age.
etc, etc, etc...

If nuking Israel / Palestine and/or the Middle East really would have brought about world peace that much quicker, someone probably would have done it by now

[[KMA]Avenger]

the same opinion i have about all wars...

1, the only winners are those that are racking in the huge profits from arms sales, corporations landing HUGE contracts and those with agendas who use war to hide and further said agendas.
2, its a waste of life on both sides.
3, there has never been a winner in ANY war, only survivors.
4, the civilian populations on both sides are ALWAYS the biggest victim.

as Edwin Starr said "WAR, huh, yeah hat is it good for absolutely nothing".

i have to agree with you.. sometimes the government wars after something they lose while warring, and beside .. war shall be the last solution.

in century's past wars were in some cases, the only option, but in modern times, and especially after 6 damaging and costly wars (WW1, WW2, Korean, Vietnam, Gulf 1, Gulf 2) you would think in our civilised times war would be obsolete. it might have served a purpose in the past, but we are now in the 21st century and war is still as barbarous as it was in the past. you would think people now would go out of their way to avoid war and conflict and use their heads for solutions because there is still so much we need to accomplish as a species as a whole...in short...if people wanted the conflicts, all the conflicts in the mid east to cease, they would find a way.

[Hitchkok]

I say nuke the damn region until its uninhabitable. And guess what its not about the Israelis or Palestinians.

I've often had similar thoughts...

Don't forget to take Mecca with you.

Is it the right way to take care of problams ? violence ? if u think so your nothing better then terrorist .

If we just nuked the holiest sites of the 3 major religions that seem to be at the root of the problem, maybe it would all be magically easier somehow...

you do know (and i know you do) that the holiest site for Islam is not in Israel. and the second holiest is, guess what, also not in Israel (it is in the town of Medina, where Muhammad was raised and whee he begun his "hajra"). just saying...

[[KMA]Avenger]

nuking holy sites...WOW, what a great idea

/sarcasm.

i'm a non-practising Christian, you could (and i have in the past) say i am agnostic. but nuking entire areas simply because a group of people view those areas as hallowed ground has to be one of the least thought out responses thats ever been posted in this section of the forum!

what's next? we nuke Roswell because its the "Mecca" for Ufologists?!

[Kit-Fox]

I think that you will find the point that he wastrying to illuminate was that the world would be better off without that specific section of it due to the sheer amount of trouble its caused.

I doubt he was saying that all the people who live there should be killed, but that the area itself should be made unlivable (after all would you want to live in the blast radius of a nuclear explosion with all that fallout around you?) allowing the people to leave the area before the detonation.



As for comparing him to a terrorist, my god is that a spurious emotional argument right there. Give over man, the suggestion isnt supposed to be taken as a call to arms but mearly (I imagine) a what-if scenario. FFS some people take things said round here far to bloody seriously, get over yourself!

[[KMA]Avenger]

I think that you will find the point that he wastrying to illuminate was that the world would be better off without that specific section of it due to the sheer amount of trouble its caused.

I doubt he was saying that all the people who live there should be killed, but that the area itself should be made unlivable (after all would you want to live in the blast radius of a nuclear explosion with all that fallout around you?) allowing the people to leave the area before the detonation.

understood that, see highlighted words i used, not once did i sasy he said nuking people.

thank you

nuking holy sites...WOW, what a great idea

/sarcasm.

i'm a non-practising Christian, you could (and i have in the past) say i am agnostic. but nuking entire areas simply because a group of people view those areas as hallowed ground has to be one of the least thought out responses thats ever been posted in this section of the forum!

what's next? we nuke Roswell because its the "Mecca" for Ufologists?!

As for comparing him to a terrorist, my god is that a spurious emotional argument right there. Give over man, the suggestion isnt supposed to be taken as a call to arms but mearly (I imagine) a what-if scenario.

whose called him a terrorist?

FFS some people take things said round here far to bloody seriously, get over yourself!

[Kit-Fox]

heh KMA, wasnt aimed at you or anyone in particular but mearly all those jumping on the bandwagon after reading the word 'nuke' and seeing red.

EDIT: And it was Invisible-Fox who compared him to a terrorist for such thoughts

[Hitchkok]

I think that you will find the point that he wastrying to illuminate was that the world would be better off without that specific section of it due to the sheer amount of trouble its caused.

actually, no it wasn't. KMA is much closer. here, read for yourself

It's hard for people like myself whose dreams of world peace have died a terrible death not to wonder:

If we just nuked the holiest sites of the 3 major religions that seem to be at the root of the problem, maybe it would all be magically easier somehow...

but the Muslims, Christians and Jews would just fight endlessly ever after about whose fault it was that the place got nuked,
whose responsibility it is to clean it up,
and why the other side should go back to the stone age.
etc, etc, etc...

[Kit-Fox]

Is that not a section of the world Hitchkok, or does it exist in its own special set of dimensions?? Is it part of our world? Is it part of our dimension? Our part of Time&Space? Our reality? Our whatever it is you call this existance?

Therefore it is a 'section' of the world, stop trying to put your interpretation of my words as the gospel truth!

The term 'section' could mean anything, no matter how small or big! It could be 1cm square or 100,000 square miles. Please try to keep up! Hell you could even have multiple sections if you really wanted to.

You suggest I read again, how about you actually try to read & comprehend my posts first before replying to them next time eh?

[[KMA]Avenger]

heh KMA, wasnt aimed at you or anyone in particular but mearly all those jumping on the bandwagon after reading the word 'nuke' and seeing red.

EDIT: And it was Invisible-Fox who compared him to a terrorist for such thoughts

i also understand that, because you usually use quotes

the only part i wasn't sure if it was directed at me or not was the terrorist bit, hence why i phrased it as a question with a puzzled look

[Hitchkok]

Is that not a section of the world Hitchkok, or does it exist in its own special set of dimensions?? Is it part of our world? Is it part of our dimension? Our part of Time&Space? Our reality? Our whatever it is you call this existance?

Therefore it is a 'section' of the world, stop trying to put your interpretation of my words as the gospel truth!

The term 'section' could mean anything, no matter how small or big! It could be 1cm square or 100,000 square miles. Please try to keep up! Hell you could even have multiple sections if you really wanted to.

You suggest I read again, how about you actually try to read & comprehend my posts first before replying to them next time eh?

i'll keep calm.
you said:

I think that you will find the point that he wastrying to illuminate was that the world would be better off without that specific section of it due to the sheer amount of trouble its caused.

now, let's pit that against what dubby said:

It's hard for people like myself whose dreams of world peace have died a terrible death not to wonder:

If we just nuked the holiest sites of the 3 major religions that seem to be at the root of the problem, maybe it would all be magically easier somehow...

but the Muslims, Christians and Jews would just fight endlessly ever after about whose fault it was that the place got nuked,
whose responsibility it is to clean it up,
and why the other side should go back to the stone age.
etc, etc, etc...

you can see he made no reference to a secific location, but to a concept. this concept being holy sites. specifically, sites that are holy to what we like to call the three major religions (also i doubt christianity is one of the three major religions (as far as numbers are concerned), and judaism definietly isn't (again, in regards to numbers)).
now, the holiest site to Judaism is Temple mount. to christianity it probably is Golgotha (Calvary), the place of crucifixion. to Islam it is Mecca. and, here's the question:
had those three sites been spread on three corners of the world, one at alaska, one at, say, london, and the third in australia, do you think Dubby's post would have been any different? well, i would venture to say no. but why venture? let's wait for him to checkl in and post his intentions.

now, as for your post.
i could write that it was an anti-intellectual comment, a heaving together of nonsensical pseudo-intelligent concepts meant to do one thing, and that is to prove your usage of the word "section" is accurate, a means to be achieved by emptying the very word of any practical meaning, and basically a pile of rubbish who's content's worth is exceeded by your everyday run-of-the-mill garbage truck.
again, i could have written that. but i will not degrade myself to making personal attacks.

and there's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, thank you very much.

[Kit-Fox]

How very predicatable of you, use your interpretations including filling in the blanks with whatever you want (rather than what I said) & then attack.

How very jewish of you.