Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Yes, or No, and, if you feel like commenting, why?
U.N. Mideast draft
- Thread starter Vitas
- Start date
a U.N. Middle East Draft regarding the Israel/Hezbollah conflict neutralizing the terrorist group, installing international forces, and giving Israel time to to kill some terrorist leadership or the draft that the Arabs and French are going to pursue?
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
Yes, or No?
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Calabrio said:
Of course. that is true in fact. I guess that it is presumed in my question that it might be a good resolution. Maybe not...
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
"float like a butterfly, sting like a bee."
formerknown
Dedicated LVC Member
No.
The UN is a joke. An organization such as Hezbollah will wipe their terrorist asses with any UN order of a cease-fire or recognition of Israel as a state. Terrorists care as much about the UN as I do. If the UN issued an order telling me I must do something- they'll get the middle finger and a good laugh from me.
The Lebanese want a resoultion on their terms- even though they are getting their asses kicked. The NERVE these people have :eyeroll:
When you draw first blood- you cannot stop this fight.
The UN is a joke. An organization such as Hezbollah will wipe their terrorist asses with any UN order of a cease-fire or recognition of Israel as a state. Terrorists care as much about the UN as I do. If the UN issued an order telling me I must do something- they'll get the middle finger and a good laugh from me.
The Lebanese want a resoultion on their terms- even though they are getting their asses kicked. The NERVE these people have :eyeroll:
When you draw first blood- you cannot stop this fight.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
evillally said:
I agree that in this instance Israel is fully within its rights to defend herself, and do so strongly, given her attempts to diffuse the situation since 2000, and given the rocket launches against her even before July.
The issue to me is whether Israel can completely immobilize a TERRORIST organization until it is dead flat, and how much more devastation it would take from now to marginally take more enemies.
It is the year 2006. No doubt ANYONE'S GOD would be proud of the bloodshed, and devastation of human people's homes.
It has been almost a full month. Call it a day. Israel, sooner or later is going to have to co-exist with their neighbors. And then there's that "occupation" issue, which, sooner, or later, will need to be fully resolved.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Gravely concerned at the continued presence of armed militias in Lebanon,
which prevent the Lebanese Government from exercising its full sovereignty over all Lebanese territory,
3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-
Lebanese militias;
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/498/92/PDF/N0449892.pdf?OpenElement
which prevent the Lebanese Government from exercising its full sovereignty over all Lebanese territory,
3. Calls for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-
Lebanese militias;
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/498/92/PDF/N0449892.pdf?OpenElement
evillally said:
I agree.
I love all this talk of Lebonese Civillans being killed. Thats BS. These people accepted money from the terrorists to house missiles and then complain when their house if bombed. What BS.
In the meantime, Hezbollah can just indiscriminately launch unguided rockets into Israelm, but nobody wants to talk about that.
If Lebanon wants to be smart, they should side with Israel on this and work with them, and be greatful to get their country back.
Gee, and what of IRAN? How come we're not rolling in there like we did Iraq? From everything I see, they are more dangerous then Iraq ever was.. Where is that tough talking Cowboy president now?
My guess, is that he figured Iran would be a tough adversary, and Iraq would not be. If we went into Iraq, then we are on Irans border and Iran might be nervous and negotiate.
Yeah, that plan worked well.
formerknown
Dedicated LVC Member
It sure can. And after they take-out Hezbollah, another organization will take its rightful place at the terorist table.
Remember, we have an "exit strategy" :gr_devil: Observe:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
evillally said:It sure can. And after they take-out Hezbollah, another organization will take its rightful place at the terorist table.
Remember, we have an "exit strategy" :gr_devil: Observe:
I like that strategy. Reminds me of Patton at the end of WWII: Let's go get the Russians! We're going to have to duke it out with them at some point anyway!Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Let's note the vote's:
Yes, there should be a Resolution:
JoeyGood, MediumD
No, there should not be a Resolution:
biglou71, evillally, fossten
Yes, there should be a Resolution:
JoeyGood, MediumD
No, there should not be a Resolution:
biglou71, evillally, fossten
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Great resolution brokered by France and the UN.
Hezbollah gets to re-arm and things will really get nasty when Iran starts lobbing some rockets.
What a joke.
I'm am sorry to say this. The only solution to our survival is to kill them all (terrorists). No prisoners. No trials. You have a gun in your hand and you are going down. That is the way it has to be.
Hezbollah gets to re-arm and things will really get nasty when Iran starts lobbing some rockets.
What a joke.
I'm am sorry to say this. The only solution to our survival is to kill them all (terrorists). No prisoners. No trials. You have a gun in your hand and you are going down. That is the way it has to be.
MediumD
Dedicated LVC Member
MonsterMark said:
I don't really think anyone has a problem with killing the terrorists. The problem is when they don't have a gun in their hands, when it's not easy to tell if they're a terrorist or not...
formerknown
Dedicated LVC Member
My perspective of the outcome of this brief war:
Losers: Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah: The three sides lost lives, money, property, troops, and citizens.
Winners: Iran and Syria: Their plan to distract the UN and the idiots of the world from their illegal nuclear arms dealings worked like a charm. They supply the gear to terrorists and get away with everything! Damn the UN to hell for allowing this phoney "resoultion" to go forth without Iran and Syria even being mentioned let alone punished! It's like the junkie, the cop, the court, and the public losing the war on drugs while the dope dealer drives away smiling in his Cadillac.
On the upside, this is a win for American and British consevrative parties; Iran and Syria's blatant support of terror wins a little support for Bush and conservatives this November. If there's no debating that Iran and Syria and supporting terror- it's time to move and put them in check...
Losers: Israel, Lebanon, Hezbollah: The three sides lost lives, money, property, troops, and citizens.
Winners: Iran and Syria: Their plan to distract the UN and the idiots of the world from their illegal nuclear arms dealings worked like a charm. They supply the gear to terrorists and get away with everything! Damn the UN to hell for allowing this phoney "resoultion" to go forth without Iran and Syria even being mentioned let alone punished! It's like the junkie, the cop, the court, and the public losing the war on drugs while the dope dealer drives away smiling in his Cadillac.
On the upside, this is a win for American and British consevrative parties; Iran and Syria's blatant support of terror wins a little support for Bush and conservatives this November. If there's no debating that Iran and Syria and supporting terror- it's time to move and put them in check...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I've had enough of this crap. It's time to announce an exchange program:
For every American or Jew or Briton who dies as a result of a terrorist attack, 10,000 Islamic terrorists in an Arab country will die in exchange (Yes that includes you, Saudi Arabia!).
This is a religious war, so there won't be any compromises. In religious wars, nobody stops till either side is dead. Hell, they all want to go to heaven and get their virgins; I say we help them along.
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Absolute Commitment Indispensable to Winning Terror War
Philip V. Brennan
Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2006
On Monday, Catholics celebrated the feast of St. Maximilian Kolbe, the courageous priest who volunteered to take the place of a fellow prisoner at Auschwitz marked for death by the SS guards. His offer to replace a man who had a wife and family was accepted, and Fr. Kolbe was condemned to an agonizingly slow death by starvation. But after days of surviving hunger and thirst he was killed by a fatal injection as a penalty for not dying on the Nazis' precise schedule.
This selfless act was more than an example of Christian charity at its highest degree – it was an act of total and absolute commitment to his faith.
I think it was Whitaker Chambers who wrote of this kind of commitment as one of having faith in something worth living for and something worth dying for.
In any conflict, be it a war or a political or philosophical disagreement, absolute commitment to one's cause is the indispensable weapon. Without it, the advocate stands disarmed and naked to the assaults of the opposition.
In Western eyes, the kind of commitment that accepts death as a possible consequence of loyalty to a cause is often seen as fanaticism – as the act of an unbalanced combatant. Better to seek some kind of accommodation with a foe – a cease-fire perhaps – than risk or even lose one's life for something as ephemeral as a cause, or in defense of one's faith.
Thus we look aghast at Moslems who strap on explosive-laden belts and willingly blow themselves to smithereens in the name of Allah if it will serve the purpose of killing a number of the infidels. Western sophisticates attribute that kind of commitment to either a form of insanity or the terrorist's more materialistic belief that 72 virgins await the martyrs in paradise along with an eternity of endless coital pleasure. (The modern secular mind can readily understand that hope. It makes sense, while simply dying for a cause does not.)
A quick look at our current situation vis-a-vis the war between what's left of Western civilization and the growing heft of radical Islam reveals two facts: We are losing that war, and we are losing it because we lack the absolute commitment of our enemies to their cause. We have lost the will to stay the course. When the going gets tough, the weak run away.
In the long run, the West has convinced itself that rather than being a fight to the death, the struggle is more of a serious inconvenience to our pursuit of the perfect secular existence untrammeled by such outmoded concepts as faith in an almighty (and obviously nonexistent) God.
Now, this would be less than an ultimate death sentence for Western civilization if the two sides were unmatched, with the West numerically superior to a small but noisesome religious sect. That, however, is far from the case. There are more than 1 billion Moslems in the world today – that's 1 billion – and their numbers are swelling both by conversion and by a (dare I use that vastly overused word) robust birth rate in an era when childbirth in the West is viewed by many as a terrible inconvenience or even as a physical disorder much to be avoided by any possible means, from contraception to abortion.
As they live and thrive, we shrink and die.
How many of these adherents to Islam around the globe are absolutely committed to the triumph of their faith? If only 10 percent, that would be 100 million spread around the world – 100 million Islamacists willing to murder us infidels by the thousands and willing, if not anxious, to die in an act of martyrdom.
As Paul Weyrich has reported, "92 percent of British citizens who profess the Moslem faith say they are Moslems first and British citizens second, while in France, where the Moslem population has been causing a great deal of trouble of late, 46 percent consider themselves Frenchmen first and Moslems second and 54 percent, a tight majority, consider themselves Moslems first and Frenchmen second."
Two years ago, Muslim-American activist Kamal Nawash told "The O'Reilly Factor" that "We have to come out and admit that we have a problem with extremism ... it's a movement that's been growing for twenty years throughout the entire Muslim world." Nawash added chillingly that he believes that as many as 50 percent of Muslims around the world support the goals of the extremists.
I'll stick to the 10 percent of that billion or so Moslems worldwide who most observers believe fall into the fully committed category – that's a staggering 100 million potential terrorists. Should just 10 percent of that 100 million be absolutely committed, that's 10 million terrorists. And if 10 percent of them fit into the explosive-belt-wearing category, that's fully 1 million terrorists seeking to kill us while killing themselves.
The real problem here is guerrilla warfare. As has been frequently noted, this war is between the United States, Britain and most Western states and a stateless enemy forced to resort to guerrilla warfare since it has no standing army, as do nation-states.
We have just seen a graphic example of how adept the radical Islamists are in Lebanon, where a tightly knit guerrilla force, Hezbollah, took on the mighty Israeli army and fought them to a standstill, emerging essentially whole and fully ready to continue to do battle when called upon.
This is where the challenge to the West is emerging – a growing guerrilla war that will slowly spread across the globe as our enemies seek to cripple the Western economy and bring it to its knees.
The history of guerrilla actions should keep us awake nights. We are seeing it in action in the so-called sectarian violence and the insurgency in Iraq, where Shia militants – the people who make up Hezbollah – are keeping that embattled country in a state of turmoil.
As Jay Winik recounts in his extraordinary 2002 book, "April 1865," "Guerilla warfare has always been the essence of how the weak make war against the strong." He cites countless examples of successful guerrilla wars where the weak have overcome the strong, making it a point to recall the extreme difficulties endured by the targets of unconventional warfare.
We are seeing this played out now, where, in order to deal effectively with insurgents who bury themselves in the civilian population, the most brutal and inhumane measures become necessary. Witness Beirut. Witness Fallujah II. Where guerrillas use the civilian population as human shields, hiding in their midst, any determined effort to combat the tactic will necessarily involve large numbers of civilian deaths.
And large numbers of civilian deaths shock Western sensibilities, an outcome always successfully exploited by the guerrillas, sometimes leading to the withdrawal of Western forces, as we saw in Fallujah I and are now seeing in Lebanon.
Winik quotes Mao as explaining that "the strategy is to pit one man against ten, but the tactic is to pit ten men against one." He writes: "Countering numerical superiority, guerillas have always employed secrecy, deception and terror as their ultimate tools. They move quickly, attack fast, and just as quickly scatter."
All of the guerrilla actions he cited involved specific nations and parts of their native populations; the guerrilla action the West faces now is worldwide in scope. And instead of the guerrilla force being limited in size, this war involves millions of potential combatants all over the world.
Their main weapon, as noted, is their absolute commitment to Islamic victory, to imposing Sharia law upon the entire global population. They believe in something they consider worth living for, and something worth dying for.
On our side this is an alien concept. We neither recognize the scope of the threat nor the need to dig in our heels and resolve to fight to the death if need be. And until we learn that commitment to do so is the essential weapon in the struggle, we are going to continue to lose the war we refuse to admit is being fought all around us.
We'd better get with it. This war is going to be with us for generations to come. The enemy, numbering millions, has only just begun to fight.
For every American or Jew or Briton who dies as a result of a terrorist attack, 10,000 Islamic terrorists in an Arab country will die in exchange (Yes that includes you, Saudi Arabia!).
This is a religious war, so there won't be any compromises. In religious wars, nobody stops till either side is dead. Hell, they all want to go to heaven and get their virgins; I say we help them along.
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Absolute Commitment Indispensable to Winning Terror War
Philip V. Brennan
Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2006
On Monday, Catholics celebrated the feast of St. Maximilian Kolbe, the courageous priest who volunteered to take the place of a fellow prisoner at Auschwitz marked for death by the SS guards. His offer to replace a man who had a wife and family was accepted, and Fr. Kolbe was condemned to an agonizingly slow death by starvation. But after days of surviving hunger and thirst he was killed by a fatal injection as a penalty for not dying on the Nazis' precise schedule.
This selfless act was more than an example of Christian charity at its highest degree – it was an act of total and absolute commitment to his faith.
I think it was Whitaker Chambers who wrote of this kind of commitment as one of having faith in something worth living for and something worth dying for.
In any conflict, be it a war or a political or philosophical disagreement, absolute commitment to one's cause is the indispensable weapon. Without it, the advocate stands disarmed and naked to the assaults of the opposition.
In Western eyes, the kind of commitment that accepts death as a possible consequence of loyalty to a cause is often seen as fanaticism – as the act of an unbalanced combatant. Better to seek some kind of accommodation with a foe – a cease-fire perhaps – than risk or even lose one's life for something as ephemeral as a cause, or in defense of one's faith.
Thus we look aghast at Moslems who strap on explosive-laden belts and willingly blow themselves to smithereens in the name of Allah if it will serve the purpose of killing a number of the infidels. Western sophisticates attribute that kind of commitment to either a form of insanity or the terrorist's more materialistic belief that 72 virgins await the martyrs in paradise along with an eternity of endless coital pleasure. (The modern secular mind can readily understand that hope. It makes sense, while simply dying for a cause does not.)
A quick look at our current situation vis-a-vis the war between what's left of Western civilization and the growing heft of radical Islam reveals two facts: We are losing that war, and we are losing it because we lack the absolute commitment of our enemies to their cause. We have lost the will to stay the course. When the going gets tough, the weak run away.
In the long run, the West has convinced itself that rather than being a fight to the death, the struggle is more of a serious inconvenience to our pursuit of the perfect secular existence untrammeled by such outmoded concepts as faith in an almighty (and obviously nonexistent) God.
Now, this would be less than an ultimate death sentence for Western civilization if the two sides were unmatched, with the West numerically superior to a small but noisesome religious sect. That, however, is far from the case. There are more than 1 billion Moslems in the world today – that's 1 billion – and their numbers are swelling both by conversion and by a (dare I use that vastly overused word) robust birth rate in an era when childbirth in the West is viewed by many as a terrible inconvenience or even as a physical disorder much to be avoided by any possible means, from contraception to abortion.
As they live and thrive, we shrink and die.
How many of these adherents to Islam around the globe are absolutely committed to the triumph of their faith? If only 10 percent, that would be 100 million spread around the world – 100 million Islamacists willing to murder us infidels by the thousands and willing, if not anxious, to die in an act of martyrdom.
As Paul Weyrich has reported, "92 percent of British citizens who profess the Moslem faith say they are Moslems first and British citizens second, while in France, where the Moslem population has been causing a great deal of trouble of late, 46 percent consider themselves Frenchmen first and Moslems second and 54 percent, a tight majority, consider themselves Moslems first and Frenchmen second."
Two years ago, Muslim-American activist Kamal Nawash told "The O'Reilly Factor" that "We have to come out and admit that we have a problem with extremism ... it's a movement that's been growing for twenty years throughout the entire Muslim world." Nawash added chillingly that he believes that as many as 50 percent of Muslims around the world support the goals of the extremists.
I'll stick to the 10 percent of that billion or so Moslems worldwide who most observers believe fall into the fully committed category – that's a staggering 100 million potential terrorists. Should just 10 percent of that 100 million be absolutely committed, that's 10 million terrorists. And if 10 percent of them fit into the explosive-belt-wearing category, that's fully 1 million terrorists seeking to kill us while killing themselves.
The real problem here is guerrilla warfare. As has been frequently noted, this war is between the United States, Britain and most Western states and a stateless enemy forced to resort to guerrilla warfare since it has no standing army, as do nation-states.
We have just seen a graphic example of how adept the radical Islamists are in Lebanon, where a tightly knit guerrilla force, Hezbollah, took on the mighty Israeli army and fought them to a standstill, emerging essentially whole and fully ready to continue to do battle when called upon.
This is where the challenge to the West is emerging – a growing guerrilla war that will slowly spread across the globe as our enemies seek to cripple the Western economy and bring it to its knees.
The history of guerrilla actions should keep us awake nights. We are seeing it in action in the so-called sectarian violence and the insurgency in Iraq, where Shia militants – the people who make up Hezbollah – are keeping that embattled country in a state of turmoil.
As Jay Winik recounts in his extraordinary 2002 book, "April 1865," "Guerilla warfare has always been the essence of how the weak make war against the strong." He cites countless examples of successful guerrilla wars where the weak have overcome the strong, making it a point to recall the extreme difficulties endured by the targets of unconventional warfare.
We are seeing this played out now, where, in order to deal effectively with insurgents who bury themselves in the civilian population, the most brutal and inhumane measures become necessary. Witness Beirut. Witness Fallujah II. Where guerrillas use the civilian population as human shields, hiding in their midst, any determined effort to combat the tactic will necessarily involve large numbers of civilian deaths.
And large numbers of civilian deaths shock Western sensibilities, an outcome always successfully exploited by the guerrillas, sometimes leading to the withdrawal of Western forces, as we saw in Fallujah I and are now seeing in Lebanon.
Winik quotes Mao as explaining that "the strategy is to pit one man against ten, but the tactic is to pit ten men against one." He writes: "Countering numerical superiority, guerillas have always employed secrecy, deception and terror as their ultimate tools. They move quickly, attack fast, and just as quickly scatter."
All of the guerrilla actions he cited involved specific nations and parts of their native populations; the guerrilla action the West faces now is worldwide in scope. And instead of the guerrilla force being limited in size, this war involves millions of potential combatants all over the world.
Their main weapon, as noted, is their absolute commitment to Islamic victory, to imposing Sharia law upon the entire global population. They believe in something they consider worth living for, and something worth dying for.
On our side this is an alien concept. We neither recognize the scope of the threat nor the need to dig in our heels and resolve to fight to the death if need be. And until we learn that commitment to do so is the essential weapon in the struggle, we are going to continue to lose the war we refuse to admit is being fought all around us.
We'd better get with it. This war is going to be with us for generations to come. The enemy, numbering millions, has only just begun to fight.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
![image_5727[1].jpg](https://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/forum/data/attachments/97/97760-63c0dbec24fb255f03e6b8d58bcb8479.jpg "image_5727[1].jpg")
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
LMAO. Great map. We need to add France and Spain to it.
..they should change it to "Muslim" and not Arab though.
It doesn't mean much to us, but there is a big differense between the two.
You don't have to be Muslim to be an Arab.
But you don't have to be Arab to be a Muslim.
Iran is Persian.
It doesn't mean much to us, but there is a big differense between the two.
You don't have to be Muslim to be an Arab.
But you don't have to be Arab to be a Muslim.
Iran is Persian.
MediumD
Dedicated LVC Member
This thread has made me realize something.
There should be a sig size limit...
There should be a sig size limit...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
MediumD said:
"B-O-O H-O-O."
-- John Bender, The Breakfast Club
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
MediumD said:
I've heard that sig size is inversely proportional to penis size.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
All I know is my wife told me that if mine was smaller, she'd have sex with me more often. She says it takes her 3 days to recover as it is now.