Well you can't just end the story there. Obama has no clue about what?

 

Boy is that an opening.

Why should I care if a very well organized terrorist group provides social services? They also lob missiles into Israel assinate those who would prefer peace.

 

Those faceless organizations in Iraq were called Al Qaida, along with Iraqi insurgents and Iran supported Shiite clerics.

 

 

I really find this as pardoxical as it comes. To state the above bolded on the heels of the example of what I've given is just .

Why should I care if a very well organized terrorist group provides social services? They also lob missiles into Israel and assinate those who would prefer peace.

 

Those faceless organizations in Iraq were called Al Qaida, along with Iraqi insurgents and Iran supported Shiite clerics.

 

Ah yes. Israel. The beacon of peace.

I really find this as pardoxical as it comes. To state the above bolded on the heels of the example of what I've given is just .

 

I went back and edited my post, there should have been an "and" in between Israel and assasinate. I don't really see what your example had to do with anything. If you're wanting me to condemn the Israeli who killed Begin, consider it done.

Ah yes. Israel. The beacon of peace.

I'll give you a chance to address Pepper's intent of the post, or my subsequent one explaining why their social services are irrelevant, before I accuse you of shifting the argument.

Ah yes. Israel. The beacon of peace.

 

I think you and I are finished. Thanks for the conversation.

The "kill em' all" approach doesn't necessarily work either.

:thumb: agreed.

Ah yes. Israel. The beacon of peace.

 

Would you be peaceful if people came into your home with a bomb strapped to their chest and blew up your loved ones?

I went back and edited my post, there should have been an "and" in between Israel and assasinate. I don't really see what your example had to do with anything. If you're wanting me to condemn the Israeli who killed Begin, consider it done.

 

The man who killed Rabin did so because he did not believe Israel should ever talk to terrorists or strike deals with the Palestinians. His extreme view of the same policy you are espousing led him to kill someone who believed it was always worth trying to make peace and talk. If you don't see that, then that is certainly not my problem.

It bothers me that Obama says that terrorist groups have "legitimate claims", but it is easy to understand why people want our officials to talk to them, because cliche, neo-con talking points like this are disturbing as well.

"Talking" to terrorists and "negotiating" with terrorists are two vastly different concepts. I'm all for "talking" to terrorists, as in providing them fair warning that if they don't improve thier social skills and habits, they will be swiftly and permanently removed from the world's cultural gene pool. I see no merit at all in "negotiating" with these vermin, thereby adding validity to their murderous tactics upon innocent victims.

 

As far as me spouting "neo conservative" talking points:

• Neo-Con literally means "New Conservative" or reformed liberal who has grown disinterested in liberal thoughts, beliefs and methods and has come over to a more sensible (my view) way of looking at things.
  
• I've been a conservative my entire life... nothing "neo" here. :lol:
  
• I do not subscribe to "Neo-Con Weekly" to receive my latest talking points.
  
• I actually believe what I said about dealing with terrorists, totally separate from what any party or candidate or talk show host may represent.
  
• Sorry if you find my opinion cliche or disturbing.
  
• I must admit however, that I find your apparently more liberal views disturbing (and far more dangerous in the long run) as well.
  

 

A man breaks into my home in the middle of the night carrying a weapon intended to harm my family or me. Given adequate warning, I may tell him to stop and drop the weapon. I may give him the opportunity to leave my home. I may even listen to what he has to say AFTER he sets down his weapon. But if he takes another step toward my family-weapon in hand-I will arrange an immediate meeting with his Maker... no qualms, no second guessing. His choice, not mine.

 

"Talking" with terrorists is no different IMO. They need to stop hurting others first, then we can sit down and try to understand why they're so angry... not the other way around.

I agree that some conditions need to be put on holding talks. It doesn't need to be a haphazard process. I'm not even saying we have to do it, I'm just saying the option should be put on the table, which it hasn't been for the past 8 years.

Did we attack North Korea? They disarmed their nuclear program and not one bomb was dropped. I guess they just decided to out of the goodness of their heart?

Did we attack North Korea? They disarmed their nuclear program and not one bomb was dropped. I guess they just decided to out of the goodness of their heart?

 

A more accurate scenario would be, they simply never had the resources or knowledge to proceed with their nuclear program.

Would you be peaceful if people came into your home with a bomb strapped to their chest and blew up your loved ones?

 

You actually have the beginnings of a good point. Israel has been surrounded by nations since their inception who have pledged to "wipe them off the map" so to speak. It's hard to fault a nation that is constantly under fire for being a little trigger happy at times. Arab nations are still bitter about the creation of a Jewish state following WWII.

The man who killed Rabin did so because he did not believe Israel should ever talk to terrorists or strike deals with the Palestinians. His extreme view of the same policy you are espousing led him to kill someone who believed it was always worth trying to make peace and talk. If you don't see that, then that is certainly not my problem.

 

I still don't understand what you want from me. There are people who kill in the name of religion, I believe they are wrong. There are people who kill those who operate abortion clinics. They are wrong. I believe the man who killed Begin was wrong. I endorse the cause. I do not endorse the killers.

You actually have the beginnings of a good point. Israel has been surrounded by nations since their inception who have pledged to "wipe them off the map" so to speak. It's hard to fault a nation that is constantly under fire for being a little trigger happy at times. Arab nations are still bitter about the creation of a Jewish state following WWII.

 

Are they not justified in that? I do not condone of thier actions, but wouldn't Americans be up in arms if an Independent Cherokee state were created in the middle of America?