All this goes does is help to re-inforce to the people you so call the 'enemy' as being right in many ways about what they are fighting for. Before someone jumps down my throat, I dont accept all the ways they go about trying to acheive this. But every time the latest scandal emerges, along with all the other inhustices and blind eyes done to the muslims. There anger/hatred and what is now probably blind anger/hatred only gets fueled. When I sit back and look at all that has happened to them over the past 40 years or so, do you not think that perhaps they have a very good point ? Just look at the bosnia, chechnya, iraq, afghanistan, palestine. All based on insjustices, dirty tactics, lies, corruption, explotation and illegal wars/occupation. Probably the single biggest issue is palestine, which America is a slient ally of (and hence partner in crime). And yes it is a crime, especially if you see the real day to day way they have been treated over there. I saw a documentary on itrecently, and just one example was how the Israel army actively use human shields (civilians at gun point!) to protect themselves when storming a building. On one occassion they filmed a few soldiers using a noticabely pregnant young woman ffs. she was telling them shes pregnant, but they just hurled abuse at her and told her to move it or shed be shot. One of them eventually sniped her grandfather and killed him eventually anyway (an old guy in his nighty and slippers ffs. So forgive me but as more and more comes out im actually beggining to see what these people are fighting for. And im not talking about there tactics or anything, as I think in the desperate struggle, fueled hatred and loss of hope they have gone to extremes. But when your cornered and been trodden on by some of the biggest school bullies, and have nothin at hand what do you do? Course you go mental and come out fighting liek a mad dog. Thats what has happened to these people. And teh western world shares the blame, even those that sat in silence and watched the crimes being prepatrated. *whew* that was a lot, my fingers hurt now lol
Jamadaia, while I don't disagree with your sentiment, the number of things you've covered there would need many threads to be discussed. I also think Mr .308 might disagree with you Also,spaces between paragraphs are your friends
lol yep im always terrible when it comes to spacing. Sorry about that Was more of a rant than anything, so probably read like mush
Though I don't care to substantiate .308's full position, I think that this statement epitomizes a very frightening trend in foreign culture and even in our own. Media is a business. In our country, in your country. Businesses sell products. In this case, they sell advertising. In order to have that advertising worth anything, people must watch the station that it is on. Those companies are paying for exposure, after all. The only media that is not a 'business' as such is state-run media. Which implies an inherent bias to the country it conducts its business in. All of this is common sense to you. You're reading this saying, "Duh, Da Dego, get to the frieking point, I'm not a first grader." But truth is, media isn't just business...it's BIG business. Advertising is the world's largest expense and industry next to direct materials and direct labor. These channels want you to watch, and they will say a lot to get you to watch. Very few will go as far as to blatantly lie, but there's a lot of ways you can stack up facts whilst ignoring others to make a convincing picture. The truth is made up of a bunch of facts...the facts are a set of building blocks that they hold, and we as their audience don't know how many pieces there really are in each set. So they build a pretty castle out of the blocks and show it to us...like playing with legos. Maybe they used all of them. Or maybe they used more of one color than another. We don't know if that's all there was, or if the other color just wasn't used because it wasn't as interesting, or it clashed with their primary color. Usually, they will side more with "interesting" than "complete." The Daily Show's Stephen Colbert once gave an interview to NPR. In it, he lampooned news in this country altogether in an alarming way...this is a person who grew up in broadcasting, WANTED to be a news anchor...and got so disgusted with it he became a comedian, ending up being the only news correspondent he could stand by working for a satire show. He was asked about the state of news, and said: "The whole world is heading towards that cable news idea. That you don't even really have to say anything substantial, or introduce facts. All you really have to do is have the proper inflection, and end things off with a question...even a completely irrelevant one. For instance, [he goes into his news voice] 'Today Dick Cheney went to China. But did he get too drunk and end up sleeping with the Secretary of the interior?' Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is where we're headed." We keep saying that the media keeps us free from the tyrrany of government. But that doesn't mean the media is engaging in honest practices either. It is no longer the watchdog that it used to be, because it is no longer self-funded. You no longer have reporters digging desperately for the truth, now they dig for the STORY. Think of that word...think of how often it's used, even by those in the business. Our news is nothing more than "Snow White" or "The Davinci Code." It's a good story. Truth is an occasional biproduct, but accidental at best...and it usually happens when some green-horn doesn't know how to best arrange his story for top dramatic effect. Once you put a guard in place to guard the last guard you hired to protect you, the cycle never stops. We give government too much power, they get corrupt, thinking they can spin whatever schlock they see fit out to their citizens to justify or even hide their actions. So we introduce the media, whom we give so much power that they too think they can spin whatever schlock they see fit out to their viewers to justify their advertising revenues. I'm not sure who's next in the role (though I think the army of bloggers might be our next guard), but the cycle will invariably continue. All in all, if you think you're getting anywhere near the full story from Fox, CBS, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, or any other COMPANY (a reminder that they are for-profit businesses), you're just as lost now as the person who sits and listens to the government's speeches and accepts them as gospel. Most of us know better, but nexxo pointed out in another thread we're dealing with MAYBE the top 25% of the IQ curve in general, if not higher. Foreign media shows more of our screw-ups than our media not because it's more honest, but because it's pitching to a different market. Our media is NOT harmless, and neither is yours. Don't think for a minute that any side is innocent, or even really justified. I understand your argument, but there are more civil ways to fight a battle than blowing up civilians. And as for the innocence of muslims in the last 40 years, perhaps you should take a proverbial spin over to southeast Asia, where Buddhists are getting slaughtered because the muslim immigrants to their countries feel that there should be a "muslim state". Besides, if you talk about "looking at past persecution" as a justification, I'd say the Jewish people have pretty much a blank check at this point to do whatever they wanted, which nullifies your arguments of the tragedies the israelis have committed. Thank goodness most of them don't feel the same 'right to fight.' No side is clean, is all. And everyone would best be served by not trying to paint a clean picture of any of the multiple facets of this situation (please remember it's not America vs. the middle east. There's a lot more to it). FYI, America is not the only "silent ally" in the middle east. I fail to recall the EU raising any huff about any of these tragedies you mention...
I'll probably flesh out this post later when I have time but: The BBC is a citizen paid for news service, that isn't run by the government. Its actually fairly anti-Labour govt. alot of the time, and is, in my opinion one of the best of the bigger News orginisations. Take the business out of the news, and maybe we get a lot closer to the truth? edit: Maybe so, but if Im not mistaken, we don't give Israel guns and money. I'm not saying Palistine should be given these things, but that maybe neither country should, so long as the situation is as it is now.
Never implied that the muslims around the world are all treating everyone fairly either. I am referreing to the 'terrorist' issue etc, and involved parties. And yes course there is much more to the US vs Middle East fiasco, but thats just it. they try aint paint, sell and dress it up it to joe Public as something it clearly isnt. For starters it has a lot to do with control, power and resources. On the subject of the Jewish people having a blank cheque. Thats a really bad view to take, since they of all people should know not to opress others. Since theyv been through so much. So if you look at it from there history, they should be the last people to do so. And no it does not give them some special right to go and take things back by force, which is what they did. Also, if you look back at history, the muslims e.g. the whole Spanish fiasco ala inquisitions and preceeding that. Show that Muslims have also been on the recieving end of genocide, and continue to be e.g Bosnia etc. Ironic thing is they were ruling and living peacefully with the other cultures and religions at the time (recent findings have revealed that is where Europe grew from, and more is being unearthed everyday - they tried to bury/twist the history so that people wouldnt know what whent on there). And I mention US simply because they are the most single powerfull body who are directyl associated as the no 1 friend of Israel. That does not mean there arent others e.g. us over here, both directly and more so indirectly via US ties.
Points well taken, I just asked that they be expanded. As for the Jewish and the blank check, I mean that only based on the fact that your previous post seemed to explain the current muslim violence based on 40 years of mistreatment. I only extended your logic, not attempted to say that this is how it SHOULD go. By your logic that you pose now, the very fact that Muslims, too, have been victims through history of mass genocide should make them unwilling to commit these terrible atrocities on others. You discredit your first post entirely. And you can't just excuse other parts of the world when you discuss people as a whole...hence the need for clarification. My point in doing that is simply to show that BOTH sides should just step back, because NEITHER is justified at all. The cycle of violence has gone on for so long and with so many interfering/intervening parties that to say any one side is directly responsible is absurd. The whole area has turned into a giant debacle where Freudian analysis of who shot first is no longer relevant. We must turn to a cognitive behaviour approach of actively stopping the violence that is happening now, instead of worrying about justified retaliation. Of course, all of this is fairly self-evident to us. We are all fairly intelligent folks. But we have media over here selling us as world heros taking on the yoke of freedom for a region that can't, because we don't want to think of ourselves as sticking our noses in. That view sells here. It makes people feel good and they watch it and the media gets paid. Then there's the other side, because the US is very divided. Bush is an idiot, he wants to finish his daddy's war. Look at the poor soldiers, pawns in the sick game of a fool and his delusions. Sells well with 48% of Americans...hell, look at Farenheit 911. You're gonna tell me Michael Moore made an unbiased documentary? The only thing unbiased about him is that he'll eat any donut and not just Krispy Kreme. On the other hand, in other parts of the world make it equally black and white, just we're in the black. America the invader, ignoring all of Europe's complicity throughout the entire process. We came to take over their oil fields and put a new American puppet into power, because that's what those self-righteous Americans do. The whole WMD thing was wrong, so rather than all countries being mistaken and having false intelligence, it was that America wanted the oil fields and Bush Jr wanted himself a war, and duped the rest of the world. We get portrayed this way in your media because it sells, too. It makes you guys feel good to have been 'dragged along' instead of part of the decision process. You watch the news, bitch about Bush, call Blair an idiot, and go on your merry way, happy that the 'world' (as reported by BBC) sees you guys as unlucky victims in America's latest imperialist move. Then there's Al Jazeera...the westerners as a whole are invaders, come to steal our oil...rape and pillage. They want to sniff out Muslims everywhere. Look at them desecrate our holy texts, look at their infidel footprints on our land. Obviously, when you're the group getting invaded, that rallying cry sells like hotcakes. Take the focus off the atrocities that have been committed in the mideast in recent years, make it instead an attack on religion. Make it threaten the very way of life of a people. Talk about ratings...whew! When you're the only non-state media in the region, makes it even more believable. After all, most of the governments are western puppets, no? Media plays a key factor in this whole situation. Because none of the above views are 100% wrong, people can rally behind each of them. Further dividing and simplifying a problem that needs to be examined as a complex dynamic involving multiple parties. Look at your own post...rather than saying "western powers", you say US. Rather than saying "muslims," Americans often think "terrorist" or "enemy." We de-humanize and simplify the situation all the time, certainly aided by the constant stream of information that is thrown at us doing exactly that. Wars, struggles, etc. are becoming increasingly unpopular or overpopular because we can now have full coverage that we didn't have 50 years ago. Can you imagine how long America would have stayed in WWII had they seen the battlefield daily? A journalist embedded for D-Day? Assuming we even went over there to start with, we'd be pulled out in a day based on public opinion. We would've likely never even gone over there....just wrapped up Japan and left the rest of it to you guys, come success or failure. In some ways, the advancement is a blessing - it makes wars harder to choose, because the public will see the horrors it brings. But sadly they're still a necessary evil of the world today, and that puts us in a real tight spot. We need to watch that the sensationalism doesn't allow us to simplify things to "right and wrong" and "justified or not." Everything along the topic of war is inflicting harm on another, be it battle, torture, or anything else. While we must humanize that we are hurting other people, we must also strike a balance. Humanizing means also recognizing our intrinsic failure: that society as a whole is not ready to solve all problems without such crude tools.
Eeek didnt want this to get into a long drawn out discussion and have kind of ended up getting all tangled up and side tracked somewhat from what I was originally commenting on. But I think you misunderstood why I bought up the muslim history aspect. It was only because you mentioned about "Besides, if you talk about "looking at past persecution" as a justification, I'd say the Jewish people have pretty much a blank check at this point to do whatever they wanted, which nullifies your arguments of the tragedies the israelis have committed. Thank goodness most of them don't feel the same 'right to fight." So just thought that would be no reason anyway, as the other party could then turn around and say so what we were also (and still continue to be!) treated in that fashion. So neither party should use that, otherwise wed have a world of chaos with everyone out for blood and revenge. What i really blame is what started the Palestine affair in first place i.e. illegale occupation, war and killing initiated by Israel (quitely backed by US and its allies). And now they want to liberate others ? Where supposed to beleive that ? In basic terms it was merely an attempt to bring to light that there are atleasy equal injustices on both sides, and the core of where this whole terrorism thing sparked off from was actions that were initiated from the western world. So I hold Israel, US and then after that its immediate allies responsible for the outcome and creation of the whole sorry mess. And its not like they did these things by accident, they were pre-meditated actions. And I certainly hold Mr Blair (that git) responsible for dragging us into the line of fire. I know people will say (just as the nay sayers at the time, when we were about to get so closely involved), that we would be a target anyway. Even if we were, I can equally say even *if* that is true (we will never know now will we), it wouldnt have been to this extent. Also look at how much lies, mistreatment and dirty politics are gradually emerging. Were only going to find more and more over time. And heaven only knows how much more will remain a secret forever. Its a sad world in reality, full of inequality, greedy, selfish, heartless and power grabbing twats. A lot of whom unfortunetly believe they now best :\ That is show time and time again, just as it was in the past so it is today. Land, money, resources, control, titles etc etc. Btw totally agree with you (as I hope many others do) about Bush. Hes an absolute idiot. I used to wonder how on earth someone like that would be put forward, let alone be elected at the time of elections. But now im beggining to wonder if hes just a puppet that was intentionally placed there to almost draw away attention from what mistakes are being made e.g. instead of looking at what theyv done, they focus on 'oh its Bush's fault yada yada'. Kinda deflect attention and have a scape goat for doing silly things. Also hes so stupid they can pull the wool over his eyes and get him to do what they want lol. I know im jsut getting kinda synical now lol Im interested in your opinion though, on something I wonder about. Why do you think the US is and always has been such a close ally of Israel ? And also if Israel had only take the amoutn of land and areas initially specified by the UN back in 1960 or whatever it was, do you think the Palestine would be in this mess? And lets be honest, Palestine is the number 1 candidate for these Terrorists, followed by Afghanistan and a lesser extent Iraq. And surely, if teh Palestine invasion and illegal occupation hadnt occurred, then its almost certain that even when Afghanistan occurred, they wouldnt have reacted in this way as there wouldnt have been a build up of 30 years or so of hatred. Also I cant help but feel that another reason for getting stability and control in teh Middle east is to ensure that Israel maintain there position i.e. they dont want any big powers forming in the middle east (unless *cough* governed by US friendlies aka puppets)? Whats your thoughts m8 ? Hope I dont sound like im ranting on or arguing Its just that i feel so pationately about these things When I see people dying in famine and natural disasters and then see these a*holes goign roudn causing more death and destruction by there own hands. It makes me sooo maaad
Image removed by Moderator - inflammatory If we didn't supply them they'd be in a world of ####. They don't bite our hand near as much as the rest of the mideast. Perhaps the occupied Constantinople should be returned?
First things first. .308, if that image is being hosted on a personal server, I am politely requesting a total of once that it be removed immediately. If it is being linked from elsewhere, please delete the link from your post. Regardless of point-proving, it is clearly inflammatory. That being said, jamadaia, I'll answer my own thoughts on your points in turn: I mentioned that solely because of your post a couple above mine, saying that you understood why they were so violent based on the 40 years of issues from others tampering in their affairs. I was attempting to draw a parallel to your own discussion. Why not? In history, that land was unfairly usurped from the Jewish peoples almost a thousand years before. And nobody can nudge a few inches for them after a holocaust and being largely kicked out of Europe? Why? Based on racial hatred of the "zionists"? It goes back to why I say we can't use the "who shot first" anymore...because that was the original claim to Israel...that the Muslims had most of the middle east anyways, and had evicted them to begin with. It was a reclaimation, right or wrong. Interesting. Were it so simple...what of the eviction of Jews from the area? Or, what of the crusades? Intervention from the western world, for sure...but where and when? The fundamentalists of the muslim faith (who existed long before the creatures we call terrorists) have hated the west since Rome. I challenge you to prove that the terrorists we see today are any more terrorist because of Israel, or just use that as an excuse for a 1,000 year grudge. Technology has advanced a lot since the formation of israel. Homemade bombs are only recently even feasable on the timeline of nations...we could say the IRA were only incited to violence by something in the 50's, too. But the reality is, it's a generations-old grudge match that people only recently got the technology to truly wage. In the study of Law, we discuss a lot about the ideas of "forseen consequence." Tis what sets the difference between negligence and just an accident. Tell me, 60 years ago (these things do take time), before there were fertilizer bombs, true nuclear issues, covert arms deals, computer espionage...could they have forseen this? Sure, it's easy to now, but hindsight is 20/20. And we know it all, now that it already happened. Monday morning quarterbacks, we are. And we will never know whether your hypothesis is correct, either. Cetaris Paribus, I think you'd be just as much a target as anyone. Look at Spain. Bombed for what, 1,000 troops? Yeah, right. Of all the countries they needed to take a stand against, Spain somehow was the short straw. They and their whole 1,000 troops. And what of the French who were kidnapped? Their country staunchly OPPOSED the war. Yet it still took months and incredibly dedicated negotiators to get them released. And you can bet that they were only released because after those months, the world tide was turning to "Well, the French didn't support any of this...and they're being punished too...maybe the warmongers were right..." You'll find that on any war. On any peace time, even. Truth is, if we as citizens knew half of what our governments were up to daily, we'd probably throw them all off and start over. But it's a necessary evil...we're not capable of true self-rule, true democracy...because people are not capable of putting aside enough of their own self interest. We are one of the few species that I challenge are not inherently altruistic. Bush is definitely not the brightest of the presidents. But truth be told, he's far from the worst, either. A lot of people don't understand the economics behind it, but he's actually a great president as far as economic decisions have gone. He may just be smarter than he lets on...though I do think he himself did get fooled on a lot of this war stuff, If you want a person who actually had something to gain from the US going to war, look no farther than Donald Rumsfeld. But you've gotta watch the conspiracy theories...it's important to understand the system you're lampooning. Who's the ones calling the shots that elected this 'puppet'? I'm not saying you're wholly wrong (though I do doubt it a bit), but just that you should examine the in's and outs of your theory. Because we, similarly to the rest of the world, ignored the Jewish representatives from other countries who told us all the holocaust was happening. By the end of the war, realizing the atrocities we enabled by our delayed entry, we felt we owed it to them to make some things right. Continued relations, however, a little more hazy. I think we should be taking a harder line, because it's hard to wag the finger at one side and not the other. At least if you expect to be taken reasonably at a peace conference, that is. Yes. Truth is, it's oil and water. You have two groups of people, one who was evicted and one who did the evicting. And we put them right next to one another again by evicting the evictors. In some ways, poetic justice. In others, a REALLY DUMB MOVE. Had Israel been given a 10 meter square section in the entire area, there would have been problems. I don't condone the land-grab, particularly the ones Sharon is now attempting to undo...it did nothing but worsen a situation...but the situation was always bad. True. But that doesn't justify it. SOMEWHERE, people have to learn to let the past go. Because we all see things through filters, and maybe those past injustices were a little trumped up in our own minds. They could have chosen that time, or even any in the future, to stand and say "We don't condone this either." And they'd probably find a whole different treatment. But that goes back to the argument of, 'do you reward good behavior, or do you give rewards and hope for the good behavior to ensue?' Aside from your cough, or maybe not even aside...of course. Everything is inherently governed somewhere by self interest, see above on my comment that humans are one of the few non-altruistic animals. As for the death and destruction, I couldn't agree with you more. If we could all focus on bringing up those less fortunate instead of knocking down those who get more fortunate, the world would be a better place. But that's a discussion for a different thread. Just like you, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just posing an alternate hypothesis. But if such hypotheses are just one person away, can you be so definite in your own? There are many sides to the issue...and the truth is always somewhere in between.
To any Jews or Israelis who may be offended by that picture I appologize. I do not think you are evil, I was being sarcastic.
The US support of Israel has more to it than just guilt over the holocaust. It also has a lot to do with the huge number of Jews with the vote in the USA, and a lot to do with the US having a "friend" in the middle east. Ironically, a lot of the other middle eastern countries would be a lot friendlier towards the USA if it didnd't just give carte-blanche support to the Israeli government...At the moment the situation seems to be "Now Now Ariel, you've been a naughty boy and we didn't like what you did, but here's $Xbillion in military and political aid anyway". It's interesting to note that we felt obliged to give the Jews their own country after the Holocaust, but we have all but ignored the Armenian Genocide---not only ignored it, but made very good friends with the perpetrators, the Turks. Hitler even used them as a justification for his own genocide: "After all, who remembers the Armenians?" Sam
Every group has been a victim at some point. Our government has an obligation to keep us, American citizens, safe. While I don't trust Israel I don't trust the Arabs more. You hear the talk "well if Israel would just give it back all the troubles would end". Nonsense. There is always a victim. I don't know about you but I don't intend to be a victim. We picked our partner and Bush should quit telling Israel to tone it down.
Well, I don't intend to be a 'victim' either. But that doesn't mean that things have to be done the way they are. It's true that if we have picked our proverbial partner, we should give them what they need to get the conflict over with. Hell, with our military on loan, Israel could obliterate the entirety of Palestine within about 5 days. The desert would be a big ol' sheet of glass. But shouldn't our partner be justice, or freedom? And if so, are we best served by allowing the two groups to cut each other time and time again? Nations come and go, allegiances are made and broken. Israel HAS walked away from the peace table just as many times now as Palestine. It is hard to get an entire citizenry under control, just look at France. And yet Israel expects a government with no land, no money, and almost no military to completely quell an entire religious movement. With Arafat gone, shouldn't some real attempts be made at peace, instead of just saying the combined injustices are too much to let go? Both sides need to be realistic if they wish to reach peace. And if we expect Palestine to say, "Ok, they were Hamas, we can see why they were targeted," we'd best be able to tell Israel that we expect them to say "Ok, those were Hamas, not Palestinian people in general...retaliation is not in order, and will not benefit us." We cannot condone one side slapping the other, yet tie the hand of that other side and tell them it is in the name of 'peace.' We should be saying that our interest is not in either side, but in the long-term peace of the region and the world...and therefore act on behalf of that, instead of what ally we've chosen.
Peace is not the goal. The death of Israel is...unless the arabs are lying. Maybe Iran should think about the weapons in Israel's arsenal before making threats.
I don't want to be a victim either, but what I want even less is to be yet another pointless casualty in a war that goes on forever. If I am to die, let there be a point to it. Let it be for what I believe in, to preserve who I am and what I stand for. Let it be in the pursuit of doing good, not evil. Let there be a chance that eventually, something good comes from the sacrifice. Life is precious. Dying should be worth something. But killing and being killed in a pointless reciprocal feud over money? Power? Religious dogma? Long gone history? Get Them Before They Get You? Forget it. I am not playing a game that cannot be won because it has no end. I am not afraid not to play. I have better things to do with my life. All of us do.
.30SAR you obviously need a history lesson. First of all Isreal as a country was formed after the 2nd World War and was being administered by the UK. At which point Isreal killed palestinians and UK soldiers forcing them out of the region. And hence started the bloody series of wars and the situation we now see. On the vauge topic of this thread. The news that phosphorous has/is being used against people digusts me. I would not wish it on my worst enemy. It sticks to the skin and combusts spontaniously on contact with oxygen. It will cause burns right down to the bone. If this isnt a prime example of the US flouting common humanity along with the secret prison s around the world I dont know what is. For the land of the free you seem to like taking it away.
Whew, just read the whole thread and I must say theres some deep thoughts going on (albeit slightly off topic). Torture is a difficult thing to actually define, physical torture is obvious but there's a serious mental aspect to it as well which to a layman like me is difficult to understand (no doubt the all seeing nexxo will be able to sort this one out). From what i understand the basic principle of it is to mentally break the subject by humiliation, pain and anguish with emphasis on the pain bit. If torture is to be used by the secret services or the military it should be done in a controlled enviroment, with video supervision by a suitably cleared member of the civil or military law systems. Personally I think its a pointless exercise, given enough pain about 90% of people would admit to pretty much anything you put to them, up to and including walking on the moon, so reliable intelligence is not assured, as to the diabolical use of phosphoros against people that is in my eyes use of a chemical weapon, you can pretty much bet that "good old boy" Bush would be kicking up a stink about chemical weapons if the insurgents had showered his troops with it , and he'd be using it as an excuse to send in more troops.
Could you point me to the post I made that stated otherwise? More history: Jerusalem and the area around it once was ruled by Jews before Islam even existed. Israel also attacked one of our ships during the 1967 six day war. Anybody innocent? Hell no. Their peaceful neighbors have attacked us quite a bit more and the death toll is far higher, though. We are only temporary allies. WP is not an exotic super deadly chemical agent like vx or cyclosarin. It is most commonly used in tracer rounds and making smokescreens. Nasty stuff? Sure. Legitimate conventional weapon of war? Yep.
You should also know that they imeadiatly applogised for doing so saying that they miss took it for an Egyptian ship. Also the US supported Israel in the six day war. Stuf doesnt have to be exotic super deadly to be vile stuff. Lets take clorine causes horrific injuries to the lungs if inhaled and you die from drowning in your own fluids. Phosphorous burns as long as oxygen is present you CANNOT extinguish it. It sticks and will burn right down to the bone. Can you honestly tell me that anyone deserves to burn to death in such a horrible manner? "Their peacefull neighbours attacked us (the US) quite a bit more and the death toll is far higher" From this I assume you mean terrorism because no middle east country has been at war with the US unless the US has attacked them first. Terrorism wise it is very unwise and dangerous to attribute the acts of a few to an entire country nay region. By making such sweeping generalisations you epitimise the problems the world currently faces. Also Isreal has killed atleast 35000 arabs since it was formed that is over 500 a year every year since it was formed. That does not include the 4,000 Palastinians since 1987. Whose death toll is higher?
