Yesterday, 11:44 AM
Well, that didn't seem to settle much of anything. Uygur with his weak virtue signaling, apparently thinking that if he talks against Turks, he will be taken as honest and trustworthy. Oy. Dave Smith is nothing to write home about either. Prager has his moments, but isn't really that good at debate. The woman was mostly on the money, whoever she is.
But there seems to have been some fundamentals missed. For one thing, we have no idea whether what we see in reports regarding either side of this giant bowl of liquid feces is reflective of truth. The Israelis have been up to all manner of chicanery for 75 years. One can debate whether circumstance drove them to it, or if they are just a raft of scummy people of whom perhaps the world would have benefitted had the Final Solution been successfully concluded. I'm unwilling to assume anything on that question. The same may be said of the Arabs of the region, however less clever and artful they may be. I don't trust any of them, taken statistically.
Praeger made a fair point when he stated that the deaths of civilian Arabs lies squarely at Hamas' feet. They started it, operationally speaking, and hid among the people they are supposed to protect. There can be no question of their cowardice. The woman also made an important point about war, that it is and ought to be horrific. It is, after all, war.
It is interesting to observe how few people hold a reasonable grasp of the most fundamental nature of warfare. These dummies, Smith and Uygur, are of that ilk (as are many in the military who should know better) wants warfare to be comparatively sanitary. This is patent idiocy. War should be out and out slaughter. It should be so atrocious, people are unable to wrap their heads around it; so horrifying that even the so-called "hawks" quit their moaning and scheming for it like covetous street whores they are. Much as is the case with freedom, the mean man wants all the benefits of war without those aspect of it that they find unappealing. "OOoooo... don't kill civilians... it's immoral...", as if two armies murdering each other en masse were somehow otherwise. I love how people rationalize the most absurd things, while condemning that which can actually be justified.
This debate was pointless, IMO. The real questions were not treated in a way that addresses the fundamentals of the issue, which is the only way to get to the truth. They kept the discussion up in the haze of comparative irrelevancies and they largely ignored the fact that we're not privy to the whole truth.
Find latest posts
View Articles
View Blog Entries
Connect With Us