Why support Israel? [Archive] - Page 3

JMS

July-22nd-2006, 10:51 AM

Look, I don't really read you posts as they are too long, too orange and too unsubstantiated. Still, this caught my eye.

Don't worry about it. I'm sure if God had wanted you to read my posts, he would have imprinted them on your engrames rather than on the internet.

Memebers of the current Israeli parliament who are from Arab origin - count with me, if you will:

12 is that 20%? It is more than four

So how about you quit your misinforming demagoguery.

Where else was I misinformed? please inform me cause I want to know and you telling me is probable the only way I'll find out.

BTW, while your at it, can you tell me how many US Senators there are of Afro American descent? Latin American? Women Senators?

That's a good point. But then America doesn't legislate rights based upon religion. ( I know your equal under the law.. some of the laws anyway.. )
we don't grant gratas citizenship to any white person who can crawl across our boarders and ware house blacks in Mexico. A better analagy to Arabs than Blacks might be American Indians of the 1880s. We kept them on reservations. We actively defrauded them of their land. We had a bunch of punch ups with them. Then again we didn't claim they were equal and we didn't have another country pay for the abuses.... Not trying to be insulting here. I guess you were talking about Arab Israli's not Arabs born in Israel, or folks who used to live in Palistine prior to being swept aside..

But why am I even trying to use reason with you... you'll just make up some new figures to spew here by the gallon.

I can think of two reasons why you shouldn't try to reason with me.
1) you don't care enough to put in the time.
2) you don't have a comprehensive argument to make.

You suggest the former and I suspect the latter. If the reason is the former let me assure you, I would very much appreciate your efforts to enlighten me. I am capable of a respectful discoarse and will react appropiotly if you point out where I offend. I want to hear your position. I want to better understand your position. We might not agree at the end, but maybe I'll understand better. Poke holes in my arguments PLEEAAAAAASE.. I'm not being facitious here. I would be a much happyer man if tommorrow I could wake up understand middle eastern policy better, or even agree with it.

A caviot here. I don't really believe God loves Jews more than Christians, Arabs, Moslems, Atheists or Agnostics. I think God loves all his children. If that's going to be a problem for you we might not want to get into it.

As for the tone. Tell me if I'm being insulting too. I get a little sarchastic, and I think all that "God people" talk is over the top; but that's how Israeli's feel isn't it? Correct me, if you don't. Correct me if Israeli's don't. I only get what I see on the tube here and from the books I've read.

Lastly let me say. While I strongly disagree with Israel's bombing of Beruit, Power plants, water plants, 3 million folks without air condition, refrigeration for food, water for drinking and sewage. Folks who do live in a democracy, a country not founded along religous lines; I also believe Israel has the right to strike back at Hezbala, air strikes, incursions whatever. The fact that we pay for all the weapons doesn't mean you shouldn't use them to defend yourselves. It's my precieved overreaction which bothers me about Israels current actions. Please elaborate on that too. Is it not an over reaction? Why bomb the Christian sections of Beruit? I believe and Israel had demonstrated, they're military is first rate and they don't usually make stupid mistake. What am I missing here?

Anyway, there is a lot for us to discuss, if you decide to actually read my posts and decide you care enough to present your side.

BlueTalon

July-22nd-2006, 10:52 AM

In 1979 Iran kidnapped over 400 US civilians. We did not bomb Iran.
We should have. Don't point to an abysmal failure on our part as a reason for the Israelis to do or not do anything.

979guy

July-22nd-2006, 10:53 AM

Jews in Iran don't have it as bad as Jews in every other Muslim Middle Eastern country. Iran has the largest (but still pretty small) Jewish community in the non-Israeli middle eastern countries. They are discriminated against, but to compare Iranian treatment of Jews to Nazi treatment of Jews is a bit on the hysterical side.

I did not compare Iranian treatment of Jews to the Nazi treatment of Jews.
I did compare the Hezbollah's and for that matter Iran's bigotry and goals regarding the Jews in Israel to that of the Nazis.

Hezbollah kills Jews becasue they are Jews and not becasue of any other reason - as have the Nazis . That's because we're sons of pigs and apes. Hoo hoo, oink.

Prosperity

July-22nd-2006, 11:08 AM

I did not compare Iranian treatment of Jews to the Nazi treatment of Jews.
I did compare the Hezbollah's and for that matter Iran's bigotry and goals regarding the Jews in Israel to that of the Nazis.

Hezbollah kills Jews becasue they are Jews and not becasue of any other reason - as have the Nazis . That's because we're sons of pigs and apes. Hoo hoo, oink.

As you may have seen, I was quoting someone else.

EDIT: the IR's official position/goal on Israel is not comparable to Nazis. The obvious reason is that Nazis were killing their own Jewish citizens as well as Jewish citizens of other nations, but the Jews were minorities and not a nation-state such as Israel. Iran's position is against the existence of Israel as a nation-state, not the existence/life of the Jews themselves.

JMS

July-22nd-2006, 11:16 AM

The Israelis have tried for over 60 years to deal with these uncivilized muslim arab pigs and it has gotten them squat. The Israelis are our only allies over there, Bush said (like u can believ anything he says) either u are with us or u are against us, the Israelis are with us we must be with them

Well they're bombing Christians in Lebenon now, are Christians uncivilized pigs too? Or did you mean Arab's in general are pigs and unworthy of human rights and respect?

it has gotten them squat.

It got them an entire country. It's got them peace with Egypt for 30 years. It's gotten them peace with Jordan. Or are those "Muslim Arab pigs" better than these "Muslim Arab Pigs".

The Israelis are our only allies over there, Bush said (like u can believ anything he says) either u are with us or u are against us, the Israelis are with us we must be with them

American Allies in the Middle East..... Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qutar, the emirates, Also, Lebenon is a peaceful pro western democracy man. We give them foreign aid. We don't give them Billions for they're military but they don't have much of a military. I don't know what you're talking about here other than racial slurs and hatred. Certainly you don't have any facts.

either u are with us or u are against us,

Wasn't that the same speech where Bush said we were going on a "crusade", before someone at the State department kicked in the door and got him to recant? Are you actually trying to reason by quoting George Bush? Dude, that's embarressing, I hope you're embarrased because if you change the word Arab to Jew in your post it comes across as something a white hooded red neck would say in the deep south in the 1930's.

skinthemboys

July-22nd-2006, 11:20 AM

Attention!! To you hezbollah defenders. They will hire you if you wish. They are running out of suicide bombers. And yes, If you are not for Israel in this case, You are for Hezbollah. Paint the picture as pretty as you wish, elaborate with your long report like post with facts from 50 years ago. The bottom line is, Israel (unlike you I take it) Has the fortitude and ahem, Balls to kick some terrorist ass. I like that. No. I love that. Attention Israel, Not all americans have turned to cream puff pie. There are a great many of us who love the action you are taking. I hate that you were forced to take this action but I am on happy SOB that you have responded to these terrorist like this. It is long overdue.

iheartskins

July-22nd-2006, 11:22 AM

Let's keep the incendiary rhetoric elsewhere guys. Discuss the topic.

10,000

nelms

July-22nd-2006, 11:29 AM

Iran's position is against the existence of Israel as a nation-state, not the existence/life of the Jews themselves.
That's the biggest load of crap I have ever seen on this message board. You actually have the nerve to think people are really that stupid to believe that. :doh:

DCsportsfan53

July-22nd-2006, 11:34 AM

That's the biggest load of crap I have ever seen on this message board. You actually have the nerve to think people are really that stupid to believe that. :doh:

Well, what do you know, I'm actually agreeing with Nelms? :D He's right though, to try and say Iran has no problems with Jews, just Israel is bull**** at it's highest form.

Prosperity

July-22nd-2006, 11:45 AM

Well, what do you know, I'm actually agreeing with Nelms? :D He's right though, to try and say Iran has no problems with Jews, just Israel is bull**** at it's highest form.

If that is what I was saying you are right, of course time and time again people completely ignore what I actually say and then put in what would have been convenient for me to say. Or maybe they are just dense or dull? I will give you the benefit of the doubt until you prove otherwise though.

"He's right though, to try and say Iran has no problems with Jews, just Israel is bull**** at it's highest form."

Go back and read my posts if you want some sort of level headed discussion. I never said that. The world isn't black and white you know, it isn't like you either love Jews or you are a Nazi that wants to kill them. If the IR wanted a holocaust it would have started with Iranian Jews.

Birdlives

July-22nd-2006, 12:51 PM

Mr. JMS,
I do sincerely apologize if you think my comments implied that I think you're anti-semitic. At the same time you have offered up more than one point as fact that is either speculation on your part (as with the repatriation of Soviet Jews), or are incomplete facts.
Here is one example and I will relay more when I have time.
You have repeatedly said:

These Russian Jews were absorbed rather than absorbing some of the several million Arabs who were born and lived for generations in what is now Israeli territory and who's homes were forcefully taken from them. I'm not saying anything that's controversial here. Ask any Israeli. The reason why the Arabs in the occupied territory are not permitted the right of return, to their homes, which are now Israeli homes, is because if you let the Arabs come back Israel is no longer a Jewish country. And A Jewish homeland is the point!

But at the same time you leave out the fact that this is not an ongoing issue. Israelis are not currently taking Arab land and refusing Arabs to return to this land. This land was seized after the formation of Israel in 1948. The refusal to return is because the Arabs who lost this land attacked the Jews and lost the war that allowed the founding of Israel.

What you are stating is misleading at best. The refusal of return in Israel is akin to the Americans refusing to return British land in the original 13 colonies after winning the Revolutionary War.

Like I said before. The Palistinians and surrounding Arab nations started a war, lost that war, and are now complaining about the outcome. The refusal of return is not becuase the Jews are afraid of overpopulation by Arabs, its because they won a war for their own independence allowing them to claim said land. If you're going to bring up facts, at least have the decency to put these facts in their proper context.

JMS

July-22nd-2006, 01:29 PM

But at the same time you leave out the fact that this is not an ongoing issue. Israelis are not currently taking Arab land and refusing Arabs to return to this land.

So you conceed all my previous points.. and take issue that some of the facts are ancient history... 50, 40, 30, and 20 years old. That's not that old. However let's talk about your present day point...

My mistake, Israel isn't still building homes in the occupied teritories? What do they call it.. Natural growth? Oh and that twelve foot high cement "fense" with guard towers you built; No Arab lands expropriated for that?

Or do you mean at this time, like in as of this day or this particular minute of this day, Saterday being the sabath and all?

Certainly Israel took by force of arms most of the land of current Israel. Certainly they continue to take, anex and occupy Arab land today. I will give you that the rate of the expropriations have slowed.

This land was seized after the formation of Israel in 1948. The refusal to return is because the Arabs who lost this land attacked the Jews and lost the war that allowed the founding of Israel.

This land was seized before, during and after the 1948 war. Golain heights , Jerusalem and the West Bank; were all taken decades after the 48 war. And those areas contain most the land that is being argued about today. The "fense" which cuts directly across many arab towns separating them from there farms homes relitives etc is an ongoing exersize.

The refusal to return is because the Arabs who lost this land attacked the Jews and lost the war that allowed the founding of Israel.

Germans and Japaneese attacked America prior to 1947 and we let them go home. Isn't their a UN resolution calling on Israel to adhere to International law and allow refugee's to go home... Or is it your contention that ll the women and children who are now in their 60's were in fact armed combatants in Israels 1947 war?

The refusal of return in Israel is akin to the Americans refusing to return British land in the original 13 colonies after winning the Revolutionary War.

Except for the fact that Americans actually lived in the 13 colonies prior to the revolutionary war and not the British. Other than that it's exactly like that.

If you're going to bring up facts, at least have the decency to put these facts in their proper context.

I do try.

Seabee1973

July-22nd-2006, 02:13 PM

Tell that to the 91 killed and 45 injured when the Irgun lead by a young Menachem Begin bombed the King David Hotel. Begin became Prime minister of Israel. The freaking Palistinians aren't the only onese who have resorted to terrorism here.

I would also say that Israel currently has no need for anonoumous bombs, or even suicide bombers; F-16 and air to ground missles work a lot better. For every 10 deaths in Israel over the last 7 years, 9 are Arab.....

Why are we involved?

what you forgot to mention is the british went through and confiscated a lot of the the isreali paprs and documents and placed over 2500 of the them on house arrest. what you also failed to mention is there was a call to the hotel saying a bomb would be detonated. the reason no one responded was because no one wanted to take orders from jews.

Seabee1973

July-22nd-2006, 02:23 PM

Why not we do it. We pass taxes and retro apply them. Israel could have extradited him. They didn't because they choose not to. I don't give them a pass because they feel really bad about it.

If I was the kids father who was slain I'd be in Israel right now sitting outside Sheinbein local block busters where he works four days a week with a hand gun. Now that would be justice.

The main point here is when you deny responsibility for whatever reason, you loose responsibility. So would an American Judge be required to hold without bond any Jew who appears before him because he knows that the dude can jump a plane to Israel and avoid US law. He certainly would. And that's the what should piss off all American Jews. Being grouped with this criminal because of Israels failure to separate them from this punk killer.

taxes is a totally different subject it is just like when some of the states Ill use california for example changed there life in prison laws to being able to get the death penalty it didnt automatically mean that those behind bars for autroucous crimes could be retried and get the death penalty

Seabee1973

July-22nd-2006, 02:38 PM

Sorry dude, Israel could care less about killing civilians. They tell civilians to leave in cars (not trucks or motorcycles or they will risk being targets), but these civilians have no gas, no money, and no means to leave.

Warplanes and helicopters attacking the countries capital is bound to cause civilian deaths. Israel is using the abduction of the 2 soliders to use disproportionate force and as an excuse to invade Lebanon. Its bull****.

People are screaming at Israel because they are killing at 10 times the rate of the Lebanese. Its not a fair fight, Lebanese civilians are paying the price, and its just going to incite more hatred for the US in the long run for supporting these punks. That's why I think we would be best served by cutting our alliance with them and giving them the same amount of financial aid that we do the other countries in the region.

Keeping the poor, poor is what we have been doing with Lebanon and the Palestinians...its not the answer.

Listen to what you are saying never is there a fair fight never. Of course civilians will die when there is a war fact of life but how many of those are really civilian how many of those are military and how many of those are hisballah? those numbers are not being reported it is just being reported as one to make it sound worse there could be 30 lebanese civilian killed 10 military and 200 some hizballah. we wont know till an actual report is given

Seabee1973

July-22nd-2006, 02:42 PM

Israel is still in violation on UN resolution 242, from seizing lands in 1967 unlawfully.

Of course, the US vetos any measure the UN has tried to take to enforce that resolution in the security council.

That's one thing I'm shameful of, my country is a puppet of Israel.

How many un resolutions has been placed on those attacking israel?

Cdowwe

July-22nd-2006, 02:45 PM

Good discussion here. Learning alot. The yellow writing is killing me JMS. White writing on black background is the easiest to read. So basically I dont read all of what you write for this reason. Im sure you have good stuff to say, but can you do it in white?

979guy

July-22nd-2006, 03:03 PM

"Why support Israel?", you ask.

Here's one good reason, which has nothing to do with Israel:

Playground for Tehran, Syria

By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times, Kuwait

LEBANON is under attack from Israel. Its economic infrastructure is being destroyed. Lebanese politicians cannot hide their feelings because Hassan Nasrallah has done some grave miscalculations under instructions from the outside. Nasrallah has dragged Lebanon and its people into misfortune. In spite of the destruction caused by Israel, Lebanese politicians don’t want to be frank with their people and tell them that they should not support Nasrallah’s decision to declare war on Israel. Nasrallah has hijacked the authority of the Lebanese government to have control over the people of Lebanon while Lebanese politicians continue to remain mute spectators without voicing their true feelings. Maybe they are afraid their popularity will take a beating if they confront Israel.

These politicians don’t know the public opinion. They don’t know the views of the Lebanese people towards the current happenings. If there are a correct statistics Lebanese politicians will know that their people are suffering from the division of authority between Nasrallah and the legitimate government. If they count the number of those who have the power of the state in various areas, Lebanese politicians will know that a ship captained by two men cannot reach its destination safely. The people of Lebanon know that their security has been violated and the political decisions of their country are divided among more than one authority.

The fate of the Lebanese is in the hands of a handful of reckless adventurers, who have prevented Arabs from making well-judged decisions. These adventurers have forced Saudi Arabia to issue a statement holding them responsible for the current episode of confrontation with Israel. Saudi Arabia’s stance on this issue has made Arab leaders fight each other during the Arab Summit. Arab leaders should be frank in admitting the sufferings of the people of Lebanon. For over 58 years Arabs have been trying to fight Israel. During this period they took a decision according to international resolutions to ensure there was no war. However, recently some organizations like the Hezbollah and Hamas Movement have been trying to violate these resolutions by calling for war.

This is the reason why Lebanon and Palestine have turned into battlegrounds for certain foreign countries at the expense of their own people. Unfortunately Iran and Syria are fighting the international community, especially the United States, in Lebanon and Palestine. Nobody is benefiting from this conflict, except Tehran and Damascus, which are using this issue to solve their problems with the international community without any care for the blood that is being shed in Lebanon and Palestine. The ultimate sufferers in the ongoing crisis are Lebanon and Palestine, which are back to square one.

Birdlives

July-22nd-2006, 06:46 PM

So you conceed all my previous points

I do try.

Firstly, no I dont concede even half the points that you've tried to make in this thread and its rather insulting for you to put these words in my mouth. Quite frankly if you're not even going to read what I wrote and comment anyways there's no point in discussing anything with you.

Birdlives

July-22nd-2006, 06:57 PM

My mistake, Israel isn't still building homes in the occupied teritories? What do they call it.. Natural growth? Oh and that twelve foot high cement "fense" with guard towers you built; No Arab lands expropriated for that?

Or do you mean at this time, like in as of this day or this particular minute of this day, Saterday being the sabath and all?

Now at this point you're just being condescending because you're losing this debate. As a matter of fact though, no Israel is not still building settlements in the occupied territories.

I built? Why don't you make more gross assumptions. I'm American and have lived in the USA since I was two. I was born in Bogota Colombia where I lived until I came here to the US. I've never been to Israel, not even once. Do you always assume so much of people you've never met?

Certainly Israel took by force of arms most of the land of current Israel. Certainly they continue to take, anex and occupy Arab land today. I will give you that the rate of the expropriations have slowed.

What land have they annexed in the past 30 years? The last land they "annexed" was a result of an attack by Syria, Jordan, and Egypt, a war they started and lost.

This land was seized before, during and after the 1948 war. Golain heights , Jerusalem and the West Bank; were all taken decades after the 48 war. And those areas contain most the land that is being argued about today. The "fense" which cuts directly across many arab towns separating them from there farms homes relitives etc is an ongoing exersize.

Again, land taken in war, a war that was started by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

Germans and Japaneese attacked America prior to 1947 and we let them go home. Isn't their a UN resolution calling on Israel to adhere to International law and allow refugee's to go home... Or is it your contention that ll the women and children who are now in their 60's were in fact armed combatants in Israels 1947 war?.

This doesn't even make any sense.

Except for the fact that Americans actually lived in the 13 colonies prior to the revolutionary war and not the British. Other than that it's exactly like that.

Wrong again. Much land was royal land owned by King George that was seized by the Americans.

909997

July-22nd-2006, 07:05 PM

CurseReversed

July-23rd-2006, 12:45 AM

Thats a pretty simplistic and impractical logic to use 909997. The fact is that war does solve alot especially when you are warring against those who wish to destroy you. Nothing but war was going to stop hitler or japan or north korea or any other army bent on conquest. Sometimes the best and only recourse is to fight, like it or not.

herrmag

July-23rd-2006, 02:55 AM

aszumilo

July-23rd-2006, 03:26 AM

Except for the fact that Americans actually lived in the 13 colonies prior to the revolutionary war and not the British. Other than that it's exactly like that.

Actually, there were not Americans, they were all British citizens, that happened to live in America, at that time. It was not until they declared independance that they really became Americans.

Prosperity

July-23rd-2006, 07:39 AM

979guy

July-23rd-2006, 08:09 AM

War is the biggest waste of resources imaginable.

Naaa. Heath Shuler.

BlueTalon

July-23rd-2006, 08:26 AM

i dont care if your usa, Israel, japan, china, india, pakistan, or canada war is war and it should stop.

its sad how we are in the year 2006 we made new inventions and discovery but yet to discover war is bad and it doesn't solve anything......
It is simplistic but he is applying it on a global scale, and he is right. War is the biggest waste of resources imaginable.
No, he is wrong and you are wrong. It doesn't matter what scale he is using, he is simply wrong. War solves things, and therefore it's not always bad (or at least, it's not always the worst option).

The problem with his premise is that he thinks all people are (or should be) highly advanced enough that people could be expected to solve their differences via discussions/negotiations/diplomacy. That is the mistake made by peaceniks throughout the previous century, and that makes them wrong. There has always been, and there always will be, people who don't give a rip about other countries' interests, other peoples' interests, being fair, world opinion or anyone else's opinion -- they are going to do what they want to do to accomplish their own goals. And whether these people are criminals, terrorists, pirates, or dictators, the only thing they respect is force. And often, the threat of force alone isn't enough to persuade them to play nice or dissuade them from doing something bad -- force must be applied.

With these people, dropping a 2000 pound bomb down a chimney is far less of a waste of resources than spending the time and energy to set up negotiations with them and subsequently attempting to trust the results of those negotiations... and then trying to clean up the mess when we find out that our trust has been misplaced.

And I would submit that peaceniks like Liberty and 909997 are a big part of the reason why we have as many wars as we do. If there was no significant "peace at any cost" voice, if the country were united behind the threat/use of force, then countries like Iran and Syria (and terrorist groups like al Qaeda and Hezbollah) wouldn't get the idea that they could push the line as far as they want without consequence. As it is, all those sociopaths know that all they have to do is hold out long enough and say they want to talk, and the talk-loving anti-war crowd will start pumping up the volume and potentially incapacitate the most powerful country in the world. Talk about a waste of resources!

skinthemboys

July-23rd-2006, 09:05 AM

And I would submit that peaceniks like Liberty and 909997 are a big part of the reason why we have as many wars as we do. If there was no significant "peace at any cost" voice, if the country were united behind the threat/use of force, then countries like Iran and Syria (and terrorist groups like al Qaeda and Hezbollah) wouldn't get the idea that they could push the line as far as they want without consequence. As it is, all those sociopaths know that all they have to do is hold out long enough and say they want to talk, and the talk-loving anti-war crowd will start pumping up the volume and potentially incapacitate the most powerful country in the world. Talk about a waste of resources!

:applause: :applause: . Very well put. There are tons of examples where war has brought about a change for the better. The one that sticks out in my mind would be the civil war. Now there would have been a hell of a situation for the anti-war crowd.

Prosperity

July-23rd-2006, 09:11 AM

BlueTalon

July-23rd-2006, 09:43 AM

Well, that's true in theory. The problem is it will never happen, especially not on a global scale. As long as there are people involved, there will be some without any moral restraint who will rise to leadership among similarly unrestrained people, to whom the ends truly justify the means, and whose ends are self-serving. It's unreasonable to expect that such people will voluntarily truncate their own interests in any form of compromise via negotiations or whatever. And it's insane to think that globalization will eventually lead to a war-free utopia. ("Insane" in the clinical disconnected-from-reality sense, not the purjoritive sense.)

The best, most efficient, effective, and non-wasteful use of resources is to kill such people and groups before they have a chance to spread (kinda like cancer).

Prosperity

July-23rd-2006, 09:52 AM

It's unreasonable to expect that such people will voluntarily truncate their own interests in any form of compromise via negotiations or whatever.

This is somewhat true, but we aren't using "war" as every sort of conflict, we are using war to mean conflicts between very large groups of people.

And it's insane to think that globalization will eventually lead to a war-free utopia. ("Insane" in the clinical disconnected-from-reality sense, not the purjoritive sense.)

Nation states will either dissolve or just become too dependent on each other. Wars just won't be profitable for every side. There will be armed conflicts but they will be put down as police actions, not wars against other countries or large groups of people. I think this is a very long way off, but I think it is a distinct possibilty, and not a "utopia."

BlueTalon

July-23rd-2006, 10:06 AM

Would you call what the Israelis are doing in southern Lebanon a war or a police action?

979guy

July-23rd-2006, 10:19 AM

In line with the recent discussion here...:

Give war a chance

Hezbollah starts a fight, so it's
time to teach terror a lesson

Michael Goodwin, The NY Daily News, July 23, 2006

The scenes are heartbreaking. Mangled civilians, wailing children and wholesale destruction fills the landscape. Lebanon is being shredded by the whirlwind of Israeli bombs.
"Stop the violence" is the natural human response to these grisly images. It's how most of us feel and it's how United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan reacted, saying forcefully, "hostilities must stop." Thank God for that, for if it were easy to accept such suffering, all mankind would be doomed. It's the job of the UN to make sure that never happens.

Yet now is not the time to stop this brutal war. Human nature notwithstanding, peace is not always the best answer. Not when wrongs have to be righted. Sometimes, deadly force is the righteous option.

Like a schoolyard bully who deserves a thorough butt-kicking, Hezbollah needs to be taught a lesson. It can either learn to live in peace, or it can die. But it cannot win by playing the terror card and it cannot be allowed to think it's going to.

Most civilized countries acknowledge that Hezbollah started the fight by crossing the border to kill three Israeli soldiers and kidnap two. But a growing chorus of international critics and much of the American media are saying, as Annan did, that Israel's response has been "disproportionate."

The criticism, and its attendant calls for an immediate ceasefire, have three flaws.

First, to urge restraint is to suggest Israel should play by different rules than its enemies. Hezbollah, Hamas and the other Muslim terror groups don't warn Jewish civilians to leave a pizza store or a bus before they blow it up. They aim to kill as many as possible in order to terrorize the entire population. Israel, on the other hand, has dropped thousands of leaflets telling Lebanese civilians to leave and has taken precautions to limit civilian casualties. That about 300 are dead and thousands of others are displaced is tragic, but the blame belongs mostly to Hezbollah, which hides fighters and weapons in civilian areas precisely to deter attack.

Second, expecting Israel to limit itself to a tit-for-tat board-game response delegitimizes Israeli suffering, as though its individuals should not grieve for their dead or fear for their safety because Israel possesses more military punch. But with Hezbollah continuing to fire rockets indiscriminately into population centers, it has no moral standing to determine Israel's response. War is war.

Third, and most important, the call for restraint reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of terrorists. Their barbarism, including the beheadings of hostages, sets them apart from mankind. They have proven they are not subject to rational approaches. They are not interested in compromise any more than a mad dog will share its bone. Hezbollah and its Iranian patrons don't want to make a deal with Israel. They want to destroy Israel. And then America and Europe and Christians and ... .

From European capitals to American living rooms, one of the great debates today is whether we can talk to Islamic terrorists. Is there something we can say or do that will entice them to rejoin the human race?

Personally, I don't think so.

The only hope I see is that they must first be defeated and, like murderous Germany and Japan after World War II, they will then adopt civilized norms of behavior.

That is why Israel deserves our support and our gratitude. It is fighting for its own survival, and much, much more. It is fighting for the survival of the civilized world against the darkness.

Prosperity

July-23rd-2006, 10:36 AM

Would you call what the Israelis are doing in southern Lebanon a war or a police action?

Small war, though counter terrorism in general is more of a police action. This scenario is somewhat different because Hezbollah is an organized guerilla army, more like an army than a bunch of terror cells.

Globalization will probably wither away nationalism and fundamentalism to the point that groups like that won't happen again. They will be reduced to cells. I admit that this is conjecture, but it isn't utopia (in the sense that it can't exist) either.

BlueTalon

July-23rd-2006, 10:54 AM

CurseReversed

July-23rd-2006, 11:40 AM

BT, quiet down. In practicality I agree with you, but on a global scale an Earth without warring factions will allow us to use resources for more useful things.

Globalization will eventually lead to that in the distant future.

EDIT: what do you think "global scale" meant? It means if it happened everywhere. Of course just one side not fighting doesn't solve anything, but if every side (global scale) eventually stops then that is the optimal solution.

I too share your optimistic view of the future, but unfortunately it is far from reality now. It is so far from reality that it is almost pointless to mention in any argument, it is merely a statement of the obvious. Of course without war all of the worlds resources would be better spent. That is why we fight, and that is why we are in iraq and afghanistan IMO, to set the stage for the future. If we can get the majority of the world on a democratic footing we have a much better chance of achieving these optimistic goals. I for one think we are on the right path but maybe thats just the optimist in me.

Dallsux

July-23rd-2006, 12:28 PM

In line with the recent discussion here...:

Give war a chance

Hezbollah starts a fight, so it's
time to teach terror a lesson

Michael Goodwin, The NY Daily News, July 23, 2006

The only hope I see is that they must first be defeated and, like murderous Germany and Japan after World War II, they will then adopt civilized norms of behavior.

That is why Israel deserves our support and our gratitude. It is fighting for its own survival, and much, much more. It is fighting for the survival of the civilized world against the darkness.

That about says it all for me. Terrorists can't be negotiated with & to say that Israel is responding too harshly shows a lack of understanding of the capablilities of terrorists.

Dallsux

July-23rd-2006, 12:36 PM

i dont care if your usa, Israel, japan, china, india, pakistan, or canada war is war and it should stop.

its sad how we are in the year 2006 we made new inventions and discovery but yet to discover war is bad and it doesn't solve anything......

Sure it does. Just ask anyone who was in a concentration camp if war solved anything for them.

War is ugly, period. But there are some people who don't know anything else. Terrorists are BORN into violence & only understand violence. War IS the only way to talk to them. The only time they come to a talk for peace is to regroup their forces & do it all over again. WE are the ones that are STUPID enough to believe them when they say, "Oh yeah, we'll disarm." There is only one way to disarm Hezbollah, Al Quada, Hama, etc. Destroy them.

Dallsux

July-23rd-2006, 12:39 PM

BlueTalon

July-23rd-2006, 03:22 PM

CSA, I appreciate your agreement, but you might want to stop quoting whole blocks of text and following with a very short comment. Someone lost their posting privileges for doing that earlier in the thread.

PokerPacker

July-23rd-2006, 03:25 PM

i'm gonna agree with blue talons post, but i'll refrain from quoting it to keep the mods happy. :)

Dallsux

July-23rd-2006, 03:32 PM

PokerPacker

July-23rd-2006, 03:33 PM

Thanks for the heads up. :thumbsup:
you might want to go ahead an edit it while you still can :)

Dallsux

July-23rd-2006, 03:38 PM

you might want to go ahead an edit it while you still can :)

There.......happy? :silly:

'Skins_&_'Stons

July-23rd-2006, 03:53 PM

Why do you think they became our enemies ?.............our support of Israel

Israel has spied on us, deliberately fired on our ships, threatened to kill our servicemen, Israel has committed countless acts of terrorism of its own, elected a terroist as head of its Goverment. Israel is no innocent party

Neither side is blameless.

peace with Israel

Is this a joke??????????????????????? How can you make such a false & disgustingly horrible statement w/o provding any kind of proof???

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e11/thepistonsfan/Animated%20Gifs/8afd148a.gifhttp://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e11/thepistonsfan/Animated%20Gifs/36e4c5c9.gif http://www.thehogs.net/forum/images/smiles/HTTR.gifhttp://www.wf.net/~sst97/images/exploseh.gif

Prosperity

July-23rd-2006, 04:30 PM

I still think it's pie-in-the-sky conjecture. As I said before, as long as there's people... But also, as long as there's Israel, and as long as there's America. The things about America that liberals love are exactly the reasons why Islamic fundamentalists want to kill us. And globalization will never erase the border of Israel. As long as there are Jews in Israel, there will be people outside of Israel that want them dead. Unless you are suggesting that somehow globalization is going to somehow wipe out the antipathy and enmity some people have for Jews and Israelis? How on earth is that going to happen?

The bottom line is that the only way to secure "peace", meaning the absence of war, is to roll over for our enemies -- and even that is not enough, as demonstrated by Ehud Barak and Yasir Arafat, with Barak doing the rolling over and Arafat launching the Intifada.

On the grand scale of things the Israel/Palestine controversy/crisis/war/whatever is pretty insignifigant. It is a great for news, but it isn't really that big of a deal when you think about it. It's not even that big of a conflict, how many people have died in total from the violence over the years? 20,000-40,000? And in the last few years it has been like a few hundred a year. A tragedy? Yes, a big one? Not really.

Prosperity

July-23rd-2006, 04:47 PM

Is this a joke??????????????????????? How can you make such a false & disgustingly horrible statement w/o provding any kind of proof???

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e11/thepistonsfan/Animated%20Gifs/8afd148a.gifhttp://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e11/thepistonsfan/Animated%20Gifs/36e4c5c9.gif http://www.thehogs.net/forum/images/smiles/HTTR.gifhttp://www.wf.net/~sst97/images/exploseh.gif

Israel has spied on the US (And has had the audacity to ask for the spy to be pardoned)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

Israel has fired on a US warship (USS Liberty, a spy ship in international waters near Israel. 34 sailors died) It was said to be an accident, but there is a controversy about whether that is true or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_%28AGTR-5%29

If you count the Irgun as a terrorist organization, then you can't deny that a PM of Manachem Begin was a terrorist, as he was the leader of Irgun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks_during_the_1930s

979guy

July-23rd-2006, 04:58 PM

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d69/trueimages/ray_sm.jpg

Jumbo

July-23rd-2006, 09:35 PM

I thank Blue Talon and all the posters in the thread who worked together united :silly: to cease the quoting of large blocks of text. :applause: :cheers:

And PP showed one of several ways to get the point across without doing so. :point2sky

PokerPacker

July-23rd-2006, 09:53 PM

:thumbsup: no prob, jumbo! :cheers:

BlueTalon

July-24th-2006, 10:51 AM

On the grand scale of things the Israel/Palestine controversy/crisis/war/whatever is pretty insignifigant. It is a great for news, but it isn't really that big of a deal when you think about it. It's not even that big of a conflict, how many people have died in total from the violence over the years? 20,000-40,000? And in the last few years it has been like a few hundred a year. A tragedy? Yes, a big one? Not really.
You have a point here. I think many if not most Americans have lost all sense of scale, history, and perspective, when it comes to warfare. It says something about us as a people that we view every single death as tragic, but it's counterproductive to any war effort to get obsessed by those numbers. Where I think you're missing it here is in thinking the relatively low number of deaths in Israel-related conflicts is indicative of the potential that anti-Israel sentiment has to torpedo any kind of globalization blurring of borders. The main reason (the only reason!) there have been so few deaths is that Israel, in its effort to continue to exist, has developed the ability to inflict serious harm on neighboring bullies, raising the cost in the cost/benefit ratio to mostly unpalatable levels. That, plus Israel's restraint. The Islamofascists have proven what they would do when given the opportunity -- and if left unfettered, your total death toll there would increase exponentially.

Re: Your point about Begin being a terrorist ~ that's in the distant past. Begin had moved on and become a legitimate political figure. Israel was willing to let Arafat's terrorist past be in the past if Arafat himself was willing to put it in the past -- but he wasn't. That's a huge difference. Nelson Mandella was a terrorist, but most Americans seem willing to let that be in the past. So there's really no point in bringing up Begin's past, other than as a pretext to smear Israel with the terrorist label, IMO.

Prosperity

July-24th-2006, 11:05 AM

Where I think you're missing it here is in thinking the relatively low number of deaths in Israel-related conflicts is indicative of the potential that anti-Israel sentiment has to torpedo any kind of globalization blurring of borders. The main reason (the only reason!) there have been so few deaths is that Israel, in its effort to continue to exist, has developed the ability to inflict serious harm on neighboring bullies, raising the cost in the cost/benefit ratio to mostly unpalatable levels. That, plus Israel's restraint. The Islamofascists have proven what they would do when given the opportunity -- and if left unfettered, your total death toll there would increase exponentially.

As trade increases and these countries develop perhaps they will have less of a reason to use Israel as a scapegoat and I think attacks will lessen. It is in the best interest of all these countries to stop the paranoia and start decent relationships. I think that part of the world will be too paranoid and will probably lag behind other parts of the world when it comes to my vision, but I think it will happen eventually.

There is a lot of bad blood now, I can't deny that, even though the scale of it all is so minute, but give it some time and it will get better. 50 years isn't that long of a time when it comes to the history of nations.

Re: Your point about Begin being a terrorist ~ that's in the distant past. Begin had moved on and become a legitimate political figure. Israel was willing to let Arafat's terrorist past be in the past if Arafat himself was willing to put it in the past -- but he wasn't. That's a huge difference. Nelson Mandella was a terrorist, but most Americans seem willing to let that be in the past. So there's really no point in bringing up Begin's past, other than as a pretext to smear Israel with the terrorist label, IMO.

Well if I felt so inclined I could show that when people really desire something (in this case a Jewish country) they will go to almost any length to get it accomplished. At that time they did not have a great (or any) military so they resorted to other means. When the Arabs did have a military they used it conventionally. When those were defeated the ones that still wanted to fight used terrorism and guerilla warfare. In my mind it shows that both groups (if you can really divide this thing in two distinct sides) share something that they want more than anything and they are willing to try every means to get it whether they have a conventional force or not.

70th Week

July-24th-2006, 11:08 AM

Question:Why does the whole world bother itself and so many people get so riled up over a country 'bout the size of Vermont and its people? :whoknows:

(rhetorical)

DCsportsfan53

July-24th-2006, 11:10 AM

Question:Why does the whole world bother itself and so many people get so riled up over a country 'bout the size of Vermont and its people? :whoknows:

(rhetorical)

Question: Do you live in a bubble?

(rhetorical)

70th Week

July-24th-2006, 11:15 AM

Question: Do you live in a bubble?

(rhetorical)

Question:Do you think anyone is that stupid?I was just fishing for a response.

(rhetorical :D )

Air Force Cane

July-24th-2006, 11:25 AM

70th Week

July-24th-2006, 12:09 PM

The fact that this thread can go for 559 responses just proves there are Jew haters still around.

I don't see 559 responses to "should we have supported Egypt with 57 Billion dollars over the last 25 years"..

or "should we have 18,000 troops in South Korea for 55 years?'"

or "should we have bases in Germany and Japan, costing hundreds of billions of dollars for 60 years?"

or "should we be guaranteeing Taiwan's independence from the Red Chinese?"

or "why support India over Pakistan?"

instead, some posters solely focus on the Jews- rather than any other people. that is classic anti-semitism.

good post cane,that was what I was fishing for. :applause:

zoony

July-24th-2006, 01:01 PM

The fact that this thread can go for 559 responses just proves there are Jew haters still around.

I don't see 559 responses to "should we have supported Egypt with 57 Billion dollars over the last 25 years"..

or "should we have 18,000 troops in South Korea for 55 years?'"

or "should we have bases in Germany and Japan, costing hundreds of billions of dollars for 60 years?"

or "should we be guaranteeing Taiwan's independence from the Red Chinese?"

or "why support India over Pakistan?"

instead, some posters solely focus on the Jews- rather than any other people. that is classic anti-semitism.

But then again, groups aren't flying planes into buildings because of our support for Japan over the years.

But whatever, keep pushing your agenda. :rolleyes: (It couldn't POSSIBLY be anything else, could it?)

Again, I am very much in favor of supporting Israel, but your comments are intellectually insulting...

...

bird_1972

July-24th-2006, 01:06 PM

But then again, groups aren't flying planes into buildings because of our support for Japan over the years.

But whatever, keep pushing your agenda. :rolleyes: (It couldn't POSSIBLY be anything else, could it?)

Again, I am very much in favor of supporting Israel, but your comments are intellectually insulting... and pathetic.

...
No kidding. It's people like this that prevent there being any meaningful debate on this topic.

By that logic, we should refrain from discussing immigration reform for fear of being called racist against Hispanics, or not talk about affirmative action policy for fear of being called racist against african americans.

zoony

July-24th-2006, 01:07 PM

By that logic, we should refrain from discussing immigration reform for fear of being called racist against Hispanics, or not talk about affirmative action policy for fear of being called racist against african americans.

Exactly! :thumbsup:

artnjudy

July-24th-2006, 03:00 PM

The jewish people are God's chosen people and they almost were destroyed because of the genecide of the Nazi's. They lost their holy land a long time ago and the U.S. aided them to retake the holy land that jewish people, christian people and Muslim people all believe is the start of our judeo-christian heritage. Trust in God and the revelations that Jesus Christ spoke about and you will know why we must continue to support Israel.

artnjudy

July-24th-2006, 03:09 PM

How about this reason....

The US holds part of the leash on the Israeli military and we're one of the very few reasons that Israel hasn't just wiped Lebanon and Palestine off the face of the planet in the last 30 years. Without us holding them back the Israeli dogs of war would have solved the problem of the Arab militants on their border years ago. Through force even greater than what we've seen in the last two weeks over there.

Response.......Israel get's its military weapons from us. They would have nothing to fight with without us. The holy land is not under the control of the Muslims and Israel could not wipe out the Muslim world without nuclear weapons. Please get ahold of yourself

JMS

July-24th-2006, 05:20 PM

i dont care if your usa, Israel, japan, china, india, pakistan, or canada war is war and it should stop.

its sad how we are in the year 2006 we made new inventions and discovery but yet to discover war is bad and it doesn't solve anything......

I know you got jumped on for this post as being nieve, but your prety much spot on here with regard to Israel.

There is no military solution here for Israel. Israel is incapable of winning a strategic victory in the Middle east. I know I know, what am I talking about Israel has won 5 major wars. My point is they keep fighting the same guys. Her victories are tactical. Israel doesn't ( can't ) win the wars, she can just smash up the opposing military and country and wait to do it again a few years down the road. Israel is now 5 million Jews sourounded by say 250 million Arabs and Persians who all hate her guts. She can't occupy with a suffieint force any of her neighbors to ensure political change or even disarmament as America did at the end of WWI, WWII, and even the spanish American War of the 1898. Thus there is no military solution for Israel short of playing for the status quoe and continued stalemate.

There is no military solution here for the Arabs/Persians either. The Arabs are incapable of winning a war or even a significant battle against Israel. American weapons and Israeli's proven effieciency with those weapons ensure this. Israel has one of the finest military's in the world, much less the middle east and America ensures they are among the best armed too. Contrast this with the Arabs who since the collapse of the Soviet union have no comporable arms supplier. Also even when the Arabs had the Soviet Union, Israel typically destroyed their militaries in days when it came to direct conflicts, often on several fronts, (egypt, syria, and Jordan all attacked israel In the 67 war )...

War is the biggest waste of resources imaginable.

But if your not using your resources, and if you do gain tangable benifits from wars.. ( land, money, and natural resources to support continued growth ). Then war can be preferable to peace, especially when the "war" is more of a cold war of harrassment which your country can sustain and the Peace would require you to make significant sacrafices in territory.

Let me put some facts on this argument....

Israel doesn't use their economic or military resources to wage war. America historically pays for Israeli wars expenses by huge payments in peace and those payments times 5, or times 6 after her wars....
Here is a synopsis of her wars and my short interpritation of complex issues which caused the wars, along with what America paid before and after each war. Note I count loans as synonoumous with cash payments because Israel doesn't repay loans to the United States. Congress traditionally forgives America loans made to Israel.

Israeli Wars.....

1948 War
reason for the war... Israel declaired herself a nation.. attacked by everybody the next day.. ( morroco, libiya, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi, Iraq... etc.. )

US Aid..
1948.... no information
1949.... 100 million.

1956 Suez War
reasons for the war... Egypt would not allow Israel to use the Suez Cannal for shipping so Israel conspired with Britain and France to take control of the canal from Egypt.. Britain, France, and Israel withdrew when America refused to support their plot.

US Aid..
1956.... 50.8 milliion
1957.... 40.9 million. %change -20%

* Since we weren't consulted and ultimately made Israel, Britain and France withdrawl, we didn't pay for this one..

1967 Six Day War
reason for the war...Israel and Syria exchange fire over the boarder for weeks then the Soviets — who had been providing military and economic assistance to both Syria and Egypt — gave Damascus false information alleging a massive Israeli military buildup in preparation for an attack. Despite Israeli denials, Syria decided to invoke its defense treaty with Egypt and asked Nasser to come to its aid. Israel crushes them both along with Jordan.

US Aid..
1967..........23.7 million
1968..........106.5 million - 450% increase
1969..........160.3 million - 678% increase

1973 War
reason for the war... Egypt after trying and failing to negotiate a peaceful return of her land lost in the 1967 war, launched this war to retake her territory. After initial success, Egypt failure to push her advantage past her objective terriroty allows Israel to regroup and counter attack. Ariell Sharon, leads a tank counter attack which obliterates Egypts penetrations.. This war lead to camp David peace treaty where Israel agreeds to give up her Egyptian 1967 territories in exchange for peace.
Sadat, Begin, and Carter recieve the nobel peace prize.

US Aid..
1972............ 480.9 million
1973............ 492.8 million 1% increase
1974............ 2,646.3 million 550% increase

1982 Invasion of Lebonon
reason for the war.... Defense minister Ariel Sharon concieves and executes an invasion to dislodge the PLO from Lebonon. The PLO provokes this actions through a stream of continous incursions and rocket attacks on Northern Israel. This invasion leads directly to a 20 year Israeli occupation of southern lebonon. A bloody occupation which is called the Israeli Vietnam.

US Aid..
two decades of 2-4 billion dollar payments throughout the occupation.
Increased payments when Israel decides to stop the occupation to pay for the destruction of defensive positions built in Lebonon and the building of new defensive positions in northern Israel.

One good source for American Economic and Military aid to Israel
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html)

Natural resources with in the land which Israel has taken in her wars from 1967 onward which she would most likely have to give up control of in exchange for peace with the Palistinians and Syria.

In the middle east it's all about water. Water to suport the new 25% increase in jews or 1 million new Russian Jews which Israel brought in in the 1980's. Water to support continued populous, agricultural, and economic growth..

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/images/golanwater.gif

Israel's two largest water aquifers lie directly under the West bank and Golan Heights. The two teritories Syria and the Palistinians want in exchange for peace.

JMS

July-24th-2006, 06:01 PM

Trust in God and the revelations that Jesus Christ spoke about and you will know why we must continue to support Israel.

Exactly, American evangelicals support Israel because of the way they interpret the last book of the new testoment the book of revolations, ( usually attributed to John "The Apocalypse of John" rather Christ.) . Basically there are a series of indicators herolding the second coming of Christ. One is when the Israeli's retakes all of their Historic lands. This basically gives Israel a blank check to do what they like in the middle east, at least with American Evangelicals. The fact that American Evangelicals also believe Israel will be consumed by the Armagedon which preceeds Christs second coming is overlooked by Israel who appreciates all the political support they can get.

mboyd784

July-24th-2006, 06:23 PM

The fact that this thread can go for 559 responses just proves there are Jew haters still around.

I don't see 559 responses to "should we have supported Egypt with 57 Billion dollars over the last 25 years"..

or "should we have 18,000 troops in South Korea for 55 years?'"

or "should we have bases in Germany and Japan, costing hundreds of billions of dollars for 60 years?"

or "should we be guaranteeing Taiwan's independence from the Red Chinese?"

or "why support India over Pakistan?"

instead, some posters solely focus on the Jews- rather than any other people. that is classic anti-semitism.

You are a race-baiting, treacherous individual. Consider yourself ignored.

JMS

July-24th-2006, 06:30 PM

The fact that this thread can go for 559 responses just proves there are Jew haters still around.

So American's don't have the right to discuss where 100 billion dollars of tax money went, and how well it's been spent without being called racist?

I don't see 559 responses to "should we have supported Egypt with 57 Billion dollars over the last 25 years"..

Support we paid, and continue to pay to Egypt as part of their peace settlement with ISRAEL!!!

or "should we have 18,000 troops in South Korea for 55 years?'"

South Korea pays America for our military support and has for decades.
Likewise South Korea isn't involved in actively resettling they're disputed territory's nor are they routinely killing scores of inocent folks with American weapons.

or "should we have bases in Germany and Japan, costing hundreds of billions of dollars for 60 years?"

Germany and Japan likewise pay for our military support, and have for decades. Besides Europe along with the Persian Gulf are proabable the two most strategically important locations on the planet. Israel is not, ( except for evangelicals )

Japan could become our most important allies in the coming decades because of their proximity to China. China is emerging as one of the only countries on the planet which can compete with use militarily and economically. (Not yet they can't but give them 20, 30 years.) Support for Japan is important for America's security.

or "should we be guaranteeing Taiwan's independence from the Red Chinese?"

Taiwan again pays for their American Weapons. Bush approved a four billion dollar military shipment for Taiwan. Taiwan has been hedging for five years because they can't afford it. Or don't want to afford it. And we've never "guarantted" Taiwan's independence.. We don't even recognize them as independent. We have no ambassador in Taiwan nor an embassy. All we've said through treaties with Taiwan is that if they are attacked we would conviene a cabnet meeting and discuss it among ourselves... Likewise we have since Nixon's trip to China in the early 70's only recognized one China... Mainland Comunist Red China.

or "why support India over Pakistan?"

We don't support India over Pakistan... quite the contrary. We traditionally have supported Pakistan over India. Pakistan has traditionally been an American client and India was traditionally a soviet client throughout the cold war. Currently we support both. Pakistan because they are an ally in the war on terrorism and the hunt for Bin Ladin. India because there are like a Billion Indians and we want them all to have a VISA credit card in their wallet.

instead, some posters solely focus on the Jews- rather than any other people. that is classic anti-semitism.

The name of the thread was "Why America supports ISRAEL" forgive us for focusing on the title of the thread! Also..Discussing the pro's and cons of American support of Israel is not anti-semitism. Anti-semitism is about race hatred of jews. Israel is a temporal power and like the United States and every other temporal power in the world will have to deal with folks discussing the pros and cons of her policies. Calling Israeli critics anti semetic delutes the meaning and effectiveness of the word when it's correctly used..

BlueTalon

July-24th-2006, 10:06 PM

There is no military solution here for Israel. Israel is incapable of winning a strategic victory in the Middle east. I know I know, what am I talking about Israel has won 5 major wars. My point is they keep fighting the same guys. Her victories are tactical. Israel doesn't ( can't ) win the wars, she can just smash up the opposing military and country and wait to do it again a few years down the road. Israel is now 5 million Jews sourounded by say 250 million Arabs and Persians who all hate her guts. She can't occupy with a suffieint force any of her neighbors to ensure political change or even disarmament as America did at the end of WWI, WWII, and even the spanish American War of the 1898. Thus there is no military solution for Israel short of playing for the status quoe and continued stalemate.
The situation: Israel is having soldiers killed and kidnapped on its own soil, and is getting bombarded from accross the border. Since you are saying there is no military solution for Israel, what exactly do you propose as an alternative?

Israel could certainly win wars in the strategic sense, but they choose not to. Not because refraining is any good to them, but because winning a war like that means depleting countries of people (killing millions of civilians, in other words) to keep them from raising armies, and destroying a large percentage of infrastructure and industrial capacity. Israel is simply too humane for that.

JMS

July-25th-2006, 12:01 AM

The situation: Israel is having soldiers killed and kidnapped on its own soil, and is getting bombarded from accross the border. Since you are saying there is no military solution for Israel, what exactly do you propose as an alternative?

Well clearly a tactical victory would be sufficient against Hezbolah. They aren't a country. I think Israel is going to have to go in and smash them up a bit. Unfortunately I think that's going to mean incursion and not just bombing and shelling. I think Hezbolauh is going to be pretty formitable. They've had five years to prepare the ground. After Israel has taken care of Hezbollah (which they will), and hopefully stopped bombing Leboneese infrastructure in and around Beruit. Then...

(1) Negotiate, we know what the palistinians want; give it to them. Give the Palistinians the west bank. Hell give them part of Jerusalem too if they like. Give them something to loose if they make trouble with Israel in the future.

(2) We know what Syria want's too. Israel was prepared to give up like 98% of the Golan Heights in exchange for peace only like 6 years ago. The entire deal fell through because of the 2% of the land Israel was trying to hold onto. Kick in the 2% and be done with it. That would give Israel peace on two of it's remaining three boarders.

If Israel settled with the Palistinians and the Syrians, Hezbollah might fall into line. Their stated reason for fighting Israel is the return of Shebaa farms, which is part of the Golan heights. Since Israel would have given that up to optain peace with Syria, perhaps Hezbolah will just stop their harrasment. Probable not though. Israel might still have to address them through force of arms, but now with Syrian and Palistinian assistance. I mean any peace with Syria and Palistine would have to be contingent on enforced peace on their frontiers.

Israel could certainly win wars in the strategic sense, but they choose not to. Not because refraining is any good to them, but because winning a war like that means depleting countries of people (killing millions of civilians, in other words) to keep them from raising armies, and destroying a large percentage of infrastructure and industrial capacity. Israel is simply too humane for that.

I don't think they could. What you're talking about is genocide of civilians on a mass scale probable on several fronts. While Israel could definitely do a nice job of starting something like that aid with America would dry up pretty quickly if that happenned. Shoot, most Israeli's themselves would have a problem with that. Your talking about 10's of millions of folks, Stalan numbers. Comdemnation from around the world would be 100 times stronger than what Israel has experienced so far. And she's experienced quite a bit. Still capability wise, it's debateable and you might be right. I know some in Israel suggest such a strategy. Rolling artilary to push the Palistinians off the west bank.. Still I don't think something like that is not in Israel's interest. Clearly Israel agrees with me too because they've not tried anything like that.

I would also say that the 300 odd leboneese who Israel has killed during these current troubles indicate that Israel is really working hard not to hit civilians. If Israel wanted to target civilians she could certainly have that death tole up in the 100k neighborhood after a couple of days. Still Israel isn't pulling any other punches with regard to civilians. While not targeting them directly she is targeting all the infrastructure which keeps a population alive. Sewage, Water, Electricity, Phones, roads, bridges, ports, airports... It's a mess.

70th Week

July-25th-2006, 07:00 AM

JMS(1) Negotiate, we know what the palistinians want; give it to them. Give the Palistinians the west bank. Hell give them part of Jerusalem too if they like. Give them something to loose if they make trouble with Israel in the future.

(2) We know what Syria want's too. Israel was prepared to give up like 98% of the Golan Heights in exchange for peace only like 6 years ago. The entire deal fell through because of the 2% of the land Israel was trying to hold onto. Kick in the 2% and be done with it. That would give Israel peace on two of it's remaining three boarders.

You honestly think if they give them a few acres of land they will leave them alone? :rolleyes: I wouldnt give those people an inch. :2cents: Its the ol' give an inch,take a mile routine with those crazies.They wont be satisfied until the Jews are extinguished,and that has come out of their own mouths numerous times.

If Israel settled with the Palistinians and the Syrians, Hezbollah might fall into line

:laugh: :ha: :rotflmao:

Thiebear

July-25th-2006, 07:20 AM

Wait: When Israel claimed to be a country they were attacked the very next day right? And at the time the countries had 100% of the land..

So your saying if Israel was to give by the extra 2-3% of land to get it back to what it was before... they would be o.k.?

Based on history I would guess it would only mean the enemy bent on the destruction of Israel would just be closer...

70th Week

July-25th-2006, 07:43 AM

JMS Exactly, American evangelicals support Israel because of the way they interpret the last book of the new testoment the book of revolations, ( usually attributed to John "The Apocalypse of John" rather Christ.)

um,no...

Psalm 122:6
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.

Joel 3
1For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem,

2I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.

3.and if ye recompense me, swiftly and speedily will I return your recompence upon your own head;

Zechariah 2:8
For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.

You see,there is going to be judgement on those people that try to divide up the nation of Israel and we as a country better wake up and scratch this "roadmap to peace" plan and not agree to give over any land in Israel.

and none of this is in the last book of the new testament :D

BlueTalon

July-25th-2006, 08:11 AM

(1) Negotiate, we know what the palistinians want; give it to them. Give the Palistinians the west bank. Hell give them part of Jerusalem too if they like. Give them something to loose if they make trouble with Israel in the future.

(2) We know what Syria want's too. Israel was prepared to give up like 98% of the Golan Heights in exchange for peace only like 6 years ago. The entire deal fell through because of the 2% of the land Israel was trying to hold onto. Kick in the 2% and be done with it. That would give Israel peace on two of it's remaining three boarders.

If Israel settled with the Palistinians and the Syrians, Hezbollah might fall into line. Their stated reason for fighting Israel is the return of Shebaa farms, which is part of the Golan heights. Since Israel would have given that up to optain peace with Syria, perhaps Hezbolah will just stop their harrasment. Probable not though. Israel might still have to address them through force of arms, but now with Syrian and Palistinian assistance. I mean any peace with Syria and Palistine would have to be contingent on enforced peace on their frontiers.
If you wanted $500 from me for something and I offered you $480, and your response to me was not only to turn me down but to also kick me in the teeth, what on earth do you think would compel me to ever even deal with you again, let alone offer you the full $500?

And if you are seriously suggesting that Syria and Palestine would ever join forces with Israel to fight Hezbollah, then I strongly suspect that you wrote that post under the influence of some very cheap bad drugs.

What you're talking about is genocide of civilians on a mass scale probable on several fronts. While Israel could definitely do a nice job of starting something like that aid with America would dry up pretty quickly if that happenned. Shoot, most Israeli's themselves would have a problem with that. Your talking about 10's of millions of folks, Stalan numbers. Comdemnation from around the world would be 100 times stronger than what Israel has experienced so far. And she's experienced quite a bit. Still capability wise, it's debateable and you might be right. I know some in Israel suggest such a strategy. Rolling artilary to push the Palistinians off the west bank.. Still I don't think something like that is not in Israel's interest. Clearly Israel agrees with me too because they've not tried anything like that.

I would also say that the 300 odd leboneese who Israel has killed during these current troubles indicate that Israel is really working hard not to hit civilians. If Israel wanted to target civilians she could certainly have that death tole up in the 100k neighborhood after a couple of days.
Yes, I know that's what it would mean. I thought I made that pretty clear. My point is that it is possible for them to do, not that there wouldn't be serious consequences for doing it (though I really don't think israel concerns itself with "condemnation from around the world," regardless of how much of it there happens to be). My point was also that they choose not to do it, that they do what they can to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. We appear to agree on this.

Still Israel isn't pulling any other punches with regard to civilians. While not targeting them directly she is targeting all the infrastructure which keeps a population alive. Sewage, Water, Electricity, Phones, roads, bridges, ports, airports... It's a mess.
Unfortunately for them, it also happens to be the same infrastructure that supports Hezbollah's ability to resupply. And the Lebanese cannot go blameless, as they not only allowed Hezbollah to grow and fester in the south part of Lebanon, there was enough support for Hezbollah to vote some Hezbollah representation into their Parliament, apparently without any requirement that Hezbollah lay down its arms or renounce terrorism. Same with the Palestinians, only worse -- they voted in Hamas as their majority representation! Can you imagine the resultant furor if there was enough support in the U.S. for the KKK to elect several of them as Representatives, Senators, and Governors? Especially if they still practiced/advocated lynching?

It's absolutely amazing to me that Israel has exercised as much restraint as it has in this situation.

JMS

July-25th-2006, 11:50 AM

Wait: When Israel claimed to be a country they were attacked the very next day right? And at the time the countries had 100% of the land..

No at the time Israel declaired themselves a country the United Nations had passed a resolution which have Israel half the disputed land. The disputed land was less than the land Israel has today.

At the time Israeli's were pissed because they wanted all of Israel's historic lands. The Arabs were pissed because the UN gave 50% of the land to 5% of the population. In 47 their weren't alot of jews in the area compared with the Arabs.

But yes, the next day after she declaired herself a nation she was attacked by seven armies.

So your saying if Israel was to give by the extra 2-3% of land to get it back to what it was before... they would be o.k.?

No that's not what I'm saying. In 2000 before the peace process fell apart Israel was prepared to give up 98% of the Golan Heights. The Golan Heights was land Israel took from Syria in the 60's. This has always been the price for peace with Syria. This is a tall order because the Golan Heights has like half the water in the area. It's also a very strategic location because it's high ground overlooking all of northern Israel. Anyway the entire peace deal fell apart because of the 2% of the land Israel wished to hold. I was saying give back the entire Golan Heights, 98% + 2% and be done with it.

Based on history I would guess it would only mean the enemy bent on the destruction of Israel would just be closer...

Well actually based on history, Land for peace works pretty good so far. Israel gave up the Sinia in the early seventy's in exchange for peace with Egypt. That was hard because
(1) Israel had settlements on the Sinia which she had to give up.
(2) The Sinia was a buffer between Israel and her most dangerous enemy. Egypt as the most populous Arab country was the biggest threat to Israel.

But giving up the sinia has given Israel 30 years of peace on her southern boarder and counting.

You have to give up something or it's not a compromise right...

BlueTalon

July-25th-2006, 12:17 PM

You have to give up something or it's not a compromise right...
So why is it that according to you, Israel has to give up 100% of anything? What is it that anyone else is giving up that makes it a "compromise"?

Air Force Cane

July-25th-2006, 12:19 PM

Some of you can stand with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Queda, Hizbullah, Iran and Syria.

The patriotic Americans will stand with Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Georgia, India and Poland.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060724TyreLebanonTIME01.jpg

Thiebear

July-25th-2006, 12:20 PM

You have to give up something or it's not a compromise right...

Psst, giving up 98% IS the compromise.
100% or nothing is not a compromise right...

And if you give me 100% i wont KILL you..., thats an awesome compromise...

AlexRS

July-25th-2006, 12:24 PM

Well actually based on history, Land for peace works pretty good so far. Israel gave up the Sinia in the early seventy's in exchange for peace with Egypt. That was hard because
(1) Israel had settlements on the Sinia which she had to give up.
(2) The Sinia was a buffer between Israel and her most dangerous enemy. Egypt as the most populous Arab country was the biggest threat to Israel.

But giving up the sinia has given Israel 30 years of peace on her southern boarder and counting.

You have to give up something or it's not a compromise right...
What worked with Egypt will not necessarily work with others.

If I remember correctly Israel pulled out of Gaza and Lebanon as well.

70th Week

July-25th-2006, 12:29 PM

Psst, giving up 98% IS the compromise.
100% or nothing is not a compromise right...

And if you give me 100% i wont KILL you..., thats an awesome compromise...

And I believe that is what Israel is sick of over there,giving and not getting,always on the short end of the straw.Well,I think that this is the "straw" that broke the camels back.

JMS

July-25th-2006, 12:58 PM

um,no...

Psalm 122:6
Joel 3
Zechariah 2:8

I did say Revelation and not the Pseudepigrapha

Revelation 6:2-6:8.I will bring thee down, saith the LORD.

In the Bible, apocalyptic elements are present in the books of Ezekiel, Isaiah, Joel, Zechariah, and Daniel. The collection known as the Pseudepigrapha. Why did you quote Psalm??

in Revelations 6:2-8 , there are the words ; power or crown was given unto, them, him, and orders of see thou hurt not the oil and the wine, who was giving these things power, crown and stipulations of what to leave unhurt? God. Because of the totality unrighteousness of man, God will have His day of Vengeance

Revelations 6:16-17 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: [God is the one on the Throne and Jesus is the Lamb] { But Jesus is not returning here in the tenderness of a Lamb but as a roaring Lion and Vengeful King of Kings.} For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? Fire and smoke, mingled with blood, none will be able to stand, all of mans posturing and great swelling words will fall on deaf ears as the Son of God breaks thru the eastern sky. And the elements shall melt with a fervent heat.
Me Paraphrasing

Israel to be restored as a political state (Deuteronomy 28:64, 30:3 Jeremiah 29:14, 30:3 Isaiah 43:5-6, Ezekiel 36:24, Amos 9:14-15
So Israel must reclaim their historical lands..

Two prophets preach in Jerusalem for 1260 days. They have the power to bring famines and plagues. They are killed and lie dead in the streets for three and a half days while the wicked of the earth rejoice in the streets and exchange gifts in celebration of their deaths. On the third day they arise striking fear in the hearts of the wicked. (Revelations 11)
Wicked folks say bad things about Israel, Good evangelicals keep their mouths shut.

Armageddon. The nations of the earth gather to fight Israel at Jerusalem, at Armageddon in the valley of Jehoshaphat. (Revelations 16:16)
When the time comes Israel goes down in flames..

Jerusalem is taken captive, the houses riled, the women ravished. (Zechariah 14:2)
More bad stuff happens to the Israelis..

You see,there is going to be judgement on those people that try to divide up the nation of Israel and we as a country better wake up and scratch this "roadmap to peace" plan and not agree to give over any land in Israel.

Actually all of Israel and the world is going to be Judged right? The Lamb, ( Christ ) is going to return, only he's going to be pissed and be vengful right... Only all the "Christians" will have been evacuated before all of this happens in the rapture right. So "Christians" don't have to worry about any of this.. right? Jews aren't looking too good though being on the recieving end of Armagedon..

and none of this is in the last book of the new testament :D

Revolations is the last book in the new testament

The book of Revelation or The Apocalypse of John is the last canonical book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon) of the New Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament) in the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

Then again lots of different Christian groups out there. Maybe your group moved the book of revolations outside the new testament.. My bible it's still in the new testament.

frankbones

July-25th-2006, 01:03 PM

Of the 300+ civilians that were killed, is there any estimate of how many were associated with hezbollah? I see that "civilian" moniker being thrown around, but doesn't the killing of a hezbollah member count as a "civilian"? They're not in the military, there is no official record. I'm curious because I have searched for that #, but have only found civilian casualties.

JMS

July-25th-2006, 01:08 PM

So why is it that according to you, Israel has to give up 100% of anything? What is it that anyone else is giving up that makes it a "compromise"?

Israel gets peace and the majority of the land. The Palistinians are giving up their claim on much more land than they are getting. And America will probable have to spend a hundred billion dollars to smooth out some of the technical issues like water, settlers, infrastructure and the rest.

Everybody would have to give up more than they want. Nobody would be happy, but probable everybody could live with the compromise in peace.

BlueTalon

July-25th-2006, 01:22 PM

Everybody would have to give up more than they want. Nobody would be happy, but probable everybody could live with the compromise in peace.
You are seriously overestimating the probability of compromise leading to peace, because you are seriously underestimating the hatred motivation. You're talking about people who have so little regard for human life that they kill indiscriminately -- as a matter of fact, they intentionally target civilians. These are not people who will be appeased by the "compromise" of Israel giving up 100% of anything you've mentioned, these are people who consider such willingness to compromise a sign of weakness.

I'm still mind-boggled by your previous suggestion that Syria and Palestine would work together with Israel to fight against Hezbollah.

SkinsNumberOne

July-25th-2006, 01:49 PM

He has no point other than arguing the points of our enemies..

Any third grader would know that true democracies do not go to war against each other.

Similarly, by the process of deduction one would posit that the best way to ensure peace then would be to create as many democracies as possible around the world.

Ipso facto, supporting as many democracies is in the national interests of our country. Hence, that HAS been our national security strategy for 60 years.

It is not brain surgery to follow the logic- although it would be appear to be a difficult concept for some to grasp. :doh:

Ipso Facto, we historically supported Pakistan while Russia historically supported India until recently, even though India is a democracy.

International policy is almost never simple. And if you trust what is said in public, then you're just being naive. Those are two simple rules to live by.

EDIT: didn't realize there were FORTY pages here. Sorry if I'm jumping in with something that seems completely random at this point.

SkinsNumberOne

July-25th-2006, 02:18 PM

We don't support India over Pakistan... quite the contrary. We traditionally have supported Pakistan over India. Pakistan has traditionally been an American client and India was traditionally a soviet client throughout the cold war. Currently we support both. Pakistan because they are an ally in the war on terrorism and the hunt for Bin Ladin. India because there are like a Billion Indians and we want them all to have a VISA credit card in their wallet.
The first couple of sentences are true. But if I were you I'd leave the reasoning on why we do the things we do out.

Again, it's never really that simple. There is WAY more than one reason we do the things we are doing there.

70th Week

July-25th-2006, 02:54 PM

[QUOTE=JMS]I did say Revelation and not the Pseudepigrapha

Revelation 6:2-6:8.I will bring thee down, saith the LORD.

In the Bible, apocalyptic elements are present in the books of Ezekiel, Isaiah, Joel, Zechariah, and Daniel. The collection known as the Pseudepigrapha. Why did you quote Psalm??

I quoted Psalms because there are prophetic types and shadows not only in the books you mentioned but all over the bible all the way back to Gen. And you are incorrect about the Pseudepigrapha for that is non-canonical writings and hold no value to me.

Actually all of Israel and the world is going to be Judged right? The Lamb, ( Christ ) is going to return, only he's going to be pissed and be vengful right... Only all the "Christians" will have been evacuated before all of this happens in the rapture right. So "Christians" don't have to worry about any of this.. right? Jews aren't looking too good though being on the recieving end of Armagedon..

Also,incorrect.there will be a lot of Jews massacred but there will be also a lot saved and they will see Jesus and know who he is and every knee will bow and tongue confess that Jesus is King. (Phil.2:11)

Revolations is the last book in the new testament
Then again lots of different Christian groups out there. Maybe your group moved the book of revolations outside the new testament.. My bible it's still in the new testament

I know that.I must have misunderstood you for I thought you were saying that only Rev. has a prophetic word concerning the Jews and the end of days so I was just giving a small example of prophetic words randomly throughout the bible but I could have gone on but my fingers would be tired by now. :D

JMS

July-25th-2006, 04:04 PM

You are seriously overestimating the probability of compromise leading to peace, because you are seriously underestimating the hatred motivation.

It's not like I'm even estimating. Only six years ago peace was at hand, in principle the deal was set. Israel and the Palistinians and Syrians had moved a mile and only got bogged down on the last 20 feet. Israel was offering the west bank, Israel wished to keep control of the roads which connected the Palistinian towns, ensuring that the Palistine state could never be a contigous country. And ensuring Israeli's continued dominance of the Palistinians. Israel demanded this for their own security reasons. This was unexceptable to Yasser who balked. Even the freaking United States and George Bush now agree this is unreasonable request as the United States and George call for a "Viable" Palistinian State besides Israel. Viable is code word for contigous.

Likewise, Syria will only sign a deal after the Palistinians do. And Israel has already agreed in principle with what they want. Golan Heights.. only the last like 2% was the sticking point.

You're talking about people who have so little regard for human life that they kill indiscriminately -- as a matter of fact, they intentionally target civilians. These are not people who will be appeased by the "compromise" of Israel giving up 100% of anything you've mentioned, these are people who consider such willingness to compromise a sign of weakness.

You could be speaking of either side with that statement. Both sides have their radicals. Both sides have their moderates. There is mistrust on both sides. As for targeting innocents, remember; targeting or not Israel has killed the vast majority of innocents throughout these troubles. Since 1999 last year of peace in the region, Israel has a 9 to 1 advantage in the body count. If that's an advantage.

I'm still mind-boggled by your previous suggestion that Syria and Palestine would work together with Israel to fight against Hezbollah.

Nobody hates the Israeli's more than the Palistinians and in 1999 the PA worked with IDF to give Israel a peaceful year. Likewise when Begin and Sadat forged peace in camp david, a lot of folks didn't think it would last. Cost Sadat his life, but the peace has held.

The question isn't if it could be done. The only question is should it be done. I argue that a negotiated peace is Israels best option even if it means giving up land.

JMS

July-25th-2006, 04:28 PM

The first couple of sentences are true. But if I were you I'd leave the reasoning on why we do the things we do out.

I don't disagree with you that many deals happen behind closed doors, but I disagree that people can't be aware of the strategies which guide policy. Not that policy is always right or that policy doesn't change.

It's a fluid game, In the 1970's we left Vietnam in defeat. We fought that war against comunists to stop the communist domino effect. A continous line of countries falling one after the other to communism. Who would have thunk it, six years after we leave.. The freaking Vietnamese fight Red China and kick their butts. Then they turn on the freaking Camar Rouge in Cambodia ( killing fields ) and smack the hell out of those Chineese allies. Probable the worst genocidal regime since Stalen. Theeeeen they freaking invite the UN in to administer Cambodia as they don't wish to control it. Now, ponderable this unponderable; the Vietnameese are inviting US naval ships into their ports for liberties and we're close to re-openning our base there as a hedge against Chineese agression. Vietnam is becoming an American Ally, ( not yet, but it's happenning )

As for why America supports India, It's no mystery that China and India are expected to have the largest economies in the world in the next 50 years. It's also no mystery that American industry wants a piece of that future. India is also seen as another hedge and potential ally against China. India and China have fought a couple of wars the latest in the 70's.
Anyway, the ViSA comment is pretty much on Target. We don't share many historic interests with the Indians, what make them important is the economic benifits and their long term economic potential.

JMS

July-25th-2006, 04:53 PM

[QUOTE]
And you are incorrect about the Pseudepigrapha for that is non-canonical writings and hold no value to me.

I brought up Revelations which is canonical. You quote
Joel
Zechariah

which are part of the Pseudepigrapha, then you say the Pseudepigrapha "hold no value to me." I don't get it.

Religion isn't much fun to discuss cause there are so many interpretations and all are heald through faith and not reason. Faith isn't fun to debate for me.

I stand by my original note. Evangelicals support Israel because they believe Israel reclaiming all her historic lands is one of the signs of the second coming of Christ. That evangelicals also believe Israel will be on the recieving end of Armagedon is overlooked by Israeli's who appriciates the the political support.

BlueTalon

July-25th-2006, 09:23 PM

You could be speaking of either side with that statement. Both sides have their radicals. Both sides have their moderates. There is mistrust on both sides. As for targeting innocents, remember; targeting or not Israel has killed the vast majority of innocents throughout these troubles. Since 1999 last year of peace in the region, Israel has a 9 to 1 advantage in the body count. If that's an advantage.
Targeting or not targeting has everything to do with the moral rightness or wrongness of military actions. Hezbollah launches rockets into areas populated by Israeli civilians, a move calculated to maximize civilian casualties. Hezbollah launches rockets from areas populated by Lebanese civilians, also a move calculated to maximize civilian casualties. You seem oblivious to this in your posts, but you also seem too intelligent to be that oblivious. As long as you are simply comparing numbers, you are playing into the propaganda hands of Hezbollah. Israel might have its radicals, but they are not the ones controlling their military action. The neighboring states have their radicals, and they're exactly the ones who are conducting the cross-border bombardment. And their only response to being offered more land would be to move their rocket launchers closer to get a better shot.

These are not people who need to be negotiated with, they are people who need to be exterminated.

herrmag

July-25th-2006, 09:27 PM

Here's the latest statement from Hezbollah. They now even admit that they expected the usual limited response from Israel, and that's it. Had they known the consequences (and this is my opinion, not what is stated in the article), they would have thought twice. I believe Israel is making a statement here, not only to Hezbollah, but to Syria and Iran as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_hezbollah

EDIT: Oh, and for those of you that will undoubtedly say "but Israel raided Hezbollah over the border" and "this is fair play", just remember that Hezbollah is no longer supposed to be armed. They are not supposed to be a militia any longer. Yet, they still are. And I have no source, just from reading through threads, but didn't Hezbollah say at one point that regardless of whether or not Israel returns the 3 Hezbollah members, they would never stop their war on Israel? Again, I have no source, so if someone could find it, I'd like to read it myself.

Sarge

July-25th-2006, 09:49 PM

Sarge

July-25th-2006, 10:14 PM

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/06.07.25.CowardlyBlend-X.gif

JMS

July-26th-2006, 12:01 AM

Targeting or not targeting has everything to do with the moral rightness or wrongness of military actions.

Actually targeting or not targeting is subjective. Body count is what is analytical. That Israel can effortlessly kill a dozen people with the push of a button doesn't make the killing more moral. Likewise because Israel can choose the time and place of the attacks but chooses to do so on crowded city streets in broad daylight doesn't suggest Israel is sqemish or even concerned about collateral damage.

You seem to want us to take pride in the fact that Israel doesn't buy in to whole sale genocide on the scale of millions, and use that as a folcrum to forgive the hundreds and thousands she does kill. And lets' not forget the millions she imprverishes. You want to give credit to them because they haven't killed more. They kill ten times roughly the numbers their enemies kill. That number has been up as high as 16 to one before within the last six years. There is nothing moral or rightous in their actions. It's just murder on a higher order of magnatude than what they face. The fact that the use American weapons for their meiham also means they drack American prestege and reputation through mud.

Every ask yourself why the American Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Vice President, and President have to sneak into foreign democratic countries and sneak away before it's even known they were visiting. Israel and America's damaged reputation are a big part of it.

Hezbollah launches rockets into areas populated by Israeli civilians, a move calculated to maximize civilian casualties. Hezbollah launches rockets from areas populated by Lebanese civilians, also a move calculated to maximize civilian casualties. You seem oblivious to this in your posts, but you also seem too intelligent to be that oblivious.

Unfortunately for your argument Hezbollah has killed only like 17 folks with their rocket attacks and Israel has killed in excess of 300. Likewise Israel isn't killing folks just where the rockets are coming from. Israel is killing indescrimanently across the entire country. They hit two red cross ambulanses yesterday and today they hit a UN peace keeper van. Israel is bombing Christans, Druize and Sunni Moslems; not just the Shiite moslems of Hezbollah. It's you who are oblivious, or perhaps you just count an innocent Israeli worth more than the lives of 20 innocent Leboneese.

As long as you are simply comparing numbers, you are playing into the propaganda hands of Hezbollah.

So now math and logic are tools of propaganda? More like math and logic are tools of reason and your arguement isn't reasonable. If you're upset about the killing of innocents; you have to be more upset with the country doing the majority of the killing of innocents.

Israel might have its radicals, but they are not the ones controlling their military action. The neighboring states have their radicals, and they're exactly the ones who are conducting the cross-border bombardment.

Wasn't it Israel's military which put an anti personell mine on an elementary schools playground a few years back? That's pretty radical isn't it? When it went off it killed five kids walking to school. Isn't it Israeli's military which blew up the two red cross ambulances and the UN releaf truck yesterday? With American laser guided munitions. Israel isn't free of whack jobs, and their whack jobs aren't isolated from their military.

These are not people who need to be negotiated with, they are people who need to be exterminated.

Well then Israel is pretty much doomed to fight this war for like another fifty years until enough folks decide negotiation is preferable than this madness. Remember the only boarders Israel has which are peaceful are the boarders where she negotiated with her enemies.. ( Jordan and Egypt )There is no military solution for Israel to this problem.

dreamingwolf

July-26th-2006, 12:06 AM

what about misfires are you willing to adjust for them, my guess is no cause first you couldnt get that information and second if you could you wouldnt use it anyways. So save us your analytical mention. You have your side you take it and you go with it just like the rest of us. Dishonesty is best known as the one who proclaims to be unbaised and cant make your ordinary water into wine.

JMS

July-26th-2006, 12:18 AM

I believe Israel is a statement here, not only to Hezbollah, but to Syria and Iran as well.

Actually I think you're wrong here. Israel will fight hard and eventually take her twenty mile buffer. But most of Hezbollah will have slipped away into lebonon out of Israel's reach. Israel had 20 years of occupying that 20 mile stretch of buffer zone and Hezbolah only grew and got stronger.

Israel is going to fight, kill a bunch of folks, mostly innocent; and they're going to incite the entire region with more hatred of them for over reacting.

But none of this is the real interesting part of what is going on here. The real
interesting thing going on here is between the Arabs and Perians. Hezbollah is a Shiite group, along with Iran. All the Arabs in the region are Suny. The interesting thing going on here is how powerless the Suny regimes are and how good Israel and America are making the Shiites look.

America has delivered Iraq into the hands of the Shiites who are the majority and who are expected to dominate a new democratic Iraq. Iran thanks us very much they fought a 8 year war and didn't acheive that. Now with Israel's over reaction all of Lebonon and Syria are singing the praises of Hezbollah and who well they're doing against Israel. America's peacefull Arab Allies in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are all afraid of revolution. And if such destabilzation occur Israel and the United States are going to be fighting on many fronts in the entire middle east.

It's a mess.

Hezbollah say at one point that regardless of whether or not Israel returns the 3 Hezbollah members, they would never stop their war on Israel? Again, I have no source, so if someone could find it, I'd like to read it myself.

Hezbollah is a terrorist group who can only harras Israel. She can't threaten Israels existance. 1500 rockets and only 17 fatalities.. If this thing spreads to other nations Israel might have just handed Hezbollah enough popularity to take over a country.

Oh and hezbollah won't every give up the fight, they're a one party issue and that issue is Israel. The problem here isn't that Israel is fighting Hezbollah the issue here is Israel attacked the infrastructure of four other communities which all share Lebenon and is about to transform a peaceful pro western democracy into a pro Shiite pro Terrorist state on her boarder.

herrmag

July-26th-2006, 01:30 AM

Actually I think you're wrong here. Israel will fight hard and eventually take her twenty mile buffer. But most of Hezbollah will have slipped away into lebonon out of Israel's reach. Israel had 20 years of occupying that 20 mile stretch of buffer zone and Hezbolah only grew and got stronger.

Even if that is the case, doesn't Israel have an obligation to its citizens to prevent the rocket attacks? Again, the UN did not disarm Hezbollah, so why let them hang out on the border firing rockets?

Israel is going to fight, kill a bunch of folks, mostly innocent; and they're going to incite the entire region with more hatred of them for over reacting.

Mostly innocent? Okay, that's a subjective statement. Nothing to truly back it up. Of course, many of the civilians could very well be those supporting Hezbollah. Does that make them innocents still? And as for hatred, didn't Iran ( a mostly Shiite nation) already say that they will not rest until Israel is destroyed? A statement like that would say to me "damn, they want us all dead, so lets fight to the death".

It's a mess.

Yes, it is, and so is the entire region.

Hezbollah is a terrorist group who can only harras Israel. She can't threaten Israels existance. 1500 rockets and only 17 fatalities.

Only? Well, like I've said previously, if there was an organization sitting on the Canadian border, and they fired rockets at us, and killed 5 Americans, you wouldn't want them wiped off the face of the Earth?

Oh and hezbollah won't every give up the fight, they're a one party issue and that issue is Israel. The problem here isn't that Israel is fighting Hezbollah the issue here is Israel attacked the infrastructure of four other communities which all share Lebenon and is about to transform a peaceful pro western democracy into a pro Shiite pro Terrorist state on her boarder.

Peaceful as in watched but didn't actively support Hezbollah, but also didn't attempt to deny them their power either. The simple fact is, the UN is mostly to blame for their pathetic weakness. But, Lebanon should've called on the UN long ago to do something if they couldn't do it on their own. They are now, but this is a little overdue. I hope the UN does step in and sends troops to the border, but I'm damn sure not holding my breath. And as long as Israel pushes Hezbollah back to prevent them from firing rockets into their cities, so be it.

Sarge

July-26th-2006, 05:19 AM

Oh and hezbollah won't every give up the fight, they're a one party issue and that issue is Israel. The problem here isn't that Israel is fighting Hezbollah the issue here is Israel attacked the infrastructure of four other communities which all share Lebenon and is about to transform a peaceful pro western democracy into a pro Shiite pro Terrorist state on her boarder.

Lebennon already is that due to the weakness of it's government

JMS

July-26th-2006, 05:35 AM

Even if that is the case, doesn't Israel have an obligation to its citizens to prevent the rocket attacks? Again, the UN did not disarm Hezbollah, so why let them hang out on the border firing rockets?

Yes sure they do. I was just pointing out that militarily it's not Israel's goal to destroy hezbollah. Militarily they're goals are to just prevent them from firing rockets and to perhaps capture as many rockets as they can on the ground. Israel can't destroy Hezbollah buy just going in with troops 20 miles and she knows it.

Mostly innocent? Okay, that's a subjective statement. Nothing to truly back it up. Of course, many of the civilians could very well be those supporting Hezbollah. Does that make them innocents still? And as for hatred, didn't Iran ( a mostly Shiite nation) already say that they will not rest until Israel is destroyed? A statement like that would say to me "damn, they want us all dead, so lets fight to the death".

No it's not subjective. If you're a civilian living with a rocket in your home. I don't think your innocent. If you're a Christian, Druize or Sunni Leboneese guy living 50 or 60 miles from Israel who doesn't support Hezbollah but who's only sin is not being strong enough militarily to boot them out of your country then I think you're innocent. Israel has bombed like 100 bridges deep inside of Lebonon, power, and water plants too. Of the 300 guys killed most of them have been in Beruit. Hezbollah isn't reporting their casualties the Prime minister of Lebonon is reporting the casualties from the bombings in Beruit 50 miles away.

Yes, it is, and so is the entire region.

Oh when was the last time Egypt, Jordan, Saudi went nuts and started killing innocent civilians, and the infrastructure which keeps millions more alive? This mess is all Israels. Hard to blame Hezbollah for such an extreme over reaction. If Israel had restricted their bombing and killings to just Hezbollah or even Hezbollah's infrastructure she wouldn't be taking nearly the heat. Instead she insists on collective punishment of folks who have not control over Israel's real enemies.. Now they're all her enemies, and by Israel's choice!

Only? Well, like I've said previously, if there was an organization sitting on the Canadian border, and they fired rockets at us, and killed 5 Americans, you wouldn't want them wiped off the face of the Earth?

Israel has the strongest military in the middle east by like 100 times. Israel couldn't get rid of Hezbollah in 20 years of occupying Leboneese territory. Israel are the ones who originally armed Hezbollah. To hold the Leboneese responsible collectively for Hezbollah is irrational. Lebonon can't be expected to exert military control over a stronger enemy than themselves, partially created by Israel.

I hope the UN does step in and sends troops to the border, but I'm damn sure not holding my breath. And as long as Israel pushes Hezbollah back to prevent them from firing rockets into their cities, so be it.

First off the UN has no standing army. The reason why countries like Ghana are manning the UN peace zone is because countries like the United States, Britain, France and Canada won't do it. The reason why first world countries won't do it is because at one time or another we've all done peace keeping duties and Israel is just as likely to attack the UN troops if they come between her and her enemies as she is her enemies.

Remember when they tried to drive a tank of the US Marine in the 80's.
Or the time they purposly shelled a Candian UN base in the 90's.
Or yesterday when they attacked a UN moter pool and bunker.
Or yesterday when they attacked two Red Cross Ambulances.

We aren't sending our troops back in there. Nore is Canada, Britain, or France. Israel doesn't want to keep it's own troops in Lebonon eather they just got out a few years ago after a 20 year occupation which they called the Israeli Vietnam.

I would agree with you that Israel has every right to push Hezbollah back and every right to kill as many of them as they can. It's the dumb sensless killing of innocents which I have a problem with. Destabalizing a peaceful pro western democract because you think causing them needless pain will drive them to do what you wish..

70th Week

July-26th-2006, 06:53 AM

[QUOTE=goportisgo]

I brought up Revelations which is canonical. You quote
Joel
Zechariah

which are part of the Pseudepigrapha, then you say the Pseudepigrapha "hold no value to me." I don't get it.

I think the reason you dont "get it" is because you dont know what the pseudopigrapha is.It is non-canonical writings and Rev. or anything else in the canon of KJV is not in it.It was wrote "supposedly" in the silent years.

Pseudepigrapha
{soo - duh - pig' - ruh - fuh}
General Information

The word pseudepigrapha, meaning "books with false titles," refers to books similar in type to those of the Bible whose authors gave them the names of persons of a much earlier period in order to enhance their authority. Among the best known are 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses, which are included in the Apocrypha.

The term is applied to many Jewish and Jewish - Christian books written in the period 200 BC - 200 AD. The Jewish books include Jubilees, Enoch, Psalms of Solomon, Assumption (or Testament) of Moses, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Sibylline Oracles, and the Apocalypse of Baruch. Fragments of the Damascus Document have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

listed are the books it entails:
Pseudepigrapha
The Books of Adam and Eve -- translation of the Latin version
Life of Adam and Eve -- translation of the Slavonic version
Life of Adam and Eve -- translation of the Greek version (a.ka. The Apocalypse of Moses)
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Book of Adam
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth
1 Enoch (Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch)
1 Enoch Composit (inc. Charles, Lawrence & others)
2 Enoch (Slavonic Book of the Secrets of Enoch)
Enoch (another version)
Melchizedek
The Book of Abraham
The Testament of Abraham
The Apocalypse of AbrahamNEW July 18, 2004
Joseph and Aseneth
Selections from The Book of Moses
Revelation of Moses
The Assumption of Moses (aka: The Testament of Moses)
The Martyrdom of Isaiah
The Ascension of Isaiah
The Revelation of Esdras
The Book of Jubilees
Tales of the Patriarchs
The Letter of Aristeas
The Book of the Apocalypse of Baruch (aka: 2 Baruch)
The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (aka: 3 Baruch)
Fragments of a Zadokite work (aka: The Damascus Document)

BlueTalon

July-26th-2006, 06:59 AM

Unfortunately for your argument Hezbollah has killed only like 17 folks with their rocket attacks and Israel has killed in excess of 300. Likewise Israel isn't killing folks just where the rockets are coming from. Israel is killing indescrimanently across the entire country. They hit two red cross ambulanses yesterday and today they hit a UN peace keeper van. Israel is bombing Christans, Druize and Sunni Moslems; not just the Shiite moslems of Hezbollah. It's you who are oblivious, or perhaps you just count an innocent Israeli worth more than the lives of 20 innocent Leboneese.

If you're upset about the killing of innocents; you have to be more upset with the country doing the majority of the killing of innocents.
It's freaky how easily you gloss over the fact that Hezbollah fighters deliberately launch rockets into populated areas, from populated areas. That's the pattern. That's consistently how they conduct their attacks. Israel hitting the UN Peacekeepers, on the other hand, was an accident. Those things happen in war. (During the Kosovo action, you may remember, we took out the Chinese embassy.) But you seem to think that an accident that kills a couple of people is morally equivalent to a Hezbollah rocket that only happens to kill a couple of people, that it's the numbers that count in the final analysis.

The ambulances are a different matter. To the best of my understanding, those were intentional attacks. But unlike you, I am not horrified by this, because according to the reports I heard, they were being used to transport Hezbollah fighters and equipment. Uninjured Hezbollah fighters. Which means they weren't actually ambulances at the time of the attacks. If that report is true, if Israel knew that those ambulances were being used for military purposes, then the ambulances and their drivers were not entitled to protection. Please note, this is not merely my opinion, this is the clear statement of the Geneva Conventions

Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva07.htm)
PART II GENERAL PROTECTION OF POPULATIONS AGAINST CERTAIN CONSEQUENCES OF WAR
(Art. 18.) The Parties to the conflict shall, in so far as military considerations permit, take the necessary steps to make the distinctive emblems indicating civilian hospitals clearly visible to the enemy land, air and naval forces in order to obviate the possibility of any hostile action.

Art. 19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy.

Art. 21. Convoys of vehicles or hospital trains on land or specially provided vessels on sea, conveying wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases, shall be respected and protected in the same manner as the hospitals provided for in Article 18.

My point about targeting isn't nearly as subjective as you seem to think it is.

Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977. (http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol1.html)
Part IV. Civilian Population
Section I. General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities
Chapter II. Civilians and civilian population
Art. 51. - Protection of the civilian population

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

Does this not describe exactly how Hezbollah, as well as any other Islamofascist terrorist organization, conducts it's attacks? And before you get any strange ideas about making the reciprocal point about Israel, allow me to cut you off at the pass:

Chapter III. Civilian objects
Art. 52. General Protection of civilian objects
2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.

In cases where there is no doubt, where a house or other dwelling is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, then no protection exists under this Protocol.

That all addresses the targeting aspect of Hezbollah's rocket attacks. But what about where they are launching from? It's the nature of who they are and what they do. They are cowards, and they hide behind civilians. Civilian deaths (not Israeli deaths, but Lebanese/Arab/Muslim deaths) are not just a price they are willing to pay, civilian deaths are the intended result. They attack from civilian neighborhoods knowing that Israel doesn't want to attack neighborhoods and so they themselves don't suffer harm for as long as Israel restrains itself -- but once Israel counter-attacks, they get the propaganda mileage from those civilian deaths, and people such as yourself get duped by it. Now, a responsible army would not conduct warfare in this manner. Professional soldiers do not hide behind civilians like Hezbollah does. As a matter of fact, here's what the Geneva Convention says about this tactic:

Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva05.htm)
CHAPTER III
Medical Units and Establishments
(Art. 19.) The responsible authorities shall ensure that the said medical establishments and units are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military objectives cannot imperil their safety.

I know, it said medical establishments, not dwellings, but I think you get the point. Why you are so reluctant to acknowledge that the Lebanese civilian casualties are as much (if not more) the responsibility of Hezbollah as they are the responsibility of Israel?

BlueTalon

July-26th-2006, 07:13 AM

I was just pointing out that militarily it's not Israel's goal to destroy hezbollah. Militarily they're goals are to just prevent them from firing rockets and to perhaps capture as many rockets as they can on the ground. Israel can't destroy Hezbollah buy just going in with troops 20 miles and she knows it.

Israel has bombed like 100 bridges deep inside of Lebonon, power, and water plants too. Of the 300 guys killed most of them have been in Beruit. Hezbollah isn't reporting their casualties the Prime minister of Lebonon is reporting the casualties from the bombings in Beruit 50 miles away.
If you mean by "destroy hezbollah" you mean kill every last one of them, then no, it's not militarily Israel's goal. It is their goal militarily to destroy as much of Hezbollah as they can, which is why they are hindering Hezbollah's ability to move and resupply by attacking infrastructure. I don't know what you can't/won't connect those dots. You present Israel as a dichotomy, having legitimate military objectives within 20 miles of the border, and being wantonly destructive for no apparent legitimate reason beyond that. The attacks further north are related to their effort to incapacitate Hezbollah.

Sarge

July-26th-2006, 02:29 PM

herrmag

July-26th-2006, 03:39 PM

I guess it's not enough to use civilians as shields. Now Hezzbo's are using the UN, probably with their consent :rolleyes:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/pr010.pdf

It was also reported that Hezbollah fired from the vicinity of four UN positions at Alma ash Shab, Tibnin, Bra****, and At Tiri.

The last paragraph in the article was interesting....

I do have a question though; why is UNIFIL still there? They are not doing anything. I may be wrong, but aren't they there to "observe or enforce" the disarmament of Hezbollah?

I found this link interesting. I'm not sure that it is anything more than one man's blog about the worthlessness of the UN and UNIFIL, so take it for what it's worth:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20060721/bs_ibd_ibd/2006721issues

BlueTalon

July-26th-2006, 05:53 PM

Ever since the Korean War, the UN has been mostly ineffective at anything requiring military force.

Jumbo

July-26th-2006, 05:55 PM

JMS & goportisgo---please refrain from getting too off-topic with the Bible verse side-debate. Thank you.

twa

July-26th-2006, 06:21 PM

Perhaps Israel is still pissed about this.
http://judaism.about.com/library/1_terrorism/bl_hardov_un.htm

or this
They use the UN as shields knowing that they can’t be punished for it.
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2006/07/who-is-hazarding-whom.html

or :rolleyes:

Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Canadian killed from UN force complained his position shielding Hizbullah
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=30314

JMS

July-27th-2006, 11:40 AM

Israel hitting the UN Peacekeepers, on the other hand, was an accident. Those things happen in war.

Which would be a convincing argument if Israel didn't have a history of deliberately targetting UN peace keepers who get in their way. A history of then calling it an accident. And finnally a track record of justifying their actions once the investigation shows they had a freaking drone observing the effectiveness of the shelling....

Israel's cold blooded. There are few actions she won't perpetrate if she feels either a) she can get away with them. b) they're in her short term interests. Doesn't matter who she kills or who she effects..

I don't know if the bombings were on purpose or not. All I know is historically, Israel hits what they aim at, and she's aimed at both ambulances and UN peace keepers before on purpose. Anybody know if the munitions used against the UN or the International Red Cross were laser guided? Does Israel even use dumb bombs anymore? I don't know..

JMS

July-27th-2006, 11:45 AM

JMS & goportisgo---please refrain from getting too off-topic with the Bible verse side-debate. Thank you.

The Bible is central to why American evangelicals support Israel. American evangelicals make up the bulk of Israeli support from the right. The right currently holds all three branches of the US government. How can the bible be off topic?

gbear

July-27th-2006, 11:52 AM

JMS,
Just to clarify, are you referring to the ambulances in Jenin where it was shown that fighters were using them to move around?

See I have a problem when one group hides amongst civilians or in red cross vehiciles then cries when the ambulances or houses get hit. If you don't want that to happen, don't let them in. If you can't stop them from coming in, then you need to get out. Failing all of that, blaim the gun men for using you as a shield. Place blaim where it should be placed.

Yes accidents happen, and this appears to be an unfortuante one. However, complaining abut them historically going after ambulances ignores who has been hiding in them. I feel the same way about the bombing of houses of "civilians." We will probably never know how many "civilians" were killed versus how many civilians were killed. Talk to Hez, and they'll probably circulate that only one of their soldiers died and everybody else who died was civilian. They 'll even leave out that they were in the "civilian's" home prepping some more rockets. And if Jenin is any blue print, there will be 200 civilian deaths claimed for every dead body ever seen or found in the aftermath.

Sorry I'm just jaded that the side that hides among civilians blaims the other side for killing civilians.

Jumbo

July-27th-2006, 12:09 PM

The Bible is central to why American evangelicals support Israel. American evangelicals make up the bulk of Israeli support from the right. The right currently holds all three branches of the US government. How can the bible be off topic?

I didn't say the bible was off topic. I have excellent comprehension skills. Carefully read what I asked. And all I did was ask. Nicely. I did so because as most of us long familair with the forum realize, you can quickly find yourself in a dozen separate and extended debates over scripture no matter what the main topic was.

My request was simply aimed at seeking cooperation in being cognizant to avoid "too" many and "too" extensive side-issue debates (such as scriptural relevance/location/interpretation) in one thread. :)

AlexRS

July-27th-2006, 12:15 PM

Israel's cold blooded. There are few actions she won't perpetrate if she feels either a) she can get away with them. b) they're in her short term interests. Doesn't matter who she kills or who she effects..
Having 6 million of your people exterminated does that to you.

Israel will not do things just because it can get away with them, but they will do whatever they feel is necessary to protect their citizens.

Israel takes security of their people very, very seriously.

"Never again" is what they say.

"Do not f*ck with Israel" is what Arabs need to understand. Just do not do it. Big no-no. Israel will retaliate even if you launch rockets at it from roofs of hospitals.

Air Force Cane

July-27th-2006, 12:17 PM

This is why patriotic Americans support Israel:

-Israel is a democracy with freedom of the press, freedom to assemble, freedom of religion (Arabs serve in the Parliament)

-Israeli companies comprise the third largest number in the NY Stock Exchange behind the US and Canada.

-Warren Buffett spent 4.5 billion dollars last week purchasing an Israeli high technology corporation.

-Israeli ingenuity in weapons systems have been used by the US military in Iraq.

-Israel stands as a bulwark against fascist and murderous Islamic terrorists and regimes.

-Israel votes with the United States at the UN 93% of the time. Egypt and Jordan recieve as much financial aid as Israel, yet vote with the US around 40% of the time.

Those NOT supporting Israel stand with Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria, Iran. I don't know of a single patriotic American who would choose to side with Islamofascist murderers over a first world democracy.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060726Cairo01.jpg

Yusuf06

July-27th-2006, 12:37 PM

Wow JMS, excellent reasoning and research. Too bad it's wasted on most in this thread.

Herrmag, you seem to love pointing out that Hezbollah was required to disarm by the U.N. However, you seem to turn a blind eyewhen Israel thumbs it's nose at the U.N. (http://www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/isreal_un_resolutions.htm)

Additionally, I will point out that you all need to bear in mind that the Palestinians are being asked to give up part of their homeland. That is a significant concession and one that they were willing to make had Israel agreed to the idea of a contiguous Palestinian state. I asked this question in another thread but, how many of you were it U.S. soil, be willing to do the same thing? I daresay that most of you would never give in until every inch of U.S. soil was returned.

Finally, for a great discussion of the essence of our unlimited support for Israel, check this out. (http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0307&article=030710)

AlexRS

July-27th-2006, 01:06 PM

Herrmag, you seem to love pointing out that Hezbollah was required to disarm by the U.N. However, you seem to turn a blind eyewhen Israel thumbs it's nose at the U.N. (http://www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/isreal_un_resolutions.htm)

How you figure he turns a blind eye?

Yes the UN condemned a lot of actions that Israel took. Are you saying this justifies Hizbollah's actions??

Yes, Israel ignored multiple UN's resolution in order to try and attain security for it's citizens. Are you saying this justifies Hizbollah's actions to compromize security of Israelis? Isn't Hizbollah and such the very reason Israel went against the UN in the first place?

Additionally, I will point out that you all need to bear in mind that the Palestinians are being asked to give up part of their homeland. That is a significant concession and one that they were willing to make had Israel agreed to the idea of a contiguous Palestinian state.
Please list steps Israel can take to protect it's citizens without IDF.

How do you propose Israel make peace with those who will vowed to kill Israelis as long as Israel exists? Tell me please.

I asked this question in another thread but, how many of you were it U.S. soil, be willing to do the same thing? I daresay that most of you would never give in until every inch of U.S. soil was returned.
Do you propose we ignore all geopolitical and historical aspects of the situation in the Middle East??

herrmag

July-27th-2006, 01:08 PM

Wow JMS, excellent reasoning and research. Too bad it's wasted on most in this thread.

Herrmag, you seem to love pointing out that Hezbollah was required to disarm by the U.N. However, you seem to turn a blind eyewhen Israel thumbs it's nose at the U.N. (http://www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/isreal_un_resolutions.htm)

As someone that absolutely and positively abhors the UN, I couldn't care less. The point in my post was to point out the futility of every action the UN has committed in this conflict, dating back years, not just recently. I don't get where you're going with this. Didn't Israel ultimately withdraw from Lebanon? Didn't Hezbollah get what they wanted? :whoknows:

Also, your link at the bottom of your post doesn't seem to work. :)

EDIT: Nevermind, it works now. :)

AlexRS

July-27th-2006, 01:10 PM

Didn't Hezbollah get what they wanted? :whoknows:

Apparently not...

It's about land... it's about prisoners... it's about this or that... They state millions of reasons, but their real goal is the destruction of Israel. Any Arab apologists care to dispute that one??

BlueTalon

July-27th-2006, 01:22 PM

Additionally, I will point out that you all need to bear in mind that the Palestinians are being asked to give up part of their homeland. That is a significant concession and one that they were willing to make had Israel agreed to the idea of a contiguous Palestinian state. I asked this question in another thread but, how many of you were it U.S. soil, be willing to do the same thing? I daresay that most of you would never give in until every inch of U.S. soil was returned.
Um, we don't have a contiguous country. Michigan is not a contiguous state. Russia is not a contiguous country. Contiguity is a straw man, red herring, pick-yer-metaphor.

Regarding U.S. soil, much of it was gained through warfare. I don't know why you are obsessed with idea of Palestinians giving up land, while the idea of Israelis giving up land sems to sail right over your head. By your logic, we should be prepared to sign the original colonies back over to Europe.

JMS

July-27th-2006, 02:10 PM

JMS, Just to clarify, are you referring to the ambulances in Jenin where it was shown that fighters were using them to move around?

The ambulances hit in Jenin weren't carrying combatants. After Israel bombed/missled that ambulance they came up with the story that the enemy uses ambulances. True or not the only ambulances Israel has ever hit contained emergency personel and wounded like yesterday. Secondly, I was talking about Tyre where Israel took out two International Red Cross Ambulances which were full of IRC personell and innocent victoms of the attacks.

So the Ambulances aren't Israel's fault. How about the UN personell in a UN bunker. Are Hezbollah also using UN Bunkers too? Israel hasn't even claimed that one over the many occurances where they've bombed UN instalations. ( only once so far during these latest troubles )

Yes accidents happen, and this appears to be an unfortuante one.

It's not an accident if the ambulaces are targeted. It's a crime.

However, complaining abut them historically going after ambulances ignores who has been hiding in them.

sick people? wounded people? That's who were in these. If Israel had seen an incident of a bad guy using an ambulance then bomb that one. So far she's only attacked those carying wouned folks recieving medical attention.

Oh and your point and Israel's point, "Ambulances sometimes contain bad guys". Does that mean it's ok to target Ambulances where ever you find them? Are you spewing that argument?

And if Jenin is any blue print, there will be 200 civilian deaths claimed for every dead body ever seen or found in the aftermath.

Attrocity claimed by UN observer. UN Security council, including the United States calls for a fact finding mission. Israel says it won't allow a fact finding mission and militarily blocks any such mission. No fact finding mission occurs. Israel claims no attrocity occured. Then why the hell didn't they let the UN in? Oh, and Ariel Sharon was PM back then. That was his third attrocity. In the other two Israel freaking documented his actions! Why do you so glibly dismiss his third, noteing he knowingly and willingly committed the other two!

Sorry I'm just jaded that the side that hides among civilians blaims the other side for killing civilians.

Unfortunately for your argument; it's not Hezbollah blaming Israel. It's the International Red Cross and The United Nations... But hey, what credibility do those organizations have compared to Israel.

AlexRS

July-27th-2006, 02:24 PM

JMS

Do you agree with the following statement:

"Hizbollah will continue to attack Israel, if it has a chance to do so, as long as Israel exists"

JMS

July-27th-2006, 02:33 PM

Um, we don't have a contiguous country. Michigan is not a contiguous state.

Michigan's not contigous? What kind of argument is that? Because Michigan
has .02 % of their population which is not contigous you offer that as justification that the Palistinians should accept a land where they don't control the roads leading to their communities. A land where their entire population would be under Israel's direct control.

Last time I drove to detroit I don't remember having to pass through any canadian check points. Not in Michigan and not in the other states I drove through on the way.

Like I said, even George Bush and his neo Conservatives have changed their mind on this one and now call for a Viable Palistinian country on Israel's boarder.

Thats the weakest argument you've used in this thread.

JMS

July-27th-2006, 02:45 PM

JMS

Do you agree with the following statement:

"Hizbollah will continue to attack Israel, if it has a chance to do so, as long as Israel exists"

Hezbollah's stated reason for attacking Israel is the liberation of all of Leboneese territory. When Israel left Leboneese territory after the 20 year occupation in 2002, Hezbollah claimed Israel is still occupying Sheba Farms area of the Gollan Heights which Syria and Lebonon both claim is Leboneese territory but which Israel says is Syrian territory. This territory was taken by Israel in the 1967 six day war. Israel has since anexed or claimed it as part of greater Israel over the objection of the United Nations and the United States.

If Israel left Sheba farms, would she still find herself fighting Hezbollah. I don't know.

I do know that the Shia in Lebonon which make up Hezbollah have only been fighting Israel since the 1982 invasion turned into an occupation and Hezbollah was born out of Israels 20 year occupation of Lebonon. It seems logical that they would stop if their stated goals were met; else why state them? But who knows...

In general I would note that the peace treaties which the Arabs have negotiated with Israel have been up heald once agreed too. Egypt, Jordan.

GhostofAlvinWalton

July-27th-2006, 02:47 PM

JMS

Do you agree with the following statement:

"Hizbollah will continue to attack Israel, if it has a chance to do so, as long as Israel exists"

I doubt he/she will even address your statement. The answer is obvious to anyone with any sense at all.

*EDIT* I was wrong.

.

AlexRS

July-27th-2006, 02:48 PM

If Israel left Sheba farms, would she still find herself fighting Hezbollah. I don't know.

Make a guess, give it a shot... whadda ya think?

It seems logical that they would stop if their goals were met but who knows...
How do you feel about multiple Islamic terorrist organizations, including Hamas and Hizbollah, clearly stating that their goal is to completely destroy Israel?

AlexRS

July-27th-2006, 02:52 PM

In general I would note that the peace treaties which the Arabs have negotiated with Israel have been up heald once agreed too. Egypt, Jordan.
1) Both of these have governments strong enough to enforce negotiated treaties. Do you consider such a treaty is possible with Hizbollah?

2) How many times did Israel have to smack Egypt in the face before Egypt realized not to mess with them?

GhostofAlvinWalton

July-27th-2006, 02:55 PM

How do you feel about multiple Islamic terorrist organizations, including Hamas and Hizbollah, clearly stating that their goal is to completely destroy Israel?

I think it is great that they state it publically. It shows that nothing they say or do can be justified. Everyone in the World should be trying to destroy them (hamas/hezbollah). And anyone who sides with them should not be trusted as well.

.

AlexRS

July-27th-2006, 02:59 PM

I think it is great that they state it publically. It shows that nothing they say or do can be justified. Everyone in the World should be trying to destroy them (hamas/hezbollah). And anyone who sides with them should not be trusted as well.

Yeah, it seems any human face such organizations try and put on themselves is very easily exposed...

Behold, the "Magical Disappearing Weapons" test...

Scenario 1:
All weapons posessed by Palestenians and Hizbollah magically disappear.

Result:
Fill in the blank

Scenario 2:
All weapons posessed by Israel magically disappear.

Result:
:2cents:

JMS

July-27th-2006, 03:12 PM

AlexRS
Make a guess, give it a shot... whadda ya think?

If I had to guess, I would say no and yes. No Sheba farms wouldn't be enough.
Yes Hezbollah could be negotiated with and diplomatically unarmed if the price were right. We know all Syria wants in Palestinian peace and her territory back ( Golan Heights ). We know most of the Palestinian issues have already been agreed too except for the contigous part. Israel agreed in principle to give up the west bank, she just wanted to hold onto the 4% or the roads leading to the palistinian towns. If the Palistinians and Syrians signed a peace I believe Hezbollah would likewise settle.

Although Hezbollah is an Iranian client, it's not like she could be supplied by Iran if Syria did not allow it.

AlexRS
How do you feel about multiple Islamic terorrist organizations, including Hamas and Hizbollah, clearly stating that their goal is to completely destroy Israel?

How many Israeli's have I heard over the years call for the destruction of Hezbollah, Hamas, Egypt, Syria, Jordan.. etc etc... How many Egyptians and Jordanians called for the destruction of Israel. That's all hyperbalah... Nobody in the middle east has the power now or in the future to even threaten Israels existance. Just like Israel doesn't have the conventional power to threaten any of her neighbors exhistance including Hezbollah.

AlexRS
Both of these have governments strong enough to enforce negotiated treaties. Do you consider such a treaty is possible with Hizbollah?

I agree that Lebonon isn't strong enough to deal with Hezbollah. I also speculate that Hezbollah probable won't settle for just their stated goals. I don't know much about Shebah farms. I'm guessing thats it's the most strategic part of the gollan heights, or is at least central to Israel's control over that territory. I do think Hezbolah could be part of a comprehensive peace their along with Syria and Hamas. I mean every one of those parties have stated their price for peace. When ever Israel has met the price in the past, she hasn't been disapointed.

I would also say that I'm not arguing that Israel shouldn't be going after Hezbollah. Anybody who shoots at Israel, Israel should feel free to try to thump them. I just don't think there is a military solution to this problem. I think Israels combatants have come to that realization since they've changed their tune significantly since the beginning of their respective campagns. It's all about terms now. Remember 30 years ago, non of her neighbors would even speak to Israel. Now they've all had dialogs, even Hezbollah.

AlexRS
How many times did Israel have to smack Egypt in the face before Egypt realized not to mess with them?

Three smacks and a strategic defeat...,
Smacks.... 1948, 1967, and 1972
strategic victory for egypt.. 1953, tactical defeat, but Britain, France and Israel all had to withdrawl their troops and Egypt gained ground and prestege out of the settlement. Israel even had to pay for her expenses in that war, ulike her others.

How many peace treaties has she signed with Egypt which have been reniged upon?

None...

Air Force Cane

July-27th-2006, 03:15 PM

What language is that? I can't even read the post above :doh:

For anyone who doesn't know who to root for in the war on Islamic Terror- watch this video. Then if you have a moral bone in your body- you will know who to stand with and who to stand against.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SbssOdruPQ&feature=Favorites&page=1&t=t&f=b

Hizbullah killed 241 US Marines in Beirut in 1983. Real Americans don't forget that fact.

Sarge

July-27th-2006, 03:18 PM

How many Israeli's have I heard over the years call for the destruction of Hezbollah, Hamas, Egypt, Syria, Jordan.. etc etc...

Ahh, moral equivalancy at it's best :rolleyes:

BlueTalon

July-27th-2006, 03:19 PM

It's not an accident if the ambulaces are targeted. It's a crime.
Well, it appears you now at least understand the significance of the word "targeted". However, targeting an ambulance is not a crime if the ambulance is disqualified from protection of international law (read my previous post with the Geneva Convention quotes).

You insist that the ambulances were completely innocent and doing nothing but carrying wounded, but frankly, I find it far more credible to believe the assertion that the same people who are launching attacks from civilian neighborhoods into other civilian neighborhoods would use ambulances to transport fighters weapons, than to believe your unsubstantiated assertion that the ambulances were simply carrying wounded.

Michigan's not contigous? What kind of argument is that? Because Michigan
has .02 % of their population which is not contigous you offer that as justification that the Palistinians should accept a land where they don't control the roads leading to their communities. A land where their entire population would be under Israel's direct control.

Last time I drove to detroit I don't remember having to pass through any canadian check points. Not in Michigan and not in the other states I drove through on the way.

Like I said, even George Bush and his neo Conservatives have changed their mind on this one and now call for a Viable Palistinian country on Israel's boarder.

Thats the weakest argument you've used in this thread.
Speaking of weak arguments... I'm sorry if the Michigan example confused you. Let's try this again.

If you drive from wherever you are to Alaska, you WILL have to drive across Canada to get there. If you are in Moscow and want to drive to Kaliningrad, you WILL have to leave Russian territory and drive across Belarus before you once again enter Russian territory. These are two examples of non-contiguous countries (there may be others), and I would suggest that we are not in the least bit harmed by our lack of contiguity, even considering that we "don't control the roads."

And please, you are way overstating the case by saying "their entire population would be under Israel's direct control." Being under someone's shadow does not necessarily mean being under their direct control. And if it weren't for the fact that the Palestinians are consistently causing problems for Israel by kidnapping soldiers and blowing someone up, the Palestinians wouldn't ever have to worry about Israel shutting down their access to roads or anything else.

I don't give a rat's-hind-end what "Bush and his neo Conservatives" say, or what you think they mean when they say it. Contiguity is a straw man, red herring, BS argument.

JMS

July-27th-2006, 03:19 PM

Ahh, moral equivalancy at it's best :rolleyes:

some folks might also call it reason..

Sarge

July-27th-2006, 03:21 PM

some folks might also call it reason..

Most folks call it moral equivalancy. Equating Hamas and Hezzbolah with a sovereign state is the very definition of moral equivilancy

AlexRS

July-27th-2006, 03:23 PM

It's all just a "hyperbalah," AFC... all they really want is land, prisoners released, etc. Just give them what they want, and they will go away... Just give them what they want, and they will drop everything and become peaceful farmers and workers in factories...

Prosperity

July-27th-2006, 03:24 PM

Most folks call it moral equivalancy. Equating Hamas and Hezzbolah with a sovereign state is the very definition of moral equivilancy

Actually morality doesn't at all come into that example

JMS

July-27th-2006, 03:26 PM

Contiguity is a straw man, red herring, BS argument.

And yet that was the one condition which the Israeli's and Palistinians could not come to terms on. Right of Return, water, and the settlements were all agreed to in principle.

AlexRS

July-27th-2006, 03:27 PM

JMS,

Eagerly awaiting your responses to the "Magical Disappearing Weapons" test:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2735096&postcount=631

Just fill in the blanks, man. What would happen? You do not know?? Can you guess??? What is very likely to happen? Would Israelis start killing Palestenians?? Yes or No? What about the other way around??? Venture a guess, why don't you?

Prosperity

July-27th-2006, 03:29 PM

JMS,

Eagerly awaiting your responses to the "Magical Disappearing Weapons" test:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2735096&postcount=631

Just fill in the blanks.

Here, I will answer for him.

If Arabs had no weapons Israel would be a lot bigger.
If Jews had no weapons, they would be deported.

Let me point something out though. When Zionists had no standing army they used guerrilla warfare and terrorism. When the Arabs had decent armies they used the conventionally. Though they still go their ass kicked. Now the roles are somewhat reversed. Though the Israelis were able to use terrorism/guerrilla warfare a lot better as they pushed the Brits out.

I am not going to argue that European Jews are more tolerant than Arabs from the Mid East as a whole, but the difference isn't as great as you say. And the anger on both sides is often times warranted.

Sarge

July-27th-2006, 03:30 PM

If Jews had no weapons, they would be deported.

They'd be dead

JMS

July-27th-2006, 03:36 PM

JMS,
Eagerly awaiting your responses to the "Magical Disappearing Weapons" test:

I don't know what you're talking about. Some hypothetical "what if". Then try to use that for justification as what is really happenning today? As if one could reason by analogy, or hypothetical......Ask your question directly..

BlueTalon

July-27th-2006, 03:41 PM

So why doesn't Jordan or Syria kick in some land for the Palestinian homeland? If land for peace is such a good deal, why is it only being demanded from israel?
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b370/Gnwacko/muslim_land.jpg
Somehow, I just don't think you have a solid grasp on what the hangup was in the negotiations. If Israel constructed a wall all along the way, and left about 10 meters for a road connecting the non-contiguous sections of Palestine, I'm pretty sure the Palestinians would still have rejected the proposal. It simply didn't matter how much Israel offered, it wasn't going to be enough (which puts the lie to your previous assertion that compromise in this case involves both sides giving up something). Any acceptance by Arafat of a deal with Israel would have been unacceptable to the more terroristic elements of the PLO, and may well have resulted in Arafat's head hanging from a pole somewhere. THAT is the aspect in all this that you appear to be completely oblivious to -- these people are murderers with no conscience. You don't negotiate with sociopaths. They don't obey the rules, they use the rules -- against people who obey them.

AlexRS

July-27th-2006, 03:45 PM

Let me point something out though. When Zionists had no standing army they used guerrilla warfare and terrorism.
Yes, but there was a different goal - to establish a Jewish state and to protest limits on immigration. Not to "kill all ___."

I am not going to argue that European Jews are more tolerant than Arabs from the Mid East as a whole, but the difference isn't as great as you say.

Jews want a place to live, Arabs want all Jews to die.

I'll leave up to you to judge how great the difference is...

AlexRS

July-27th-2006, 03:51 PM

I don't know what you're talking about. Some hypothetical "what if". Then try to use that for justification as what is really happenning today?
No, I would try to use that to show the following:

1) What Hizbollah/Hamas/etc. really want is to kill all Israelis.

2) No deal that excludes destruction of Israel will guarantee Israel's security.

As if one could reason by analogy, or hypothetical......
Wow, it's worse then I thought... Alright, let's start with this:

Give me an example of "reasoning" that does not use analogies or hypotheticals.... :laugh:

Ask your question directly..
In your view, is it possible for Israel ensure security of it's citizens without weapons?

JMS

July-27th-2006, 03:53 PM

So why doesn't Jordan or Syria kick in some land for the Palestinian homeland? If land for peace is such a good deal, why is it only being demanded from israel?

Because the Palistinians aren't Jordanians or Syrians? Just taking a shot in the dark on that one.

Somehow, I just don't think you have a solid grasp on what the hangup was in the negotiations.

It's all been published. Not like it's a big state secret. All the leaders stated what the impass was when the talks broke up.

If Israel constructed a wall all along the way, and left about 10 meters for a road connecting the non-contiguous sections of Palestine, I'm pretty sure the Palestinians would still have rejected the proposal. It simply didn't matter how much Israel offered, it wasn't going to be enough (which puts the lie to your previous assertion that compromise in this case involves both sides giving up something).

Well you have me there, If you're going to go on your own unsubstantiated thoughts which have no basis in fact or history. I won't be able to contribute much to the discussion.

these people are murderers with no conscience. You don't negotiate with sociopaths. They don't obey the rules, they use the rules -- against people who obey them.

These people? Are you talking about the Secular Palistinians who Israel displaced? The secular but mostly sunny Arabs who have conducted most of the wars against Israel. The shia who are the Hezbollah who currently are at the center of Israels troubles. Or the shia Iraqis, who sympathize with Hezbollah who we are arming, training and grooming to assume power so they can save our bacon in Iraq? Which sociopaths are you discussing?

BlueTalon

July-27th-2006, 03:53 PM

I am not going to argue that European Jews are more tolerant than Arabs from the Mid East as a whole, but the difference isn't as great as you say. And the anger on both sides is often times warranted.
I don't think that's true. For the most part, it's only anger on one side -- on the other, it's hatred.

You aren't old enough to remember the last time Israel was in Lebanon. Israel went into Lebanon the first time for pretty much the same reason they went in this time -- rockets coming into Israel from southern Lebanon. They eventually cornered the PLO in Beirut. After a lengthy siege and some negotiations, Israel allowed them to leave, to get on a ship and go to Cyprus. I remember watching the Israelis passively watching as the Palestinians walked from the buildings of Beirut, laughing and gesturing and carrying their weapons up the gangway onto the ship.

That told me more about the Israelis than much else ever could.

In this latest action, it wasn't Israel that kidnapped or killed anyone on the other side of the fences. They were provoked.

Sarge

July-27th-2006, 03:56 PM

Because the Palistinians aren't Jordanians or Syrians? Just taking a shot in the dark on that one.

It's a real shot in the dark. Most "Palestinians" originated in Jordan

JMS

July-27th-2006, 04:16 PM

Give me an example of "reasoning" that does not use analogies or hypotheticals....

Here are a few types of arguments which don't rely on analogies or hypotheticals...

mathmatical
1+1=2

boolean logic
true and false = false
false and false = false
true or false = true

empiricism
argument based upon experiences and observations which our senses are used to collect.

rational logical arguments
arguments based upon probablility, expectation, or personal experience and the like which are logically sound.. irrational arguments being logical arguments where the logic is not sound.

deterministic arguments
arguments where every cause has an effect.

emotional argument
see sarge or blue tallons posts

heuristic argument,
a proof or demostration relying on experimental results

ontological argument,
a proof by intuition or reason involving the exhistanse of God

The Arguemnt..
an album by the band Fugazi released in 2001

In your view, is it possible for Israel ensure security of it's citizens without weapons?

No, but in my view; her weapons alone are not sufficient to ensure her security nor her existance over the next 100 years. She is 5 million jews sourounded by 250 million arabs and persians who hate her guts. In the long term it will not be weapons which ensure her security or her existance. That can only be done through peace; and peace can only be had by negotiation.

JMS

July-27th-2006, 04:23 PM

It's a real shot in the dark. Most "Palestinians" originated in Jordan

Actually Palestine was a province of Rome and was the name used for that area for several thousand years preceeding the modern state of Israel's founding in 1948. Christ was not born in Israel, he was born in Palestine. Pilot was not the govener of Israel, but of Palistine. Palestinians was the secular term for the jews, Christians and later Moslems who lived there.

The Palistinians didn't come from Jordan, any more than the Egyptians came from Libyia.

AlexRS

July-27th-2006, 04:34 PM

Here are a few types of arguments which don't rely on analogies or hypotheticals...

I asked for an example of "reasoning"... only first two (purely mathematical and logical) examples you provided are valid... not to get overly caught up in this, but analogies and hypotheticas are at the basis of the very thing we condsider "knowledge". We learn by making analogies in order to be able to predict by using hypotheticals.

empiricism
argument based upon experiences and observations which our senses are used to collect.

This involves drawing analogies between our experiences.

rational logical arguments
arguments based upon probablility, expectation, or personal experience and the like which are logically sound.. irrational arguments being logical arguments where the logic is not sound.

This involves drawing analogies between our experiences. Expectation actually relies on both analogies and hypotheticals to predict what would happen.

deterministic arguments
arguments where every cause has an effect.

Analogies from experiences used to analyze situation. Hypotheticals used to predict outcome, if applicable.

No, but in my view; her weapons alone are not sufficient to ensure her security nor her existance over the next 100 years. She is 5 million jews sourounded by 250 million arabs and persians who hate her guts. In the long term it will not be weapons which ensure her security or her exhistance. That can only be done through peace; and peace can only be had by negotiation.
Now we're getting somewhere... I agree that weapons alone cannot bring lasting peace. However, they can serve as an excellent motivator to get Arabs to negotiate. At this point successful negotiations are not possible, unfortunately. At this point Israel has to "convince" Arabs that negotiating with Israel is a better way to go.

AlexRS

July-27th-2006, 04:38 PM

Actually Palestine was a province of Rome and was the name used for that area for several thousand years preceeding the modern state of Israel's founding in 1948. Christ was not born in Israel, he was born in Palestine. Pilot was not the govener of Israel, but of Palistine.
Get it right - the province was called Judea until the second Jewish revolt against the Roman rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

As a result of the First Jewish-Roman War (66–73), Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple, leaving only the Western Wall. In 135, following the fall of a Jewish revolt led by Bar Kokhba in 132–135, the Roman emperor Hadrian expelled most Jews from Judea, leaving large Jewish populations in Samaria and the Galilee. He also changed the name of the Roman province of Judea (Israel) to Syria Palaestina named after the Philistines as an insult to the now conquered Jews.

BlueTalon

July-27th-2006, 05:01 PM

emotional argument
see sarge or blue tallons posts

No, but in my view; her weapons alone are not sufficient to ensure her security nor her existance over the next 100 years. She is 5 million jews sourounded by 250 million arabs and persians who hate her guts. In the long term it will not be weapons which ensure her security or her existance. That can only be done through peace; and peace can only be had by negotiation.
Aren't you cute. I suppose next you're going to say that the Geneva Convention is pure emotionalism? (Are you even aware it exists? You haven't said much about it.)

Peace can be had through victory. I realize this may be a strange concept for you, but it is nevertheless true. When one side wins and the other side loses, the "negotiation" is called "unconditional surrender." That's how we used to win wars, before the rise of the peaceniks and the turn of the media.

BTW, there is an emotional element to sarcasm, but sarcasm by itself does not constitute an emotional argument.

herrmag

July-27th-2006, 05:02 PM

Prosperity

July-27th-2006, 05:08 PM

Yes, but there was a different goal - to establish a Jewish state and to protest limits on immigration. Not to "kill all ___."

Jews want a place to live, Arabs want all Jews to die.

I'll leave up to you to judge how great the difference is...

Yes, but many Palestinians also say they want to establish a Palestinian state and to protest their right to return (an immigration issue).

Contrary to popular belief all Arabs or even a majority or even a sizeable proportion don't want all Jews to die. How many do? Perhaps you would like to back up this point for once. And let's not try to judge whole groups of people by zingy sound bites. Bring me some polls.

Prosperity

July-27th-2006, 05:14 PM

BlueTalon

July-27th-2006, 05:22 PM

I mostly agree with Liberty on what to do next. Israels options are to try to kill Hezbollah and/or try to drive them out of southern Lebanon, or to just decide to live with the occasional Israeli being captured/killed, and the occasional rocket from across the border.

Long term, the only thing that will really work is for the Lebanese/Palestinian locals to get fed up with the terrorists among them and start taking action to get rid of them. Eventually, the will conclude that their lives suck, and would be a lot better without the terrorists doing stupid things in their neighborhoods that get responded to forcefully by Israel. Until that happens, there will be problems.

CurseReversed

July-27th-2006, 06:10 PM

I'd like to ask a question, both of those that side with Israel, and those that side against Israel (I hope we don't have ANY pro-Hezbollah people on here, but I guess there's always a chance). What course of action do you suggest from here on out? I'm not debating, as it seems we have gotten to the point of arguing semantics. I honestly have no long term solution to this crisis, so I'm hoping those of you that are more intelligent than I, or at the very least, more knowledgeable of the subject, can come up with possible solutions.
__________________

I think israel should cease its offensive, withdrawl from lebanon then give hezbollah 48 hrs to return the prisoners and cease rocket attacks. Then state that if there demands are not met they will fully mobilize and commit a much larger force to the region backed up by even more firepower as it will be obvious that the other side does not want peace. Now I dont believe that hezbollah would agree to these demands but this will give them an nearly inescapable percieved moral highground in the eyes of the world. This is important and worth the risk of letting hezbollah recoup and possibly reorganize. This is based on the assumption that hezbollah would almost certainly not capitulate to these terms. In essence it would be sacrificing the small strategic advantage they have now and the perception of weakness they would obtain from their enemies for a much larger chunk of worldwide backing.

It will be a lot tougher for the semi blinded people condemning israel to back their claims after israel laid down their weapons and sued for peace only to have it thrown in their face. (which is what I believe will undoubtedly happen) This strategy allows them to escalate the war to the level it needs to be to actually defeat hezbollah while still having a majority moral high ground in the eyes of the world. Their arguments will be nearly irrefutable and much more of the world will unite to their cause putting much more pressure on the backers and supporters of hezbollah. Even the media will not be able to spin this one, I believe that this strategy could be a very effective one.
thoughts?

AlexRS

July-27th-2006, 06:13 PM

Contrary to popular belief all Arabs or even a majority or even a sizeable proportion don't want all Jews to die.
I'm sure the ratio changes depending on location, but in general I would readily agree with this statement.

I think most people want to live in peace, no matter who these people are or where they live.

How many do? Perhaps you would like to back up this point for once.
My point does not require a majority to work.

Unfortunately a group of militants that does not comprise a majority, if left unchecked, can cause bad things to happen for everybody.

Let's say 1% of all male Arabs want all Israelis to die and would do something about it if given a chance - my point stands unchanged.

And let's not try to judge whole groups of people by zingy sound bites. Bring me some polls.
This is not a matter of judging groups of people... We do not need to judge. We are talking statistics here - and unfortunately even that 1% of maniacs, if left unchecked, can really screw things up. Unfortunately in real life, it seems, the maniacs are actually encouraged and the ration is above 1%.

twa

July-27th-2006, 06:17 PM

Cursereversed

I think they already have the moral high ground and doubt if such actions would sway world opinion much....Wish I was wrong though.

CurseReversed

July-27th-2006, 06:36 PM

Cursereversed

I think they already have the moral high ground and doubt if such actions would sway world opinion much....Wish I was wrong thoug

See, I agree with you but despite the large amount of support that israel is currently getting and the obviousness of their moral high ground to us, there are still too many that have attached a moral equivalency to this. They do not see the whole picture as we do because of the bias by many media outlets towards dispraportion and recklessness on the part of israel, but this action by israel will force many into seeing it the way it is, one side wanting peace, the other war. If israel backs down on its own account and stops the violence only to ask for a cease of hostilities on the other side and even give them reasonable time to do so, then many will be forced to see reality. The real truth will be forced to the surface and again most of the world media will not be able to spin it without a serious leap of bias, which im sure some will make. I think this would be a serious blow to hezbollah and to terrorism in general, because yes worldwide public perception is unfortunately VERY important.

twa

July-27th-2006, 06:49 PM

CR

I believe you are deluding yourself, however it may just be my cynical lack of faith in world opinion.

If worldwide perception was enough there would be no dictators nor famine or ethnic cleansing.

JMS

July-27th-2006, 07:47 PM

AlexRS

Get it right - the province was called Judea until the second Jewish revolt against the Roman rule.

As a result of the First Jewish-Roman War (66–73), Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Second Temple, leaving only the Western Wall. In 135, following the fall of a Jewish revolt led by Bar Kokhba in 132–135, the Roman emperor Hadrian expelled most Jews from Judea, leaving large Jewish populations in Samaria and the Galilee. He also changed the name of the Roman province of Judea (Israel) to Syria Palaestina named after the Philistines as an insult to the now conquered Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine

Wikapedia hmmm, should have looked further than Wikapedia...

Follow me here..

Israel split in 931 BC. The Schism of Israel created two kingdoms.. Israel and Judah. Israel fell to Samaria in 721BC and that's all she wrote for Israel until 1947. Judah fell to the Babylonians in 597 BC.

In 597 BC when the Babylonians under King Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar appointed twenty-one year old Zedekiah, a descendant of king David to serve as king. When Zedekiah turned out to be more than a pupet king and lead a revolt against Babylon Nebuchadnezzar returned. This time Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the countryside and, after an eighteen-month siege, razed Jerusalem. In the typically grisly fashion of the time, Zedekiah's sons were murdered in front of him and then Zedekiah's his eyes were gouged out. A handful of Judeans fled to Egypt, some poor, elderly, and sick peasants remained in Judah, and the rest of the population was deported to Babylon It was 586 B.C.; Judah had outlived Israel by 136 years, the days of the Jewish kingdom(s) were over. ( Herod the Great, was really more of a Roman pupet rather than a jewish monarch like King David )

Later in the six century, Babylon itself was conquered by Persia under Darius. Darus makes Syria and Palestine, together with Cyprus, the fifth satrapy of his empire. He allows the Jews now of Babylon to return to their homeland only it is now a province of Persia called Palistine and is not Israel again until 1947. This is five hundred years before Rome and Hadrian.

I got it right...

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab29

JMS

July-27th-2006, 08:11 PM

Aren't you cute.

I appologize. Not many of your points are emotional arguments.

THAT is the aspect in all this that you appear to be completely oblivious to -- these people are murderers with no conscience. You don't negotiate with sociopaths. They don't obey the rules, they use the rules -- against people who obey them.

Just one or two of the many many that you've made..

Peace can be had through victory. I realize this may be a strange concept for you, but it is nevertheless true. When one side wins and the other side loses, the "negotiation" is called "unconditional surrender." That's how we used to win wars, before the rise of the peaceniks and the turn of the media.

That's still the way we win wars. Israel can't win wars that way. Least she has never been capable of it in the past 59 years. Even today 5 million folks equates to a military of around 150,000 when fully mobilized. 50,000 standing army, another 100,000 reserves. That's not enough to occupy any of her neighbors most of who are significantly larger than Israel. Israel can beat them, she just can't occupy them in order to effect real change. Thus each military victory yeilds a quick disengagement either through treaty, or through unilateral evacuation. Check it out.

The US has a population of a couple of hundred million. Our military is around 1.4 million, and we can only put 200,000 folks in the field, and only sustain around 150,000, without serious restructuring. The next greatest powers Britain and France ( at least for projecting power outside of their boarders )can only sustain 20,000 and 10,000 troops respectively. Russia and China are greater military powers, but they can't project squat. China can't project power 100 miles off their coast to seriously threaten Taiwan, for example.

Israel has a damed fine army, but that's the difference between an economic and military super power who spends almost 500 billion a year on their military, and a regional super power who spends 10.

BTW, there is an emotional element to sarcasm, but sarcasm by itself does not constitute an emotional argument.

sarcasm is indeed a week argument. I will strive emulate you and reduce the sarcasm. Again, I sincerely apologize for my juvinile attempt at leavity.

herrmag

July-28th-2006, 12:49 AM

I appologize. Not many of your points are emotional arguments.
.

JMS, I was curious of your solution to end the situation. I just quoted your first line, don't read anything into it, Jumbo called me out for quoting a long post, so I took your first line.

Do you have an answer to how this whole thing SHOULD play out? A solution? I'm not trying to call you out, but 3 of the avid posters in this thread have already answered, and I honestly am interested in your ideas. :)

Seriously, I'm curious, I'm trying to formulate my own ideas, but I'm coming up with a loss for how this will play out successfully.

EDIT: I see Yusuf on the thread, I'd like his opinion too, if you're cool with that. Again, no aggression, I'm open to ideas. :)

Yusuf06

July-28th-2006, 01:21 AM

Blue Talon, it's interesting that you seem to enjoy quoting only part of the Geneva Convention. However you seem to have forgotten the part about the prohibition of collective punishment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment) Selective amnesia I guess.

That's a fair question Herrmag. The reality of the situation is that there is something of a stalemate at this point that neither side seems to be willing to admit to. Israel can pretty much destroy any standing army that any of the Arab countries have. Conversely, some of the players in the region (Hezbollah for example) probably can't be stamped out no matter what Israel does, yet cannot win an offensive war since their only option is guerilla warfare.

Therefore, since a military victory is pretty much out of the question for either side, I'd like to see it play out in much the same way that JMS has described. Israel is going to have to make some painful concessions (a contiguous Palestinian state, right of return for refugees, maybe even agreeing to international control over Arab E. Jerusalem) and the Palestinians/Arabs as well (Israel's right to exist {which they've agreed to in principle but will have to really intrinsically accept} and in their soverignty via security guarrantees monitored by neutral third parties).

Once they have something to lose, it gives the Palestinians/Arabs a powerful incentive to reign in the more militant factions of their cause and not screw it up. If they do make trouble again, at that point Israel kicks their behinds out again, then too bad. However, the way things are now, with Palestinians still scattered in squalid refugee camps with no hope for the future, we are guarranteeing that the only hope they have, Islamic extremeism/terrorism, will continue ad-infinitum.

Ryman of the North

July-28th-2006, 02:00 AM

we support Israel because it is the RIGHT thing to do. Israel tries to avoid targeting civilians while hezbollah targets them, Israel is about freedom and democracy Hezbollah is about fundamentalist tyranny. One views collateral damage as a regrettable necessity One view Civilian casualties as victory because Hezbollah uses civilians to hide behind hoping to cause civilian casualties

Say whatever you want but There is one simple fact, You live in a country where you can go to school or the club and not worry about being blown up! what would you say if Mexico got pissed about you annexing texas and started firing missiles into san antonio? or started abducting Border soliders? My guess is you would want a swift sure response.

I love when Americans of all people get high and mighty about Israel, you wanna know a major reason that your government supports Israel? The US never shies away from doing what it thinks is right as long as its politically justifiable, ever hear about a place called Hiroshima? Nagasaki?. Those were direct attacks on civilians something that Israel has never done but because they were against funny looking poeple it was OK.

Just an FYI I support the US (most of the time) you guys have a tough job as the big kid in the neigborhood who tries to keep the peace but if you would have minded your own bussiness back in the 1970's when Israel was on the verge of conquering the ME (in a war started by the arabs btw) there would be less of an Issue now. You meddled and now reap what you sow. Hopefully Israel wipes out Hezbollah and continues on to wipe out terrorism but we all know its too late now.

mboyd784

July-28th-2006, 02:21 AM

we support Israel because it is the RIGHT thing to do. Israel tries to avoid targeting civilians while hezbollah targets them, Israel is about freedom and democracy Hezbollah is about fundamentalist tyranny. One views collateral damage as a regrettable necessity One view Civilian casualties as victory because Hezbollah uses civilians to hide behind hoping to cause civilian casualties

Just a bit naive, IMO.

Say whatever you want but There is one simple fact, You live in a country where you can go to school or the club and not worry about being blown up! what would you say if Mexico got pissed about you annexing texas and started firing missiles into san antonio? or started abducting Border soliders? My guess is you would want a swift sure response.

"Terrorism", clearly, affects the US, western Europe and Israel significantly if not equally. Mexico and US already had our border war. We pushed them back, set borders, signed treaties, and formed beneficial alliances. Israel, as the dominant power, must be the leader in negotiations of this caliber.

I love when Americans of all people get high and mighty about Israel, you wanna know a major reason that your government supports Israel? The US never shies away from doing what it thinks is right as long as its politically justifiable, ever hear about a place called Hiroshima? Nagasaki?. Those were direct attacks on civilians something that Israel has never done but because they were against funny looking poeple it was OK.

Hiroshima/Nagasaki is not comparable to the current conflict. Israel/Hezbollah, like all other warring nations, will strategically target civilians. The US supports peace/capitalism in the Middle East...It's not easy.

Just an FYI I support the US (most of the time) you guys have a tough job as the big kid in the neigborhood who tries to keep the peace but if you would have minded your own bussiness back in the 1970's when Israel was on the verge of conquering the ME (in a war started by the arabs btw) there would be less of an Issue now. You meddled and now reap what you sow. Hopefully Israel wipes out Hezbollah and continues on to wipe out terrorism but we all know its too late now.

IMO, you have much to learn concerning US foreign policy.

BlueTalon

July-28th-2006, 03:23 AM

Blue Talon, it's interesting that you seem to enjoy quoting only part of the Geneva Convention. However you seem to have forgotten the part about the prohibition of collective punishment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment) Selective amnesia I guess.
Well, I can't very well post the entire Geneva Convention with all Protocols and Annexes, can I?

If you were thinking of a specific part of the Geneva Convention, it would have been helpful for me to know which part of it you were referring to, if you were to quote it and post a link. The link you provided was to Wikipedia, which is dangerous in and of itself, because any-ol'-body can write stuff there (a point I proved magnificently in another thread). But you linked to the Wikipedia entry on collective punishment, which makes me wonder if you have any idea what's going on in Lebanon. In the classic sense, examples of collective punishment would be lining up someone's entire family and shooting them in retribution, or arbitrarily grabbing several people from a town or village and doing the same thing. Nothing like that is happening in Lebanon -- all the civilian deaths there are simply collateral losses, the result of being at the wrong place at the wrong time when Israelis conducted attacks targeting Hezbollah.

But regarding the Geneva Convention, I have posted everything in good faith. There is not anything that I deliberately did not include because I thought it might damage my argument. And actually, I didn't necessarily included everything that supported my arguments, either! The Conventions are long documents -- brevity is the soul of debate when it comes to quoting those things.

JMS

July-28th-2006, 04:59 AM

we support Israel because it is the RIGHT thing to do. Israel tries to avoid targeting civilians while hezbollah targets them, Israel is about freedom and democracy Hezbollah is about fundamentalist tyranny.

Why is it the right thing to do? Israel might not target civilians but she does kill the vast majority of the civilians who die in the middle east. Also because her American laser guided munitions are accurate enough for her to target a building instead of a city, doesn't mean her weapons are accurate enough to target a building without targeting the people who live in that building. Not targeting cities? Wonder what Israel is going to do to Bin JeBeil where she took 30 casualties the other day. They're bombing that city to dust right about now, my uninformed guess.

In the current troubles she's killed 300 civilians and the Hezbollah have only killed like 18 Israeli civilians.

One views collateral damage as a regrettable necessity One view Civilian casualties as victory because Hezbollah uses civilians to hide behind hoping to cause civilian casualties

Because Israel kills with the push of a button, doesn't make the killing more moral. Likewise because Israel could kill inocents on a much greater scale, that doesn't negate the fact that she kills ten times as many civilians as her enemys.

Say whatever you want but There is one simple fact, You live in a country where you can go to school or the club and not worry about being blown up! what would you say if Mexico got pissed about you annexing texas and started firing missiles into san antonio? or started abducting Border soliders? My guess is you would want a swift sure response.

Not only would we. As mboyd784 said, we have. We had a Mexican American war in the 1840's which was basically a war of conquest, took California, Arizona, New Mexioco an Navada in that one. Then we went back in the early 1900's when Poncho Via was raiding across the boarder killing town folk. We sorted it out. But that's the point. Israel can't sort it out. Israel isn't strong enough to win a strategic victory, just a tactical one. So she is dammned to relive her wars over and over again. So what do all our fancy American weapons and money buy Israel? We lower your death rate in conflicts. We lesson the economic impact of conflicts. We enable larger and more destructive conflicts. But for all our support, Israel just fights the same battles over and over again. We aren't helping you guys that much, in the long run.

ever hear about a place called Hiroshima? Nagasaki?. Those were direct attacks on civilians something that Israel has never done but because they were against funny looking poeple it was OK.

Actually it is America's long standing position that Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives. An invasion of the Japaneese homeland would have cost more than a million causualties. So says Nimitz, Truman, and MacArther. Truman and MacArther didn't agree on much but they agreed on that. Likewise WWII was a war of attrition, and in wars of Attrition civilians were targeted. Targeted by the enemy too, as in NanKing, London, and Warsaw.

The fact that 21st century weapons allow Israel to target bridges and power plants in populated cities with out "targeting" the civilians is a symantical argument when compared to WWII weopons which weren't as accurate. Israel doesn't shy away from targeting civilian buildings when they think a bad guy is in there. Doesn't matter how many civilians die.

if you would have minded your own bussiness back in the 1970's when Israel was on the verge of conquering the ME (in a war started by the arabs btw) there would be less of an Issue now. You meddled and now reap what you sow. Hopefully Israel wipes out Hezbollah and continues on to wipe out terrorism but we all know its too late now.

If we would have minded our buisness in the 1970's you guys would all be speaking Egyptian. Egypt caught you guys flat footed and kicked your butts for the first several days of that engagement. Only massive American airlifts of weapons and Egypts strategic error of not pressing their advantage gave Israel the time to dust off Arial Sharon and put together the counter attack.
Likewise after Israel's victory, Peace with Egypt was in as much Israel's favor as Egypt's. Peace was in Egypts favor cause Israel was about to sack Cairo. Peace was in Israel's favor cause then 3 million jews ( Israel is now 5 million jews ) of Israel had no chance of occupying 50 million Egyptions ( now 80 million Egyptions) ... Also Egypt who Israel fought in 1972, isn't really related to Hezbollah who Israel is fighting today. Hezbollah was founded in 1982, after Israel's first invasion and 20 year occupation of Lebonon. Egypt was Israels greatest enemy as the most populous Arab nation, and there has been peace between Israel and Egypt since we "meddled" ( camp david accords, Begin, and Sadat, recieve the nobel peace prize in 1978 )

Likewise if we had minded our business we wouldn't have paid for the 67 war and you guys wouldn't have been able to afford the 72 war, which we also paid for, by the way. If we had minded our own businees you guys would still be flying Mirage Jets.... pleeeeaaaaaaaase...

Hopefully Israel wipes out Hezbollah and continues on to wipe out terrorism but we all know its too late now.

Hopefully, but not likely. Israel couldn't wipe out Hezbollah in 20 years of occupying Lebonon, Hezbollah was actually created and grew to adulthood under Israeli occupation. If Israel really wanted to try to wipe out Hezbollah she would need to invade and occupy all of Lebonon, something Israel has said she wasn't interested in doing this time. Even then Hezbollah would likely run off into Syria and only get stronger with more recruits. No this war isn't about "wipeing out Hezbollah", this war is only about trying to secure Israel's northern boarder. This is yet another war where Israel is playing for the status quo, not a strategic victory.

JMS

July-28th-2006, 05:29 AM

If you were thinking of a specific part of the Geneva Convention, it would have been helpful for me to know which part of it you were referring to, ...... But regarding the Geneva Convention, I have posted everything in good faith. There is not anything that I deliberately did not include because I thought it might damage my argument.

Items in the Geneva convention which Israel doesn't adhere too..

Article 51.-Protection of the civilian population
(b) An attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Article 54.-Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population

2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

</H4>

JMS

July-28th-2006, 05:56 AM

JMS, I was curious of your solution to end the situation.

Israel has no ability to win a strategic victory against any of her neighbors. She's not big enough ot occupy any of her neighbors. She can win spectacular tactical victories, as she has over the last 60 some years, then have to do it all over again a few years latter. It's a continous cycle. So I think negotiation is the best and only path for peace. I think Israel is going to have to give back some of the land they've taken over the decades. I think those lands include the Gollan heights which Israel took from Syria after the 67 war and anexed in the 80's, and which she has already agreed to give up in principle. The West Bank, which a previous Israeli prime minister has also agreed to give up in principle and where the United States has called for a "viable" palistinian state to be located. Most of the settlements stay in place. Personally I also think some of Jerusalem would be wise to give up. Palistinians as Yusuf06 has said should be given something to be proud of, also something to loose if they make troubles or fail to stop trouble from happenning in the future. But that's just my 2 cents. Israel hasn't agreed to that.

It would be great if, as Yusuf06 said, Israel would allow for the right of return. Unfortunately that is out of the question for the Israeli's. Since most of the land of modern day Israel is located on land taken from Arabs by force of arms and which was never paid for, the right of return is synonomous for an end to a jewish state of Israel. Rather than insist on the right of return the Palistinians agreed to a limited right of return, with the remaining refugess to accept a buy out funded by the United States. While I'm frankly pissed about all the money wasted in this fiasco, If we could get peace; that is something I would pay for.

The water issue. The Gollan Heights and the West Bank contain most of Israel's water reserves. Likewise Israel has been "artificially" building the population in greater Israel through agressive immigration. So they need the water to support their now enlarged population not to mention their thriving agriculture industry. Here the Palistinians and Israeli's agreed to a more liberal shareing arrangement.. Liberal with respect to the Palistinians, more restrictive with respect to the Israeli's. The difference in water was to be more than made up for by a pipeline America was to build between Israel and Turkey. Turkey has a lot of water and was willing to sell water capacity to Israel. America would pay turkey for the water and build the pipe line.

That gives Israel peace with the Syrians and the Palistinians in exchange for Land, water rights, a limited right of return, and a whole lot of American money. We can only hope that if the Palistinians and Syrians reach a peace accord that Hezbollah, who's stated reason for fighting is the return of the Shebah farms area of the Gollan Heights will cease hostilities in exchange for their stated objective.

Thiebear

July-28th-2006, 06:20 AM

Yes, the Hamas and Hezbollah leadership would put down their arms and walk away if only Israel would give up the Gollan heights, the west bank and all the water , some of Jeruselem and allow say ??? A million palestinians return?

Sounds familiar? I call B.S.

Bishara stated:

Israel is the 20th century's greatest robbery, carried out in broad daylight, Arab Knesset member Azmi Bishara (National Democratic Assembly) told a Lebanese audience last week during a speech at an Arab book fair in Beirut. "I will never recognize Zionism even if all Arabs do," he said. "I will never concede Palestine. The battle is still long."

Bishara, who recently launched his campaign for an additional term in the Knesset, left for Lebanon five days ago without consent from the Interior Ministry, Israel's leading newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported Sunday. His harsh anti-Israel message at the fair was quoted by Lebanese newspaper As -Safir.

"The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is not a demographic dispute, but a national one," he said. "It's not the problem of 1.2 million Palestinians living in Israel. They are like all Arabs, only with Israeli citizenship forced upon them."

"We are the original residents of Palestine, not those who came from Poland and Russia," the MK added. Directing his speech at Israelis, Bishara said, "Return Palestine to us and take your democracy with you. We Arabs are not interested in it."

Seems to me the highlighted portions are HUGE amounts to give up and a partial right of return... I hightlighed the portions so it may be wrong.

70th Week

July-28th-2006, 07:12 AM

Theibear
Yes, the Hamas and Hezbollah leadership would put down their arms and walk away if only Israel would give up the Gollan heights, the west bank and all the water , some of Jeruselem and allow say ??? A million palestinians return?

Sounds familiar? I call B.S.

I'm with you dog,I call B.S.Those idiots wont be satisfied until Jews are wiped off the map and it has come out of their own mouths on numerous occasions no matter what you give them.

gbear

July-28th-2006, 07:51 AM

JMS,
I see you question why I would suspect inflated body counts. Did you follow any of the follow up investigations to Jenin? I'd note that your accusations were made by British reporters and later found to be dead wrong.

The UN, not Israel, found 52 had been killed. The human rights watch concurred. How many was Israel accused of killing? over 1000 would be the correct answer. Now were any of the 52 militants? The UN report said 22 were civilians. That's regretable, but in a street to street situation with bombs left in houses and gun firing from within groups of "civilians" is it crazy and is it evidence of the wanton targeting of civilians you seem to claim as modus operandi? I'd also note the Time magazine report where the Senior Palestinian military officer said it was probably the gunmen's own booby traps that buried some civilians and fighters alive. So are we down to less than 20 civilians? That hardly sounds like the reports in 2002.

While there does appear to be some deaths that Israel should take blaim for, I would also note this part of the Human Rights Watch report:

"Palestinian gunmen did endanger Palestinian civilians in the camp by using it as a base for planning and launching attacks, using indiscriminate tactics such as planting improvised explosive devices within the camp, and intermingling with the civilian population during armed conflict, and, in some cases, to avoid apprehension by Israeli forces."

There is also a bit about the filmed funeral where the corpse got up and walked away after. Do you then wonder why Israel might be a little skeptical of the militants claiming to be "injured or dead to get out of a combat zone?" As much as you remark on the Ambulances, with 20 civilians dead, it can't have happened that much for a war zone. Don't the ambulances there have similar rules to here? The first rule I was always taught in a violent situation was don't put yourself at risk and wait for the violence to end. Different there?

I don't mean to sound confrontational, it just sounds like your Jenin information is from 2002 when inflated reports were the game of the day. In any event, wikipedia at least should give you feeling for the reports I remembered reading after the fact, and hopefuly it explains some of my problems with believing now. I'm sorry, but to me, some of this screams the story of the boy who cried wolf. Maybe this time there really is a wolf...but it's certainly harder to belive for all the false cries. As for who blocked inspections of wrong doing, do think it wrong to request that the people doing it should have some experience and knowledge anti-terrorism actions? Do you think they should have allowed it to be an open ended witch hunt (keep in mind this is the same UN that first accused them of a masacre and whose members have been decidedly anti-Israel in the past and more so after the false reports of a masacre)? Is it wrong to want to prosectue on there own under the laws the soldiers were acting instead of some third party laws (which we don't do in the U.S. either)? Sorry, your approach/expectations still seems ones sided to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin_2002

BlueTalon

July-28th-2006, 08:20 AM

Israel might not target civilians but she does kill the vast majority of the civilians who die in the middle east.
The Middle East is an awfully big place. Iraq under Saddam alone was probably responsible for more civilian deaths than Israel.

Care to restate? Or do you want to stand by that comment?

Items in the Geneva convention which Israel doesn't adhere too...

It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.
My comment about quoting (briefly) and linking to the Geneva Convention was directed to Yusuf06, but nevertheless, that was a good post.

The thing that would have made it a better post is if you'd have also linked to and quoted an article detailing how Israel has targeted water facilities. I don't know of them attacking water facilities per se, but I do know they attacked infrastructure in order to prevent Hezbollah from either quickly escaping or quickly resupplying. So it's conceivable that Israel did in fact attack such facilities, and I'll provisionally grant you that point, that Israel violated the Geneva Convention, pending a link to a credible source and a quote saying that's what happened.

But you gotta admit, that's reaching a bit, isn't it? If that's the extent of the violations on Israel's part, then isn't 99% of violations of international law in this conflict the responsibility of Israel's enemies?

AlexRS

July-28th-2006, 08:41 AM

Wikapedia hmmm, should have looked further than Wikapedia...

Follow me here..

Israel split in 931 BC. The Schism of Israel created two kingdoms.. Israel and Judah. Israel fell to Samaria in 721BC and that's all she wrote for Israel until 1947. Judah fell to the Babylonians in 597 BC.

In 597 BC when the Babylonians under King Nebuchadnezzar sacked Jerusalem. Nebuchadnezzar appointed twenty-one year old Zedekiah, a descendant of king David to serve as king. When Zedekiah turned out to be more than a pupet king and lead a revolt against Babylon Nebuchadnezzar returned. This time Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the countryside and, after an eighteen-month siege, razed Jerusalem. In the typically grisly fashion of the time, Zedekiah's sons were murdered in front of him and then Zedekiah's his eyes were gouged out. A handful of Judeans fled to Egypt, some poor, elderly, and sick peasants remained in Judah, and the rest of the population was deported to Babylon It was 586 B.C.; Judah had outlived Israel by 136 years, the days of the Jewish kingdom(s) were over. ( Herod the Great, was really more of a Roman pupet rather than a jewish monarch like King David )

Later in the six century, Babylon itself was conquered by Persia under Darius. Darus makes Syria and Palestine, together with Cyprus, the fifth satrapy of his empire. He allows the Jews now of Babylon to return to their homeland only it is now a province of Persia called Palistine and is not Israel again until 1947. This is five hundred years before Rome and Hadrian.

I got it right...

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab29
You wrote that "Actually Palestine was a province of Rome". I wrote that the province was actually called Judea until the second Jewish revolt. Remember? :doh: I'm beginning to seriously doubt your mental capacity, as well as your intellectual honesty.

JMS

July-28th-2006, 08:48 AM

JMS,
I see you question why I would suspect inflated body counts. Did you follow any of the follow up investigations to Jenin? I'd note that your accusations were made by British reporters and later found to be dead wrong.

I didn't print any accusasions. I printed the facts as they occured. A UN official declaired that based on his visit he suspected their had been a massacre in Jennin. The UN security councel conviened and called for a formal investigation, This vote included a American affermative vote calling for the investigation. This investigation would require heavy equipment as most of the city was ruble. Israel blocked the investigation and would not allow the UN or their equipment on the site.

After Israel blocked the Investigation as you say there were plenty of press reports that no massacre had occurred. There were also several unofficial hearings, also who never visited the town, which likewise found Israeli forces had committed no offenses. My questions were...

(1) If there wasn't a massacre, why did Israel block the UN from investigating.

(2) Since it's a fact based on Israel's own investigations that Ariel Sharon had already been involved in two other masacre's prior to Jenin, why should the world give him the bennifit of the doubt on this one.

(3) I didn't bring up Jenin as an example of Israel's cold blooded policies when it comes to military campagns against civilians. Someone else brought it up as an example of the UN overstating the case of civilian casualties and I just said, No UN investigation was allowed to confirm or deny the Jennin Masacre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jenin_2002

Again with wikipedia... give me ten minutes and I'll change that wikipedia story..

I'm sorry, but to me, some of this screams the story of the boy who cried wolf. ( current troubles.... )

Well those current screems are coming from the Canadian government, the United Nations, and The International Red Cross... All of whom have had folks die in Israeli airstrikes over the last few days...

JMS

July-28th-2006, 09:12 AM

AlexRS
You wrote that "Actually Palestine was a province of Rome". I wrote that the province was actually called Judea until the second Jewish revolt. Remember? :doh: I'm beginning to seriously doubt your mental capacity.

what I actually wrote... which was correct

JMS
Actually Palestine was a province of Rome and was the name used for that area for several thousand years preceeding the modern state of Israel's founding in 1948. Christ was not born in Israel, he was born in Palestine. Pilot was not the govener of Israel, but of Palistine. Palestinians was the secular term for the jews, Christians and later Moslems who lived there.

The Palistinians didn't come from Jordan, any more than the Egyptians came from Libyia

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis...?historyid=ab29 (http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab29)

The Romans didn't change the name to Palistine the Perians did 500 years prior to Hadrian. Wikapedia is wrong about the origins of the name Palistine, and also wrong about when the name was changed.... Judea was also part of Palistine in the time of Christ.
http://biblia.com/jesusm/israel-7.gif

http://biblia.com/jesusm/maps.htm

These are historical facts so they shouldn't be too tough for you to verify if you know how to spell google. I don't know why historical facts are controversial, but with some they are. I believe the radical position on this subject is that Israel never ceased to exist. I'm not interested in debating fact against dogma. I also don't really know what the difference between our two positions displays as far as the greater debat...

I stated that modern day Israel which was in exhistance for 200 years in ancient times and currently 58 years today, was in fact called Palistine for thousands of years... ( 2500 years by my account, 2000 years by your wikapedia account ).... The difference between the dates doesn't affect the greater point.. does it?

AlexRS

July-28th-2006, 09:18 AM

what I actually wrote... which was correct

"Actually Palestine was a province of Rome"

The Romans didn't change the name to Palistine the Perians did 500 years prior to Hadrian.

Yea the Romans didn't change the name to Palestine... it was already called Palestine... neither did they print this coin after conquering "Palestine":

http://holylandarchive.com/photos_src/IJJGCTMU02_400.jpg

The inscription, in a clockwise direction, reads “Judea Captured.” In the center of the coin is a palm tree symbolizing Judea. On the left of the Palm Tree is a Roman Soldier and to the right a seated woman with her head in her hands—symbolizing the sorrow of the Judeans.

Air Force Cane

July-28th-2006, 09:27 AM

Good work Alex. JMS is citing totally made up and ignorant sources. Check out "Historyworld"!!

HistoryWorld is run by a board of five directors. Four of us spent three years, from 1998 to 2001, planning the launch of the site. We acquired our first round of investors early in 2001, at which time we appointed our non-executive director, Sir Kit McMahon. As his biography below reveals, Sir Kit has had a distinguished career in Britain's financial sector.

Peter Donebauer, Director
Peter Donebauer co-founded and is now Executive Chairman of Diverse Production Ltd, one of the UK's leading independent television producers( see www.diverse.tv (http://www.diverse.tv/)) Peter unusually combines a science degree in Psychology with an MA from the Royal College of Art. He spent many years before Diverse as a practising fine artist specialising in video, and was the first artist to have an abstract work commissioned for national broadcast on British television (see www.donebauer.net (http://www.donebauer.net/)). His role on HistoryWorld as part-time director reflects the substantial investment Diverse has made in the project, and he brings twenty invaluable years of experience in running an electronic media company.

Bamber Gascoigne, Chairman
Bamber Gascoigne is best known for his television role as chairman of University Challenge for twenty-five years (1962-1987). He has also been the author and presenter of many documentary history series, including The Christians, Victorian Values, Man and Music and The Great Moghuls, and he is the author of some twenty books. His key genre is history, but he has also published novels, children's books and academic works on prints and printmaking. For the last eleven years he has been writing the two encyclopedic works of general history which together form the central core of historyworld.net. One is his Encyclopedia of Britain, published in 1993. The other is 'World History; a narrative encyclopedia', created since 1994 as a highly interactive digital programme. Bamber has been a Trustee of the National Gallery, Trustee of the Tate Gallery, member of the Council of the National Trust, and member of the board of directors of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden.

Ian Henghes, Development Director
Ian is a graduate in Film and Television. In 1984 he founded Image Creative, a video facilities company. In the early 90's Ian studied IT and went on to develop a multimedia catalogue platform 'Imagebase'. He then joined Diverse Production, one of the UK's leading independent production houses to lead a move into new media. Here Ian combined his experience in TV and IT as Head of Interactive, working with computer Programmers, Designers and TV Producers for major publishers, broadcasters and heritage organizations. In 2001 Ian joined HistoryWorld Ltd. building on his particular enthusiasm for 'connected content'; interactive content designed for the New Media age. Ian has recently started www.editableweb.com (http://www.editableweb.com/)to further his work on a range of projects concerned with easily extendible websites.

Steve Jelley, Commercial Director
Steve Jelley is a media, business and marketing consultant, and has been a new media agent in association with Curtis Brown, London's leading literary and media agency, for 4 years (Curtis Brown have represented Bamber Gascoigne's interests for some 35 years). He is a Director of the learning company Mackenzie Ward Research, and is currently employed by BXmail, a European Application Service Provider, responsible for UK Sales and Marketing. Previously, he was a television and CD-ROM producer, and a games designer and scriptwriter for Electronic Arts, Revolution Software, and Image Animation.

Sir Kit McMahon, Director
After early years as a Treasury civil servant and an academic at Oxford, Kit McMahon spent twenty-one years at the Bank of England, the last five as Deputy Governor. He was then between 1986 and 1991 Chairman and Chief Executive of Midland Bank. Since 1991 he has been a non-executive director of a number of public companies.

AlexRS

July-28th-2006, 09:29 AM

What course of action do you suggest from here on out?
Well, first of all one thing is clear:

Security of Israeli citizens cannot be negotiated. It can only be ensured by force.

As unfortunate as it is, there is a number of Arabs who want Israel destroyed. There are many different types of such people, I'm sure. Some draw political power and caplital from hatered. Some experienced hardships firsthand. Some lost thier falimies and homes. I will not get into a historical discussion here, since most Arabs will say Israel alone is to blame, while most non-Arabs will point at the long history of Arab-initiated violence towards immigrants and later the state of Israel. Regardless of how we got here, at this point the only way Israel can ensure security of it's citizens is by force.

Many will say that economic development and such can turn people from warfare to peaceful coexistance with Israel. This is a valid point. I believe this is THE long term solution. However, at this point that solution is not feasible for following reasons:

1) Economic development requires hard work. Working is much harder than blaming Israel for everything.

2) Economic development is a slow and gradual process. While being the only possible long-term solution, it does very little in short-term.

3) Economic development is easily compromised. People who draw political power from the hate of Israel will readily compromise well-being of everybody else in order to retain their power. Hizbollah in Lebanon is actually a very good example of that.

4) Economic development requires peace and stability. Good luck finding investors in the face of 3).

5) Economic development requires transportation of goods and such, along with cooperation with other countries. Unfortunately Israel allowing free transportation of goods is equivalent to Israel allowing free transportation of bombs.

This assessment of the situation, in my view, cannot really be argued against. You will never see anybody arguing against them. People usually either say something like "quality of living would reduce hate of Israel" or retreat from discussing current situation into discussing history - "Israel made it happen". History discussion aside, figuring out how to move forward requires a sober assessment of what we have on our hands.

Unfortunately the only way to move forward, at this point, is for Israel to discourage attacks against Israel while encouraging peaceful co-existance using military force. A discussion on how to achieve peace with Arabs has been raging inside Israel for decades. They tried a lot of different thigs. It sucks, but harsh military response is the only short-term security option Israel is left with. At this point Israel is excerising that option - installation of "do not mess with us" fear. Assymetrical warfare to the point where people simply do not want to attack Israel anymore. To the point where they know they will die while causing no damange whatsoever. Short term this will look bad, but long-term it is the only way to turn attention away from attacking Israel and towards other things, like economic development. Which, as I already wrote, is the only long-term solution to this.

Air Force Cane

July-28th-2006, 09:31 AM

www.answers.com (http://www.answers.com/)

Prehistoric times

The term Palestine (http://www.answers.com/topic/palestine) is derived from the name of the Philistines (http://www.answers.com/topic/philistines), a people of uncertain origins, possibly Aegean (http://www.answers.com/topic/aegean-civilization), who, in the 12th century BCE (http://www.answers.com/topic/12th-century-bc), settled along the southern Mediterranean coastal plain of what is now Israel (http://www.answers.com/topic/israel) and the Gaza Strip (http://www.answers.com/topic/gaza-strip) and disappeared several centuries later. After crushing Bar Kokhba's revolt (http://www.answers.com/topic/bar-kokhba-s-revolt) (132-135), the Romans (http://www.answers.com/topic/roman-empire)Latinized (http://www.answers.com/topic/latin) the hitherto seldom-used Greek (http://www.answers.com/topic/greek-language) name Palaestina (Παλαιστίνη) and applied it to the entire region that had formerly included Iudaea Province (http://www.answers.com/topic/iudaea-province) (which combined Judea (http://www.answers.com/topic/judea), Samaria (http://www.answers.com/topic/samaria), and Idumea (http://www.answers.com/topic/edom)). The Arabic (http://www.answers.com/topic/arabic-language)toponym (http://www.answers.com/topic/toponymy) Filastin (فلسطين) is derived from this name.

Ancient Palestine

In historical contexts, especially predating the establishment of the State of Israel (http://www.answers.com/topic/israel), Palestine was mostly a geographical (http://www.answers.com/topic/geography) term, particularly used in Greek, Latin (http://www.answers.com/topic/latin), Arabic (http://www.answers.com/topic/arabic-language), and other languages taking their geographical vocabulary from them; it comprised the Roman (http://www.answers.com/topic/roman-province) sub-province of Syria Palaestina (http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-palestine), roughly equivalent to ancient Canaan (http://www.answers.com/topic/canaan) (including the Biblical (http://www.answers.com/topic/bible) kingdoms of Israel (http://www.answers.com/topic/israel), Judah (http://www.answers.com/topic/kingdom-of-judah), Moab (http://www.answers.com/topic/moab), Ammon (http://www.answers.com/topic/ammon-1), and Philistia (http://www.answers.com/topic/philistines)) and thus included much of the land on either side of the Jordan River (http://www.answers.com/topic/jordan-river) although with further political sub-divisions along the River Jordan valley .

gbear

July-28th-2006, 09:40 AM

you should check the wikipedia again. It's not them that claimed the counts of 52. It was the UN, Amnesty International, and the Human Rights watch as well as numerous independant reports from new agencies like Time magazine. Do they likewise hold no credibility in your eyes? The UN report was from 5 member states and observer missions in place. Do you fuss becuase the UN couldn't go on another fact finding mission with no scope or because they couldn't hold trials under their laws instead of Israel's laws? I assume you had no problem with having people familiar with similar situations make the call.

Do you also question all of the followup news articles?

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 09:47 AM

When will Bush stop being a pawn and a ***** and confront Israel once and for all?

When will the majority of Americans realize that 9/11 was directly related to our unjust support for Israel?

When will more Americans support Hezbollah and Hamas, and stop buying into the propaganda that its a terrorist organization, and see what they do for the Lebanese people?

Hamas and Hezbollah have done nothing to the US in over 20 years, yet we classify them as "terrorist" because they fight back against Israel. Their beef is with Israel, but we continue to give billions to the wealthiest country with the strongest army in the region, and we perpetuate the inequality there. That's why they hate us.

The Israeli goverment have killed far far more then both Hamas and Hezbollah combined. They are the real problem here in 2006.

Anybody remember when Israel shot down the USS Liberty, and then tried to blame it on Egypt?

Israel has no respect for any other country other then its own...they are using us, and I'm sick of it.

BlueTalon

July-28th-2006, 09:52 AM

Who cares when the place got tagged with the name "Palestine"? It was Israel long before it was Palestine, and it apparently was Judea while it was Palestine.

By the way, if Jesus was born in Palestine, that would indicate the historical Israel "Palestine" back then was a Jewish entity, would it not?

AlexRS

July-28th-2006, 09:53 AM

RiggoReincarnated ,

Ya, why not start supporting terrorism? All these poor terrorists want is a destruction of another 6 million of Jews... just let them do it and they will leave us alone...

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 09:56 AM

RiggoReincarnated ,

Ya, why not start supporting terrorism? All these poor terrorists want is a destruction of another 6 million of Jews... just let them do it and they will leave us alone...

I support Hamas and Hezbollah in spirit, feel like they are in the right, and don't consider them terrorist groups.

I consider Israel terrorist for bombing Beirut and killing hundreds of civilians.

Hamas and Hezbollah just want justice and freedom from Israeli terror and oppression.

BlueTalon

July-28th-2006, 09:58 AM

When will Bush stop being a pawn and a ***** and confront Israel once and for all?

When will the majority of Americans realize that 9/11 was directly related to our unjust support for Israel?

When will more Americans support Hezbollah and Hamas, and stop buying into the propaganda that its a terrorist organization, and see what they do for the Lebanese people?

The Israeli goverment have killed far far more then both Hamas and Hezbollah combined. They are the real problem here in 2006.

Anybody remember when Israel shot down the USS Liberty, and then tried to blame it on Egypt?

Israel has no respect for any other country other then its own...they are using us, and I'm sick of it.
Um, 9/11 was directly related to a bunch of murdering Islamofascist thugs flying planes into buildings.

You are seriously off the deep end if you are suggesting that Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations. You sound like Senator Patty Murray prattling on about how al Qaeda is such a humanitarian organization because they run schools. There's a myopic bit of missing a few key details here.

zoony

July-28th-2006, 09:59 AM

Well Riggo's here...

I just don't see this ending well :doh:

dreamingwolf

July-28th-2006, 09:59 AM

I will give riggoreincarnated this atleast hes honest, and doesnt conceal that belief with a bunch of double talk.

BlueTalon

July-28th-2006, 10:00 AM

I support Hamas and Hezbollah whole-heartedly and don't consider them terrorist groups.

I consider Israel terrorist for bombing Beirut and killing hundreds of civilians.

Hamas and Hezbollah just want justice and freedom from Israeli terror and oppression.
Holy smokes! Where are those government internet watchers when you need them?

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 10:00 AM

Um, 9/11 was directly related to a bunch of murdering Islamofascist thugs flying planes into buildings.

You are seriously off the deep end if you are suggesting that Hezbollah and Hamas are not terrorist organizations. You sound like Senator Patty Murray prattling on about how al Qaeda is such a humanitarian organization because they run schools. There's a myopic bit of missing a few key details here.

How was Al Qaeda born? How did these thugs come to hate America so much?

Because of our support of Israel, as well as our support of oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia. Anything for oil.

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 10:00 AM

Holy smokes! Where are those government internet watchers when you need them?

Tell me, what has Hamas or Hezbollah done to the United States in the last 20 plus years?

AlexRS

July-28th-2006, 10:03 AM

I support Hamas and Hezbollah whole-heartedly and don't consider them terrorist groups.

I consider Israel terrorist for bombing Beirut and killing hundreds of civilians.

Hamas and Hezbollah just want justice and freedom from Israeli terror and oppression.
Fiar enough. Perhaps you should go there and join the fight... :2cents:

AlexRS

July-28th-2006, 10:05 AM

Tell me, what has Hamas or Hezbollah done to the United States in the last 20 plus years?
I assume you consider death of 241 marines at hands of Hizbollah to be Israel's fault?

zoony

July-28th-2006, 10:19 AM

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 10:23 AM

I assume you consider death of 241 marines at hands of Hizbollah to be Israel's fault?

That's why I said in 20 plus years. Back then Libya was also a mortal enemy of the US, and now they no longer are.

zoony

July-28th-2006, 10:26 AM

That's why I said in 20 plus years. Back then Libya was also a mortal enemy of the US, and now they no longer are.

Oh. So there is a 20 year statute of limitations? :laugh:

"Technically, they murdered 241 marines 23 years ago, so that doesn't count. Now if it had been 20 years, that would be a problem" :dunce:

Also, didn't Libya disarm and open themselves to international weapons inspectors? Did hezbollah do this? :doh:

Keep posting :munchout:

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 10:28 AM

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 10:30 AM

Oh. So there is a 20 year statute of limitations? :laugh:

"Technically, they murdered 241 marines 23 years ago, so that doesn't count. Now if it had been 20 years, that would be a problem" :dunce:

Also, didn't Libya disarm and open themselves to international weapons inspectors? Did hezbollah do this? :doh:

Keep posting :munchout:

We forgave Japan after Pearl Harbor, didn't we?

Also, why should Hezbollah disarm? Israel did invade Lebanon back in 1982, and the Lebanese don't have enough money to finance a sophisticated army of their own.

BlueTalon

July-28th-2006, 10:35 AM

How was Al Qaeda born? How did these thugs come to hate America so much?

Because of our support of Israel, as well as our support of oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia. Anything for oil.
Personally, I'd really prefer drilling in ANWR and off our own shores to get oil, but there seems to be some resistance to that idea -- probably from mostly the same people that don't like what we do in the Middle East.

But I really don't get the way you think. The object of hatred is responsible for the hatred? You're glossing over the fact that these people are motivated by hate, and it doesn't matter what the object is or what the excuse is. The hate America, they hate Israel. They hate Jews. They hate other Muslims. They hate Hindus. They are willing to kill all of the above. And you seem completely oblivious to it.

AlexRS

July-28th-2006, 10:37 AM

I never said I supported Afghanistan (with Taliban), Iran, or any other fanatical regime.

I can just understand why groups like Hamas and Hezbollah exist, and its hard to blame them for whats going on right now, given the economic imbalance that we help fuel over there.
hahaha you support Hizbollah but not Iran :notworthy

Indeed economic imbalance is to blame. Israel is working on improving the economic imbalance. Once militants are killed off and some degree of stability is reached, everybody else will be able to go back to work and improve their situation.

It is very unfortunate what happened to Lebanon. Economy was improving and militants were losing power, so they decided to stir things up.

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 10:38 AM

Personally, I'd really prefer drilling in ANWR and off our own shores to get oil, but there seems to be some resistance to that idea -- probably from mostly the same people that don't like what we do in the Middle East.

But I really don't get the way you think. The object of hatred is responsible for the hatred? You're glossing over the fact that these people are motivated by hate, and it doesn't matter what the object is or what the excuse is. The hate America, they hate Israel. They hate Jews. They hate other Muslims. They hate Hindus. They are willing to kill all of the above. And you seem completely oblivious to it.

There is always a reason for hate. People don't hate blindly and without reason. In the case of Al Qaeda, they hate us for supporting Israel, but most of all for keeping a corrupt monarchy alive in Saudi Arabia for the sole purpose of oil supply. We say we support democracy, but we don't allow democracy to take place in the Middle East. That's the hypocrisy of it.

I'm with you on finding other sources besides the Middle East for oil.

BlueTalon

July-28th-2006, 10:42 AM

There is always a reason for hate. People don't hate blindly and without reason.
Not true. There may always be an excuse or a pretext, but don't elevate that to the level of reason. And yes, people do hate blindly and without reason.

So you support drilling for oil in ANWR and offshore?

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 10:43 AM

hahaha you support Hizbollah but not Iran :notworthy

Indeed economic imbalance is to blame. Israel is working on improving the economic imbalance. Once militants are killed off and some degree of stability is reached, everybody else will be able to go back to work and improve their situation.

How is Israel working to improve the economic imbalance with the Palestinians and in Lebanon?

The leader of Hezbollah has said in interviews, he hates what the US does in support of Israel, but he does not support the killing of Americans or Al Qaeda. That's why I see a distinction between the two groups.

Would Hezbollah exist if Israel hadn't invaded Lebanon in 1982? Who knows. But Israel has to be willing to agree to a cease-fire before anything can happen. You sure aren't going to win the support of the world by bombing Beirut over the kidnapping of two soliders.

It seems like an excuse to pursue wider military objectives, and the only countries that don't acknowledge this are the US and Israel.

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 10:45 AM

Not true. There may always be an excuse or a pretext, but don't elevate that to the level of reason. And yes, people do hate blindly and without reason.

So you support drilling for oil in ANWR and offshore?

Yes I do, and I hope ultimately we can find alternative sources of energy that are economically feasible for the vast majority of US citizens.

I hate the fact that we keep corrupt regimes in the Middle East alive (like Saudi Arabia) with our oil money.

Prosperity

July-28th-2006, 10:46 AM

So some of you guys want Islam in control of the most sacred sites in all of Judaism and Christianity? :doh:

To think that way, you would have to have your head completely up your own ass.

Need a reminder? Here's what the muslims did to some of the holiest and oldest Buddhist statues in the world. After all, it was an infringement on their religion. :rolleyes:

Before:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1345000/images/_1345928_bamyan_ap150.jpg

After:
http://www.rawa.org/statue2.jpg

In the interest of objective argument:

Those statues are not of an Abrahamic faith. In Islam's view Christianity and Judaism were incomplete tales, but still holy, thus holy sites of those would also be holy sites of Islam and if not "holY" they won't be outright destroyed. Jesus is a prophet in Islam, not the last prophet like Muhammed, but a prophet still. That is why whenever a muslim refers to Jesus they write "pbuh" (peace be upon him) afterwords. (this also includes other prophets like Abraham)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_be_upon_him

Secondly, Islamic peoples have been in control of that area for thousand plus years and yet they stood their for that long.

Thirdly the Taliban is an exceptionally stupid brand of Islamic fundementalism.

Though I can understand any move to put Jerusalem under the power of something other than one sovreign state. Maybe a UN city.

AlexRS

July-28th-2006, 10:46 AM

There is always a reason for hate. People don't hate blindly and without reason.
Do not make hate into a flame that will go out if we stop feeding it. There are many others who feed the flame from the inside. There are people who stir up hate to gain and retain power.

AlexRS

July-28th-2006, 10:49 AM

You sure aren't going to win the support of the world by bombing Beirut over the kidnapping of two soliders.

It seems like an excuse to pursue wider military objectives, and the only countries that don't acknowledge this are the US and Israel.
The idea is not to gain support of the world but to secure Israel from attacks by Hizbollah. Kidnapping was not a standalone act but a provocation by Hizbollah after 6 years of praparation.

That is the military objective, and unfortunately the only way to reach it is by a show of force.

You got it the other way around - US and Israel are countries that actually acknowledge it (and the necessity of it). Most of the world, as a matter of fact, acknowledges it - but not openly.

SkinsOrlando

July-28th-2006, 10:49 AM

The leader of Hezbollah has said in interviews, he hates what the US does in support of Israel, but he does not support the killing of Americans or Al Qaeda. That's why I see a distinction between the two groups.

Doesn't support the killing of Americans??? Maybe he should research the year 1983.

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 10:51 AM

Doesn't support the killing of Americans??? Maybe he should research the year 1983.

I'm talking about the past 20 years. There was no excuse for that, but at the time we were helping facilitate an Israeli invasion/occupation of their country. People will do desperate and ugly things when cornered.

To me that's a bit different from plotting attacks on US soil.

AlexRS

July-28th-2006, 10:55 AM

People will do desperate and ugly things when cornered.

Indeed people use the "no other choice" excuse to justify doing most horrible things.

"I was following orders"

As I already wrote, if all weapons in Israel would magically disappear we promptly would see millions of Jews exterminated by "cornered" Arabs. If the roles were reversed we would see peaceful coexistance, economic development, etc.

SkinsOrlando

July-28th-2006, 10:57 AM

I'm talking about the past 20 years. There was no excuse for that, but at the time we were helping facilitate an Israeli invasion/occupation of their country. People will do desperate and ugly things when cornered.

To me that's a bit different from plotting attacks on US soil.

Our embassies are considered our soil.

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 10:59 AM

Our embassies are considered our soil.

It was our Marine barracks that they bombed.

Prosperity

July-28th-2006, 10:59 AM

Indeed people use the "no other choice" excuse to justify doing most horrible things.

"I was following orders"

As I already wrote, if all weapons in Israel would magically disappear we promptly would see millions of Jews exterminated by "cornered" Arabs. If the roles were reversed we would see peaceful coexistance, economic development, etc.

Alexrs, sometimes people keep bringing up the same point if it is solidly backed up, and if it is paramount to the argument. You should look into that.

SkinsOrlando

July-28th-2006, 11:00 AM

It was our Marine barracks that they bombed.

There was more than one bombing.

The April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing was the April 18 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_18), 1983 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983), suicide bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb) of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) Embassy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy) in Beirut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beirut), Lebanon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1983_U.S._Embassy_bombing

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 11:03 AM

Indeed people use the "no other choice" excuse to justify doing most horrible things.

"I was following orders"

As I already wrote, if all weapons in Israel would magically disappear we promptly would see millions of Jews exterminated by "cornered" Arabs. If the roles were reversed we would see peaceful coexistance, economic development, etc.

Sorry I don't agree. The hatred and racism run both ways. The majority of Jewish people have the same racist attitude and contempt for Muslims as Muslims have for Jews. This dispute is centuries old and just wouldn't change like that.

JMS

July-28th-2006, 11:03 AM

Who cares when the place got tagged with the name "Palestine"? It was Israel long before it was Palestine, and it apparently was Judea while it was Palestine.

yep

By the way, if Jesus was born in Palestine, that would indicate the historical Israel "Palestine" back then was a Jewish entity, would it not?

Mostly jewish populous yes. Jewish country, "land of the jews", yes. That is my understanding. Typically ruled by stronger countries like Babylon, Persia, Rome.

During the first Diaspora, all the jews were deported by Babylong but that only lasted a generation back in 500 bc. Then many came back. In the time of Christ it was mostly a jewish country again. Then the Romans used a page out of the Babylonians book and did another Diaspora. Spreading the jews throughout the Roman Empire after a revolt. Over the years after the Roman diaspora in around 30-40 ad was when the Jews lost the majority. But even then right up until the founding of the modern state of Israel, there were jews living there. Even before Zionism was popularized in the early 1900's.

Birdlives

July-28th-2006, 11:04 AM

How was Al Qaeda born? How did these thugs come to hate America so much?

Because of our support of Israel, as well as our support of oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia. Anything for oil.

Mostly for our support of Saudi Arabia. What really set them off was our occupation of holy land in Saudi Arabia at the time of Desert Storm. Israel is a MUCH smaller part of what Al Qaeda is after. If you read a little about recent history you would know that we even supported Bin Laden and his during the Soviet war on Afganistan. It was not until we came in during Desert Storm that he and his had any real beef with the US. Therefore, you would be dead wrong.

AlexRS

July-28th-2006, 11:06 AM

Alexrs, sometimes people keep bringing up the same point if it is solidly backed up, and if it is paramount to the argument. You should look into that.
I'm sorry but I do not understand what you mean.

What exactly should I look into? There are many ways your statement can be understood... You seem to suggest that I am overlooking something, but you are not very clear as to what exactly is being overlooked.

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 11:07 AM

There was more than one bombing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_1983_U.S._Embassy_bombing

Point taken...I'd consider an embassy bombing going beyond the scope of war and into the realm of terrorism.

But again, this was 23 years ago, and right now I think the vast majority of us if we lived in Southern Lebanon would also be fighting for Hezbollah against Israeli agression.

bird_1972

July-28th-2006, 11:07 AM

Alexrs, sometimes people keep bringing up the same point if it is solidly backed up, and if it is paramount to the argument. You should look into that.
He won't. It's too convenient to boil things down to a simple, digestible set of talking points rather than appreciate the situation for what it is - extremely complex with BOTH SIDES being at fault to varying degrees.

This talk of all or even most arabs as uniformly bad people has to stop. That position can only be taken by people who either are 1) being blindly guided by thier emotional attachment to thier side of the arguement or 2) uneducated and require simple explanations and believing all arabs are evil fits into that category.

bird_1972

July-28th-2006, 11:08 AM

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 11:09 AM

Mostly for our support of Saudi Arabia. What really set them off was our occupation of holy land in Saudi Arabia at the time of Desert Storm. Israel is a MUCH smaller part of what Al Qaeda is after. If you read a little about recent history you would know that we even supported Bin Laden and his during the Soviet war on Afganistan. It was not until we came in during Desert Storm that he and his had any real beef with the US. Therefore, you would be dead wrong.

I know our support of Saudi Arabia was the main reason, I never said it wasn't. And yes I was aware that we financed Bin Laden in the 1980s. We also financed Saddam for that matter.

Goes to show how smart we were, huh?

Many also believe that Israel knew about the plotting of 9/11, yet did nothing to warn the US of it. Some ally.

http://www.sundayherald.com/37707

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

AlexRS

July-28th-2006, 11:11 AM

He won't. It's too convenient to boil things down to a simple, digestible set of talking points rather than appreciate the situation for what it is - extremely complex with BOTH SIDES being at fault to varying degrees.

This talk of all or even most arabs as uniformly bad people has to stop. That position can only be taken by people who either are 1) being blindly guided by thier emotional attachment to thier side of the arguement or 2) uneducated and require simple explanations and believing all arabs are evil fits into that category.
What the heck, man??? Read my posts.

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2735609&postcount=661

Prosperity

July-28th-2006, 11:12 AM

I'm sorry but I do not understand what you mean.

What exactly should I look into? There are many ways your statement can be understood... You seem to suggest that I am overlooking something, but you are not very clear as to what exactly is being overlooked.

Here is what I am saying

Your point by itself proves absolutely nothing because

1. It is not applicable to the real world because of its magic
2. It is not backed up by evidence, you yourself have said that the number of people who would "kill all Jews", is very few. You said the number doesn't matter. That is obviously ludicrous. Just because you say your idea works doesn't mean it will.
3. EVEN IF TRUE: It by itself is not a reason to support Israel, though it is a reason to withold support from Arabs, because as we all know, Israeli isn't going to have any problems with weapons magically dissapearing.
4. Your continual posting of this idea, despite its obvious flaws and the ones pointed out earlier, reeks of intellectual dishonesty.

AlexRS

July-28th-2006, 11:15 AM

Here is what I am saying

Your point by itself proves absolutely nothing because

1. It is not applicable to the real world because of its magic
2. It is not backed up by evidence, you yourself have said that the number of people who would "kill all Jews", is very few. You said the number doesn't matter. That is obviously ludicrous.
3. EVEN IF TRUE: It by itself is not a reason to support Israel, though it is a reason to withold support from Arabs, because as we all know, Israeli isn't going to have any problems with weapons magically dissapearing.
4. Your continual posting of this idea, despite its obvious flaws and the ones pointed out earlier, reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
I feel that to be a valid hypothetical because it demonstrates who the prolifirator of the conflict is. I suppose "demonstrates" is a bad word to use... What about you, personally? What do you think would happen?

It seems you are uncomfortable because the hypothetical situation appears to talk about Arabs as a whole, sort of. This is not the case. As I mentioned in a response you never replied to, we are talking about statistics here, and even 1% of people would make my hypothetical work.. and this same 1% of people does not exist in Israel. Israelis want peace.

Israelis would not kill Arabs if Arabs were disarmed. A fraction of Arabs would kill Israelis if Israelis were disarmed. Agree?

By the way, you have never replied to: http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2735609&postcount=661

Birdlives

July-28th-2006, 11:16 AM

We forgave Japan after Pearl Harbor, didn't we?

Also, why should Hezbollah disarm? Israel did invade Lebanon back in 1982, and the Lebanese don't have enough money to finance a sophisticated army of their own.

AFTER Hezbollah started firing rockets into Northern Israel. Let's bottom line it. Everyone here arguing must at least agree on one point. Who instigates these conflicts? Is it Israel? Or the enemies of Israel? Virtually every war has been started by the enemies of Israel. Virtually every conflict where Israel retaliates with force is an incident caused by another organization seeking the destruction of Israel. This lastest chapter is just another example of what occurs in this area.

zoony

July-28th-2006, 11:19 AM

In the interest of objective argument:

Those statues are not of an Abrahamic faith. In Islam's view Christianity and Judaism were incomplete tales, but still holy, thus holy sites of those would also be holy sites of Islam and if not "holY" they won't be outright destroyed. Jesus is a prophet in Islam, not the last prophet like Muhammed, but a prophet still. That is why whenever a muslim refers to Jesus they write "pbuh" (peace be upon him) afterwords. (this also includes other prophets like Abraham)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_be_upon_him

Secondly, Islamic peoples have been in control of that area for thousand plus years and yet they stood their for that long.

Thirdly the Taliban is an exceptionally stupid brand of Islamic fundementalism.

Though I can understand any move to put Jerusalem under the power of something other than one sovreign state. Maybe a UN city.

That is interesting perspective, but considering the widespread support that the Taliban had throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan, along with the support given to all these other extremist groups, I take issue with your contention that the Taliban are just an 'exceptionally stupid brand of Islamic fundamentalism.'

Fact is, modern day Islam has a very clear track record of intolerance and aggression towards ANYONE of differing faith or values. i.e. the Christian sentenced to death in Afghanistan AFTER the Taliban left.

Your points about Islam's views on Christianity/Judaism I think are valid to an extent... but I still don't trust Islam to preserve the interests of all parties in an area such as the holy land. With good reason.

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 11:20 AM

AFTER Hezbollah started firing rockets into Northern Israel. Let's bottom line it. Everyone here arguing must at least agree on one point. Who instigates these conflicts? Is it Israel? Or the enemies of Israel? Virtually every war has been started by the enemies of Israel. Virtually every conflict where Israel retaliates with force is an incident caused by another organization seeking the destruction of Israel. This lastest chapter is just another example of what occurs in this area.

True, but Israel doesn't help the problem by reacting disproportionately and with excessive violence.

If 2 soliders were kidnapped, why not send in crack teams to rescue them and pursue the culprits? Why is bombing Beirut necessary?

Mossad is one of the most powerful intelligence units in the world. If getting the Israeli soliders back was really the objective, Israel wouldn't have amplified the conflict the way they have.

JMS

July-28th-2006, 11:26 AM

Um, 9/11 was directly related to a bunch of murdering Islamofascist thugs flying planes into buildings.

The Alquada #2 is Ayman al-Zawahiri. At the time of 9/11 it was widely published in American press that Al Quada had no credentials as an anti Israeli organization and thus one of their stated reasons for perpetrating 9/11 ( America's support for Israel ) were down played.

Turns out Ayman- al-Zawahiri was part of the Egyption Moslem brotherhood who were responsible for killing Anwar Sadat because he made peace with Israel. Zawahiri was even picked up and served some jail time due to his connection with the assasination. He clearly has anti Israeli credentials.

Still Al Quada came to America's attention not in the 50's, 60's, 70's 80's or even early 90's, when we supported Israel. It came to our attention after we put Troops into Saudi Arabia to protect the Kingdom from Iraq in dessert shield/storm. Al Quada is more concerned with toppling an Arab country so they can install themselves as rulers. Saudi was on their radar and we stopped them. Seems to me that that is really why they attacked us. Yelling about Israel is just a way for them to appeal to the common man on the street across the middle east. Most of the dictators and Kings in the middle east make sure that any goings on in Israel are front page news in their country to apeal to their own nationalism. Thus Al Quada pulling on the same heart string is it trying to apeal to popularism in Arab countries.

AlexRS

July-28th-2006, 11:28 AM

If 2 soliders were kidnapped, why not send in crack teams to rescue them and pursue the culprits?
Because this is the response Hizbollah was expecting and extensively preparing for. It would play right into Hizbollah's hands. Israel would have marched right into Hizbollah's trap. Hizbollah was preparing for this conflict for a while, and it started the conflict when it was ready. This was not a standalone action of Hizbollah. It was an instigation. It worked, in a sense.

Prosperity

July-28th-2006, 11:33 AM

I'm sure the ratio changes depending on location, but in general I would readily agree with this statement.
ok

My point does not require a majority to work.

It required broad support for something on the level of genocide

Unfortunately a group of militants that does not comprise a majority, if left unchecked, can cause bad things to happen for everybody.

militant groups have broad support because of actions that Israel does. If Jews magically lose all their weapons, then their broad support would plummet. But their would be broad support to deport all Jews, but their would not be broad support for a holocaust.

Let's say 1% of all male Arabs want all Israelis to die and would do something about it if given a chance - my point stands unchanged.

ok whatever you say :rolleyes:

This is not a matter of judging groups of people... We do not need to judge. We are talking statistics here - and unfortunately even that 1% of maniacs, if left unchecked, can really screw things up. Unfortunately in real life, it seems, the maniacs are actually encouraged and the ration is above 1%.

*If left unchecked* what leaves people unchecked is broad grassroots support at perceived injustices. There is much less support for outright hate.

Because as you said: "I think most people want to live in peace, no matter who these people are or where they live."

Now, as to why your point matters (or doesn't), it doesn't really prove who the "prolifirator" is, but rather who is more pissed off. I don't see your connection as some automatic certainty. There are people out there that have some pretty good reasons to be pissed on both sides. It also doesn't really give us any reason to support Israel since it is just so outlandish. Most people here are being practical, why don't you join us?

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 11:34 AM

Because this is the response Hizbollah was expecting and extensively preparing for. It would play right into Hizbollah's hands. Israel would have marched right into Hizbollah's trap. Hizbollah was preparing for this conflict for a while, and it started the conflict when it was ready. This was not a standalone action of Hizbollah. It was an instigation. It worked, in a sense.

Come on, why would you want to have one of the most powerful armies and airforces in the world pummelling your country?

Hezbollah has no chance at matching that kind of force, the only thing they can do is lob random rockets at Haifa, they can't make any kind of push into Israel.

BlueTalon

July-28th-2006, 11:37 AM

Point taken...I'd consider an embassy bombing going beyond the scope of war and into the realm of terrorism.

But again, this was 23 years ago, and right now I think the vast majority of us if we lived in Southern Lebanon would also be fighting for Hezbollah against Israeli agression.
It depends on who "us" is. You remind me of that lady journalist who, after Nixon creamed McGovern by like 98%, said she couldn't understand how Nixon won, nobody she knew voted for him. She was as firmly entrenched in her bubble as you appear to be in yours. I don't know of anyone personally who, if they were in southern Lebanon, would join forces with Hezbollah. Everyone I know would be phoning in the precise location of Hezbollah forces to the Israelis. You're the only one I've ever heard of who has ever suggested fighting on Hezbollah's side.

Didn't 9/11 happen five years ago? The seems a lot less than 20 years to me.
Or doesn't 9/11 count for anything?

Birdlives

July-28th-2006, 11:40 AM

I know our support of Saudi Arabia was the main reason, I never said it wasn't. And yes I was aware that we financed Bin Laden in the 1980s. We also financed Saddam for that matter.

Goes to show how smart we were, huh?

Many also believe that Israel knew about the plotting of 9/11, yet did nothing to warn the US of it. Some ally.

Many huh?

The conclusion of this theory?

the men were detained and investigated by the FBI.. the conclusion:
"The investigation, at the end of the day, after all the polygraphs, all of the field work, all the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advance knowledge of 9/11," Cannistraro noted."

Prosperity

July-28th-2006, 11:40 AM

JMS

July-28th-2006, 11:42 AM

We also financed Saddam for that matter.
Goes to show how smart we were, huh?

A lot of folks like to blame America for anything that goes wrong in the world. We certainly took an active interest and seeing that Iraq had what they needed against Iran. Back then Iran was the big bad boogy man. But it's also true not a single Iraqi weapon system was American in Origin. Iraq was a soviet client throughout the cold war, and never became an American client. Iraq didn't have American planes, tanks, artilery or anything else.

Just my two cents..

BlueTalon

July-28th-2006, 11:47 AM

Come on, why would you want to have one of the most powerful armies and airforces in the world pummelling your country?

Hezbollah has no chance at matching that kind of force, the only thing they can do is lob random rockets at Haifa, they can't make any kind of push into Israel.
Do you think Hezbollah is the least bit concerned with either the country of Lebanon or it's people? They WANT Lebanese civilians to die! That's one of the reasons they launch rockets from populated areas (the other reason being they are cowards). Doing that, they know Israel has two bad options -- do nothing for fear of killing civilians, and responding to the attacks, in which case Lebanese civilians will die, and Hezbollah uses those deaths for propaganda, which stokes up the fires of hate among the likeminded, and dupes the weakminded.

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 11:49 AM

Do you think Hezbollah is the least bit concerned with either the country of Lebanon or it's people? They WANT Lebanese civilians to die! That's one of the reasons they launch rockets from populated areas (the other reason being they are cowards). Doing that, they know Israel has two bad options -- do nothing for fear of killing civilians, and responding to the attacks, in which case Lebanese civilians will die, and Hezbollah uses those deaths for propaganda, which stokes up the fires of hate among the likeminded, and dupes the weakminded.

That's not true. Hezbollah provides alot of social services for the Lebanese people, more then the government is able to do.

They have to resort to guerrilla tactics because in a conventional conflict they know Israel would run them right over.

Birdlives

July-28th-2006, 11:53 AM

True, but Israel doesn't help the problem by reacting disproportionately and with excessive violence.

If 2 soliders were kidnapped, why not send in crack teams to rescue them and pursue the culprits? Why is bombing Beirut necessary?

Mossad is one of the most powerful intelligence units in the world. If getting the Israeli soliders back was really the objective, Israel wouldn't have amplified the conflict the way they have.

Because Israel left Lebanon in hopes they would be helping out the cause of peace. To have Hezbollah and its backers in Syria and Iran take that as an opportunity to then rearm and commit yet another aggressive act upon Israeli soil shows that Hezbollah nor Lebanon could be trusted to reign in this terrorist group. Perfect timing really. Hariri's death and the outrage for it are now firmly in the background where Syria wants them to be.

It also shows that Hezbollah and Syria are more interested in conflict and aggression than peace for Lebanon. Israel is detroying Lebanese infrastructure i.e. roads, airports, etc., to keep Hezbollah from rearming, resupplying, and moving about the country easily. To say they are doing such things with the purpose of destroying Lebanese society is ridiculous. They are trying to limit the abilites of Hezbollah on Hezbollah's territory.

BlueTalon

July-28th-2006, 11:55 AM

If you were born as a Lebanese Shiite then you would have a different bubble, that is what he was getting at.
I don't think that was his point. It sounded to me like he was saying if we as Americans were living there, we'd side with Hezbollah, presumably because we'd be seeing the Israeli injustices or whatever.

But this could be cleared up easily enough by RR clarifying exactly what he meant.

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 11:55 AM

It depends on who "us" is. You remind me of that lady journalist who, after Nixon creamed McGovern by like 98%, said she couldn't understand how Nixon won, nobody she knew voted for him. She was as firmly entrenched in her bubble as you appear to be in yours. I don't know of anyone personally who, if they were in southern Lebanon, would join forces with Hezbollah. Everyone I know would be phoning in the precise location of Hezbollah forces to the Israelis. You're the only one I've ever heard of who has ever suggested fighting on Hezbollah's side.

Didn't 9/11 happen five years ago? The seems a lot less than 20 years to me.
Or doesn't 9/11 count for anything?

Think about it. If you were Lebanese, would you blame Hezbollah or Israel for this conflict? Take into account the fact that Hezbollah provides alot of support for education, charities, and social services in Lebanon. They aren't just some random group of thugs.

If your country is invaded by another country, are you going to blame people within your own country, or bond together to try to get rid of those bombing your capital and crossing into your territory with their army?

JMS

July-28th-2006, 11:56 AM

It seems you are uncomfortable because the hypothetical situation appears to talk about Arabs as a whole, sort of.

He's uncomfortable with your hypothetical because it's a meaningless what if. There is no evidence for your two conclusions. This example just demonstrates that you are more prejudiced against Arabs and more comfortable with Jews. No reality here..

Israelis would not kill Arabs if Arabs were disarmed. A fraction of Arabs would kill Israelis if Israelis were disarmed. Agree?

So you base your entire position on this one hypothetical? If weapons were gone..

If the Arabs had all the land, all the natural resources, and all the power then they wouldn't hurt a flee if the Jews weapons disappeared; if the Jews didn't try to take any of the land, natural resources or power back.

I also believe the jews wouldn't hurt a fly today if the Arab weapons disapeared, since they have all the land, natural resources, and power. Course just like today, the first Palistinian who trys to sink a water well in the West Bank would get his home run over by an armored Israeli bulldozer.

Oh and any idealistic American passive resistor who came between that Israeli bull dozer and the well would likewise be toast. Just like today or was that 2000?...

P.S. The statement, that you can't reason by analogy is not mine. It's a truism in philosophy. Reason is a term applied to a logiical argument where the logic is applied correctly. Analogies aren't about logic because the anologies are arbitrary applied to the subjects. While one can argue by Analogies as you are doing, even persuasively; reasononing by analogy is unreliable and unconvincing.

Kilmer17

July-28th-2006, 11:57 AM

Mussolini made the trains run on time.

No amount of good deeds can excuse the behavior of Islamic Terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Anyone associated with them deserves nothing but death.

RiggoReincarnated

July-28th-2006, 11:58 AM

Because Israel left Lebanon in hopes they would be helping out the cause of peace. To have Hezbollah and its backers in Syria and Iran take that as an opportunity to then rearm and commit yet another aggressive act upon Israeli soil shows that Hezbollah nor Lebanon could be trusted to reign in this terrorist group. Perfect timing really. Hariri's death and the outrage for it are now firmly in the background where Syria wants them to be.

It also shows that Hezbollah and Syria are more interested in conflict and aggression than peace for Lebanon. Israel is detroying Lebanese infrastructure i.e. roads, airports, etc., to keep Hezbollah from rearming, resupplying, and moving about the country easily. To say they are doing such things with the purpose of destroying Lebanese society is ridiculous. They are trying to limit the abilites of Hezbollah on Hezbollah's territory.

They also left because of the same reason the Soviets left Afghanistan, its a long tiresome grinding process to occupy a country and fight a resistance for 20 years. Its a similar situation to what we experienced in Vietnam, and are experiencing in Iraq now.

Do you think Israel will over the Lebanese government large sums of money to rebuild their country after this conflict if its purely about fighting Hezbollah? I don't think they will to be honest.