lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Israel/Lebanon situation
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 07-13-2006, 01:37 PM   #1
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Israel/Lebanon situation

Yesterday, Israel's military began attacking Hezbollah targets in Lebanon in response to Hezbollah taking two Israeli soldiers hostage. The situation has been heating up very quickly, as Israel is refusing to negotiate with Hezbollah...which is no surprise, considering that Hezbollah is demanding the release of thousands of Arab prisoners being held by Israel in exchange for the two soldiers.

As Israel has mounted attacks against Lebanon, including the Beirut airport, military airbases, and a naval blockade, Hezbollah fighters have launched more than 70 rockets in to northern Israel.

France, Russia, and Greece have already condemned Israel's attacks on Lebanon, while President Bush has come out in support of Israel, saying that Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks.

What I don't understand about this situation is the position frequently taken by so many that when organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah stage kidnappings or suicide bombings against Israel, that Israel should just bend over and take it. A suicide bomber wantonly kills and injures Israeli civilians on a bus or in a cafe, and Israel is condemned when any Palestinian civilians are killed or injured when they retaliate against legitimate terrorist targets (btw, it is a known tactic of Hamas leaders to try to shield themselves by frequenting places where civilians, particularly women and children, are colse by, to either prevent reprisals by Israel, or make it look bad when Israel retaliates). Why should Israel just take this kind of crap from terrorists?

By the way, Israel has capitulated to Hezbollah in the past: "In 2004, Hezbollah exchanged prisoners with Israel in a deal that took three years to negotiate. Israel released more than 400 prisoners and returned 59 bodies of Lebanese fighters. Hezbollah released a kidnapped Israeli businessman and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers."


So...when Israel gives Hezbollah what it wants, it doesn't seem to do much good (and let's face it: 400 prisoners for 1 businessman is really generous on Israel's part...or just plain stupid, depending on how you look at it), yet when Israel decides they aren't going to put up with Hezbollah's crap any more and start taking military action against a known terrorist organization that is, by the way, supported by such benevolent, virtuous nations as Iran and Syria, they are condemned for being too harsh.

What gives?


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-13-2006, 02:00 PM   #2
Tyrion
nothing is real
 
Tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: no one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
Posts: 6,917
LF Jester Forum Veteran 
While I suppose Isreal does have a fairly legitimate reason for invading Lebanon and Palestine...they're still going at it messily. So far, they've killed 53 civilians. That's a bit much to try and save two kidnapped soldiers.

Then there's the fact that Isreal is setting itself awfully loose. What happens if Egypt or Syria or, perhaps, Iran invades? Their only real ally in the region is going to be the United States, who's already both spread too far and has acquired the hate of too many within the region.



Tyrion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-13-2006, 02:19 PM   #3
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Frankly, I think Israel's goal here is and should be about more than just rescuing their two kidnapped soldiers. Israel needs to do as much damage to Hezbollah as they can, so that the terrorist scum are no longer in a position to perpetrate more suicide bombings, kidnappings, and rocket attacks. Due to past capitulation, Hezbollah thought they could push Israel around. Now, if Israel does anything other than give a show of force and hit Hezbollah hard, it'll just make things worse for them down the road.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-13-2006, 02:26 PM   #4
Tyrion
nothing is real
 
Tyrion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: no one I think is in my tree, I mean it must be high or low
Posts: 6,917
LF Jester Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Frankly, I think Israel's goal here is and should be about more than just rescuing their two kidnapped soldiers. Israel needs to do as much damage to Hezbollah as they can, so that the terrorist scum are no longer in a position to perpetrate more suicide bombings, kidnappings, and rocket attacks. Due to past capitulation, Hezbollah thought they could push Israel around. Now, if Israel does anything other than give a show of force and hit Hezbollah hard, it'll just make things worse for them down the road.
At the same time however, it's showing to the rest of the Arabic world that Isreal will find any reason to invade a country and kill their civilians. It's an unfair observation, but I wouldn't doubt it occuring. The Gaza Strip invasion would've cooled down after a while, but adding in the invasion of Lebanon and it's very likely for others in the area to believe Isreal is on the warpath.



Tyrion is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-13-2006, 02:58 PM   #5
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
"Any reason?" If suicide bombings, kidnappings, and rocket attacks don't constitute acts of war, I don't know what does. And it's fairly common knowledge that Hezbollah operates out of Lebanon and is supported by Iran and Syria.

I don't doubt that Islamofascist hard-liners across the globe will see this as unwarranted acts of aggression on Israel's part in the face of what they see as noble freedom fighters fighting for Allah's cause, but when it gets right down to it, terrorism is terrorism, and the world community has let this kind of behavior from Hezbollah and HAMAS go on for far too long, condemning Israel for reacting to terrorist attacks instead of supporting Israel's fight against Islamic terrorists. If anything, I think that this current flare-up shows that, until the civilized nations of the world take a stand against Islamic terrorism, whether it be from HAMAS and Hezbollah, al-Qaida, or greater terrorism such as what is going on in Iran, with Ahmadinejad threatening to make oil prices skyrocket if they aren't allowed to develop nuclear weapons, these radical Muslims will continue to try and push the world around. If no one takes action to try and stop these kinds of actions, there is no reason for radical Muslims not to perpetrate them again and again.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-13-2006, 08:01 PM   #6
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
The problem is that Israel's responses are almost alway unfocused, indescriminate and aimed as much at civilians and "innocent" third parties as those at fault.

Israel is one of those issues like abortion where everyone already has a firmly chosen side and nothing the othe side will say will make sense to them.

Lebanese civilians no more deserve to suffer and die for the actions of hezbollah than israeli civilians deserve to suffer and die for the actions of the israeli army/hardline settlers.

If israel's enemies are going to use kidnap and ransom against them rather than suicide bombers then I think thats a pretty big improvement personally.

Bush would come out in support of Israel no matter what they did. Some of the other countries you mentioned would probably come out against israel no matter what they did as well. Thats all about playing to domestic voters.
Russia is an odd one though, as it usually staunchly defends any action by nation states in "self defence", worried about attacks on its own actions in chechnya.

Basically I think both sides are as bad as each other, and it would have all been sorted out one way or another decades ago if it wasn't for the political situation in the US ensuring that the president has to support and bolster Israel no matter what.
(though of course it is a problem of our own making, and its basically at the root of almost all the problems we face today. )



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-13-2006, 11:01 PM   #7
Point Man
Seeker of Truth
 
Point Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The People's Palace
Posts: 612
Israel is not being indiscriminate; the terrorists are intentionally spreading out among civilians. Israel needs to stand resolute in its pursuit of the kidnappers and murderers who are doing everything they can to destroy their people.

War is messy. The only way to clean it up is to overpower the enemy quickly and decisively.


Show me a man who is twenty and not a liberal, and I will show you a man with no heart.
Show me a man who is forty and not a conservative, and I will show you a man with no brain.

Point Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-13-2006, 11:59 PM   #8
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Agreed. They purposely put their military where any attack would risk harm to civillians as well. Canderous makes a comment about this in KOTOR.

Not that I'm justifying the Mandalorian's tactics or the killing of civillians in war, but it is rather rich to crack down on Israel for launching a war of self defence, especially when some of their opposers do so because they are 'filthy Jews' and support the genocide of Israel. I wouldn't support the genocide of Palistine, Lebenon or Syria, just to bomb those who seek to harm others.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 12:42 AM   #9
Point Man
Seeker of Truth
 
Point Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The People's Palace
Posts: 612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``
Agreed. They purposely put their military where any attack would risk harm to civillians as well. Canderous makes a comment about this in KOTOR.
I can just see Golda Meir saying, "I am the new Mandalore."


Show me a man who is twenty and not a liberal, and I will show you a man with no heart.
Show me a man who is forty and not a conservative, and I will show you a man with no brain.

Point Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 03:55 AM   #10
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Huh, touche. Seriously it is a favoured tactic for some to hide in cities, particularly places such as schools, hospitals, holy places, ect. That way even if they are killed the enemy will recieve bad publicity because they attacked or bombed a school.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 08:16 AM   #11
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
But they ARE among the civilians. Mostly because they ARE civilians.

Thats like saying "we could get all those damn criminals if they didn't pourposefully hide among all the civilians".

Where exactly should they be? They should all go out and put on criminal/terrorist uniforms and march in formation into an open field and wave at one of the biggest armies in the world?

Hamas and hezbollah fighters tend to be in cities becuase they live and work in cities with their families. They tend to be surrounded and travelling with women and children because they are married to women and have children. They tend to be near hospitals and schools because they RUN all the hospitals and schools.

Israel has repeatedly should its quite happy to kill civilians and women and children to get at a single terrorist. So its not like visitin your family offers any defence.

And frankly, if there are civilians around (whether purposefully as a shield or not) then tough. You don't just go ahead and bomb them anyway... thats not how civilised societies behave.

Israel's "collateral damage" total is about the same, if not more than their civilian death toll... and frankly there isn't much moral difference between killing 20 people to get your point across, and killing 20 people to get your point across by killing a hamas guy.

Everyone complains when palestinians attack civilians, but then the big response comes when they capture (not kill) a couple of solidiers?????? Makes no sense. Israeli soldiers are as legitimate a target as you can get in this kind of war....



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 11:21 AM   #12
Rogue15
Reconnaissance Specialist
 
Rogue15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Kaas City
Posts: 18,682
Current Game: The Old Republic
Roleplayer 10 year veteran! 
they're sick of being on the defensive. we didn't sit and take crap when bin laden took out our trade centers, we went to afghanistan and owned the taliban.


Battle is a pure form of expression. It is heart and discipline, reduced to movement and motion. In battle, the words are swept away, giving way to actions-- mercy, sacrifice, anger, fear. These are pure moments of expression.
Rogue15 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 01:34 PM   #13
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
But they ARE among the civilians. Mostly because they ARE civilians.

Thats like saying "we could get all those damn criminals if they didn't pourposefully hide among all the civilians".

Where exactly should they be? They should all go out and put on criminal/terrorist uniforms and march in formation into an open field and wave at one of the biggest armies in the world?

Hamas and hezbollah fighters tend to be in cities becuase they live and work in cities with their families. They tend to be surrounded and travelling with women and children because they are married to women and have children. They tend to be near hospitals and schools because they RUN all the hospitals and schools.

Israel has repeatedly should its quite happy to kill civilians and women and children to get at a single terrorist. So its not like visitin your family offers any defence.

And frankly, if there are civilians around (whether purposefully as a shield or not) then tough. You don't just go ahead and bomb them anyway... thats not how civilised societies behave.
So, what, should Israel just sit on its hands and let HAMAS and Hezbollah keep on attacking them over and over just because the terrorist leaders hide behind women and children? If anything, it speaks of the inhumanity of the terrorist leaders that they would surround themselves with their wives and children after a terrorist attack when they know that they are likely being targetted by the Israeli military. Israel has to be willing to accept civilian casualties in order to take out terrorists, or they'd never be able to kill any terrorist leaders. As I said before, this is a tactic of the terrorists: it puts Israel in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position. If Israel lets the terrorsts survive because they're surrounded by women and children, then the terrorists live to plan more terrorist attacks against Israel. If Israel kills the terrorists, they look bad because they couldn't do it without inflicting civilian casualties. The only option left for Israel is to try and choose the lesser of two evils. You may disagree with the choices they make, but the Israeli government has to do what it has to do to protect its citizens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
Everyone complains when palestinians attack civilians, but then the big response comes when they capture (not kill) a couple of solidiers?????? Makes no sense. Israeli soldiers are as legitimate a target as you can get in this kind of war....
Yeah, it's called "the straw that broke the camel's back." As I pointed out in my initial post, Hezbollah has tried this same tactic before, and Israel released over 400 prisoners in exchange for one kidnapped Israeli businessman. Obviously, capitulation only breeds more acts of terrorism. Israel seems to be operating on the philosophy of, "if at first you don't succeed, try something that'll work next time." Capitulating to terrorists doesn't make anyone safer. Killing terrorists does. That's just a fact of life.

Oh, and by the way, the initial Hezbollah attack included not only the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, but the killing of eight more.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 03:37 PM   #14
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Gee, maybe Israel should learn about these things called "special forces" and "counter-terrorism" rather than BOMB BOMB ROCKET HELICOPTAR!!

Bombing the **** out of civilians is not going to get your soldiers back. Starting a war is not going to get your soldiers back. It's only going to lead to the deaths of MORE people.

Notice how when it was just one soldier captured, they could have easily deployed special forces to search for him rather than rolling out the tanks to blow the **** out of everything. Now they have lost more of their soldiers. So seriously, who the hell is behind Israel's response? "We lost one soldier, so let's start a war over it and lose MORE soldiers!"

You know, if the zionists who kicked the Palestinians off their land in the first place couldn't see these endless conflicts in the future, they were ignorant as hell.

So should the Israelis just sit back and take it? No. When our U.S. soldiers were abducted in Iraq, we didn't bomb all of Baghdad did we? No. So are we just sitting back and taking it? No. We send in special forces. Not tanks and missiles to blow up airports and schools.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 05:02 PM   #15
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
A huge part of the ussue is Lebanon's allowing Hezbollah to operate within their nation. If Muslim terrorists were shooting missiles into the US from Canada or Mexico and digging tunnels under our border to facilitate attacks, we wouldn't stand for it for a second - our troops would be moving into that nation to take out the terrorists. This is what Israel is doing.

TK, your point about Israel losing more soldiers in a military action raises this glaringly obvious question: how many more soldiers would Israel lose over time if they did nothing, or showed so much restraint that they allowed terrorists to escape?

Also, I've heard no mention of the fact that Hezbollah is launching rockets into Israeli cities. Israel is not the aggressor here; they are reacting to the actions of Hezbollah.

Oh, and one more thing about toms's comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
the big response comes when they capture (not kill) a couple of solidiers?????? Makes no sense.
The invasion of Israel by Hezbollah and the kidnapping and murder of Israeli soldiers was an act of war (also, according to wiki, the initial attack included rocket attacks by Hezbollah). If the Lebanese weren't ready for Israel to react when provoked with an act of war, they should have given Hezbollah the boot long ago.

If Lebanon is going to allow Hezbollah to operate within their borders, then they'd better be prepared to deal with reprisals from Israel when Hezbollah pushes Israel too far. Critics of Israel are condemning Israel for invading a "sovereign nation" by attacking Lebanon. Well, Israel is a "sovereign nation", as well, and this current situation was started when Israel was invaded and attacked by Hezbollah - and that includes the murders and kidnappings, as well as the rocket attacks.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 05:27 PM   #16
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
You know why Hezbollah is in the Lebanese government? Because Bush and the neocon movement has been pushing for democracy in the Middle East. Apparently they forgot the fact that everyone over there hates us and likes the terrorist groups HAMAS and Hezbollah.

Oops.

And to say that the U.S. would attack terrorists who cause trouble at the border, well, they're causing trouble right now. Just not Muslim terrorists. Criminal gangs and drug cartels are. And no one is doing a damn thing about it. So when it's Muslim terrorists causing trouble you blow everything to pieces, but when it's Latino crimelords, don't do anything??

So what should Israel do if they don't react like this you act? Well, I'd like to point out that the reason WHY they're IN this situation is BECAUSE of them doing this. If they didn't do things like blow up infrastructure, indiscriminately bombing civillian targets, etc., maybe not so many Muslims would hate Israel besides the fact that they are occupying Muslim holy land.

It's called diplomacy. What amazes me is how, like the neocons in power in the U.S., the Israelis just have the attitude of "we're the good guys and we don't negotiate with the bad guys!" And that attitude gets you nothing except, as we have seen, war, that only makes people hate eachother more than they already do.

Why did Hezbollah get involved anyway? Because the Israelis rolled the tanks into Gaza and started blowing the **** out of everything. Guess what, Bush WANTS democracy in the Middle East, and he got it. And they voted in HAMAS and Hezbollah (and don't hope for democracy in Egypt if you don't want to see the Muslim Brotherhood). So now he has to deal with it. He can't just say "I want democracy to spread... but only if you vote in guys we like!" You can't have it both ways.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 05:33 PM   #17
Samnmax221
I never Kipled
 
Samnmax221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: My hovercraft is full of eels
Posts: 5,784
Current Game: Sex with women
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
and what a small chunk of land it is. Jerusulem is the Holy city of Chistians, Jews, and Muslims, to quote a very stupid man "Can't we all just get along?".

Frankly the Muslims don't want to share anything with the rest of the world, the Crusades were launched because the Muslims stopped allowing Christian pilgrims access to Jerusulem.

Last edited by Samnmax221; 07-14-2006 at 05:45 PM.
Samnmax221 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 06:37 PM   #18
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
It's called diplomacy. What amazes me is how, like the neocons in power in the U.S., the Israelis just have the attitude of "we're the good guys and we don't negotiate with the bad guys!" And that attitude gets you nothing except, as we have seen, war, that only makes people hate eachother more than they already do.
What diplomacy? Israel negotiated with Hezbollah the last time they pulled this kind of stunt! They turned over 490 arab prisoners in exchange for one kidnapped businessman! And just what did it get them?

Samnmax is right - the Muslims don't want to share anything with the rest of the world. And these Muslims in particular have demonstrated quite clearly that they will not respond to diplomacy. Israel has given concessions, and things calmed down for a while, but there is always another attack, another suicide bombing, another kidnapping.

And yes, Hezbollah and HAMAS were voted into power democratically. So was Adolf Hitler. A weird little thing about choices is that they have consequences. And if Palestinian Muslims are going to vote terrorist organizations into power, then they will have to deal with the consequences of their votes.

If the people of Lebanon decided to vote into power members of an organization likely to commit an act of war against a nation tired of being provoked, then they'd better get themselves ready, because war is coming.

It disgusts me when liberals go on and on about diplomacy. Successful diplomacy requires two parties willing to negotiate, and then abide by the results of that negotiation. HAMAS and Hezbollah have shown in extremely clear terms that, over the long term, they are not willing to abide by the terms of any negotiation with Israel unless the terms include the entire Jewish population of Israel committing mass suicide. They'll take any and all concessions made by Israel, and then turn around and attack again, and again, and again. How, exactly, is diplomacy supposed to work in that kind of situation?

And about your comment about Israel occupying "Muslim holy land": Jerusalem happens to be holy to Jews and Christians, as well, as Samnmax pointed out. The difference is that most Jews and Christians are willing to share the Holy Land, while Muslims believe that the entire region belongs to them (the Koran states that any lands held by Muslims are to be Muslim lands for the rest of all time. Try negotiating with that.).


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 06:41 PM   #19
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogue15
they're sick of being on the defensive. we didn't sit and take crap when bin laden took out our trade centers, we went to afghanistan and owned the taliban.
Which was very john wayne and all, but achieved absolutely nothing.

You are right that the situations are depressingly similar though.

Party A attacks party B... party B can't attack A back, but needs to look tough. So they attack party C. It doesn't matter if they succeed or fail, or if party C have any control over party A.. as long as it looks good to the voters. Attacking anyone is better than no one.

PS/ The taliban are owning you right back at the moment..



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)

Last edited by toms; 07-14-2006 at 07:08 PM.
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 07:05 PM   #20
toms
v0.9
 
toms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: uk swamp
Posts: 3,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samnmax221
and what a small chunk of land it is. Jerusulem is the Holy city of Chistians, Jews, and Muslims, to quote a very stupid man "Can't we all just get along?".

Frankly the Muslims don't want to share anything with the rest of the world, the Crusades were launched because the Muslims stopped allowing Christian pilgrims access to Jerusulem.
I thought it was the exact opposite... but who knows. Frankly, the actions of people 100s of years ago that bear no relation to the current people involved are irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure that it was the christians who stopped access to jerusalem.. but even if it was the muslims... how on earth can you hold an entire religion accountable for the actions of whatever one leader it was that did something 100s of years ago??
Its like saying all christians are murderers just because the catholic church used to burn witches. Hey, meet stereotype, you'll like him...

The lebanese government has no control over hezbollah. And every untargetted attack by israel increases the support for hez-b and reduces any influence the government might have had.

Its simillar to the way it would be political suicide for any US government to go against the NRA, or withdraw support for Israel. The groundswell of public opinion is such that the government has its hands tied.

I don't exactly see how bombing power stations and roads in lebannon is going to effect hez-b... if anything it has the usual effect of increasing the support for them.

rccarr328: the bible states a lot of hardline stupid things as well. Like executing all male prisoners etc.. the difference is that a lot of muslims still believe the qur'an, wereas most of us in the west have evolved enough intelligence to take the bible with a pinch of salt.

I like the way you try and demonise the muslims as the bad guys, but it just doesn't wash. All sides are equally selfish and narrow minded... as they are in all conflicts.

I love that it is ok for israel to inflict collateral damage... but its evil for the underdogs to do the same.

If its a war then israeli soldiers are legitimate targets. If it isn't a war then israel shouldn't be launching rocket attacks on cities.

Every time the IRA bombed a UK city we didn't unleash harriers and their rockets on ireland or the USA, even if they had a lot of support there. We showed enough intelligence and restraint to realise that it wasn't the fault of the majority of the people there that the attacks took place... and it would only cause more sympathy for those involved if we attacked indescriminately.

I love that the US, as probably the country with the least number of terrorist attacks on its soil, is suddenly the expert on how to effectively respond... especially considering its response so far has been totally ineffective.

How does israel bombing aything help the situation......
....
...
...
...it doesn't.
All it does is prove the new presidents credentials as being "firm against terrorists" to the voters. Who cares if it makes things worse or kills a lot of people in the process.

-

How come any response is ok for the USA and israel when their territory and citizens are attacked, but for the palestinians who had their homes and lands forcibly taken from them and were effectively forced to live in squalor and detention camps its not ok to fight back. I'd love to see you guys on the front line if the USA ever gets invaded saying "no, don't fight back!"

NB/post made after a lot of beer. typos may exist. ignore them, they are just trying to cause trouble.



Playing: Link to the Past, Astroboy, Kario Kart, Mario World (Micro) KOTOR 2: Sith Lords (Xbox) Morrowind (PC)
toms is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 07:18 PM   #21
Samnmax221
I never Kipled
 
Samnmax221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: My hovercraft is full of eels
Posts: 5,784
Current Game: Sex with women
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
I thought it was the exact opposite... but who knows. Frankly, the actions of people 100s of years ago that bear no relation to the current people involved are irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure that it was the christians who stopped access to jerusalem.. but even if it was the muslims... how on earth can you hold an entire religion accountable for the actions of whatever one leader it was that did something 100s of years ago??
Its like saying all christians are murderers just because the catholic church used to burn witches. Hey, meet stereotype, you'll like him...
The hundreds of years separating the Crusades and the War on Terror are insignificant. It's the same thing, Radicals in charge of Muslim states don't want to share their country with the rest of the world despite the fact that many other people place an importance on the right to make a pilgrimage to sites in that land, not to mention that the most radical Muslim groups want the world to return to a 7th century state of mind and are willing to kill anyone who gets in their way to do it.
Samnmax221 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 07:23 PM   #22
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Anyone is allowed to defend themselves, even the Palestinions. But the way they did so, sending children as suicide bombers and deliberately targeting civillian as opposed to military targets, is inexcuseable. Israel may kill civillians in their attacks, and every time they do it's a tragedy, but they are fighting for their very existence since as far as people such as Hamas is concerned what Hitler started, the extermination of the Jews, they are trying to finish. Every civillian death they should be taken to task for, but you cannot have one rule for a country who kills civillians in a military attack in self defense and another rule for a country who seeks to kill as many innocent victims as they can. To think otherwise is terrorist minded and deserves to be condemned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samnmax221
not to mention that the most radical Muslim groups want the world to return to a 7th century state of mind and are willing to kill anyone who gets in their way to do it.
Just saw this. Exactly, many in the world see America in particular and the Western world in general as corrupt and morally bankrupt, from allowing women to express themselves the way they do and how they flaunt themselves to paying tens of millions of dollars to actors, athletes, ect and letting the poor and disadvantaged suffer. The extremists, rather than speak out against it or tolerate it seek to destroy it, and it may very well interpret their religion that they are meant to. I know it is very easy to read passages from the Bible and take them out of context, material such as 'anyone who commits these acts must be brought to death. You must show no mercy to their people.' That is not to say to think that way is right, or wrong, but that is how some people think.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 07:38 PM   #23
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Samnmax is right - the Muslims don't want to share anything with the rest of the world.
Apparently the Israelis don't either. They think they have god with them and they don't give a damn about innocent life in other territories. Sounds a lot like what the terrorists think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
And these Muslims in particular have demonstrated quite clearly that they will not respond to diplomacy. Israel has given concessions, and things calmed down for a while, but there is always another attack, another suicide bombing, another kidnapping.
In this case, I say to Israel - this is the inevitable consequence for occupying Muslim land. You should have seen this type of thing happening before you put this whole "Zionism" plan into action. "Hey guys, since everyone hates us in Europe, let's go and recreate our homeland! Oh, damn, there's these pesky Muslims down there now. Oh well, they won't mind!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
And yes, Hezbollah and HAMAS were voted into power democratically. So was Adolf Hitler. A weird little thing about choices is that they have consequences. And if Palestinian Muslims are going to vote terrorist organizations into power, then they will have to deal with the consequences of their votes.

If the people of Lebanon decided to vote into power members of an organization likely to commit an act of war against a nation tired of being provoked, then they'd better get themselves ready, because war is coming.
So if these people are going to vote terrorist groups into power, why is Bush pushing democracy on them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
It disgusts me when liberals go on and on about diplomacy.
Funny you should inject the word "liberals" in this, because I was listening to Pat Buchanan speaking on Tucker Carlson's show on MSNBC, and his views on this matter are exactly the same as mine. All of a sudden Pat Buchanon is a "liberal" now eh? Because he's not a neocon? BTW I'm not a liberal in the sense you think of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
How, exactly, is diplomacy supposed to work in that kind of situation?
Hey, I dunno, but how is bombing everyone and making them hate you even more, killing civilians, and starting a war going to help?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
And about your comment about Israel occupying "Muslim holy land": Jerusalem happens to be holy to Jews and Christians, as well, as Samnmax pointed out. The difference is that most Jews and Christians are willing to share the Holy Land, while Muslims believe that the entire region belongs to them (the Koran states that any lands held by Muslims are to be Muslim lands for the rest of all time. Try negotiating with that.).
Yes I know it is holy land for all the religions (without religion we wouldn't have this damn problem to begin with), but that doesn't make it fair game for one religious group to take over, just 'cuz they feel like it. It was the Muslims' land when it was Palestine. Invading a country, taking it over, and kicking all the people off their land and moving in your people is not right.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 07:42 PM   #24
Samnmax221
I never Kipled
 
Samnmax221's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: My hovercraft is full of eels
Posts: 5,784
Current Game: Sex with women
Forum Veteran LF Jester 
Not Israelies are Jewish, it breaks down like this
76.2% Jewish
16.1% Muslim
2.1% Christian
1.6% Druze
The rest are not classified
Samnmax221 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 08:36 PM   #25
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Apparently the Israelis don't either. They think they have god with them and they don't give a damn about innocent life in other territories. Sounds a lot like what the terrorists think.
Because they retaliate against terrorist attacks? I don't know if you're aware of this, but Israel allows Muslims to live in Jerusalem. And I haven't heard the Israeli government pushing for the destruction of Islam, just for Muslim terrorists to stop killing Israeli civilians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
In this case, I say to Israel - this is the inevitable consequence for occupying Muslim land. You should have seen this type of thing happening before you put this whole "Zionism" plan into action. "Hey guys, since everyone hates us in Europe, let's go and recreate our homeland! Oh, damn, there's these pesky Muslims down there now. Oh well, they won't mind!"
There you go again with the "Muslim land" thing. If you're going to get into that over and over, then let's be real about it: the land belonged to the Jews long before Islam even existed. A lot of the contention in the region throughout history (including the Crusades) has been because of Muslims' belief that once they are in possession of a piece of land, it becomes "Muslim land" for the rest of all eternity...and their defense of that belief has been very bloody indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
So if these people are going to vote terrorist groups into power, why is Bush pushing democracy on them?
I can't speak for Bush, but frankly, I don't see how the neoconservative agenda to spread democracy to the Middle East excuses the behavior of HAMAS and Hezbollah.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Funny you should inject the word "liberals" in this, because I was listening to Pat Buchanan speaking on Tucker Carlson's show on MSNBC, and his views on this matter are exactly the same as mine. All of a sudden Pat Buchanon is a "liberal" now eh? Because he's not a neocon? BTW I'm not a liberal in the sense you think of them.
Buchanan isn't a neocon, he's a wacko. And I use the generalization "liberals" because it's liberals who have been whining about diplomacy (and ignoring the facts) for a long time now. We didn't take enough time for diplomacy to work in Iraq...even though Hussein was using the diplomatic process to toy with the world. Madeline Albright was in the news calling the recent North Korea missile test a "failure of diplomacy" on the part of the United States...so, according to her, the US failed diplomatically because we couldn't talk an insane commie dictator out of test-firing missiles? Frankly, Madeline Albright is suffering from a "failure of logic."

The problem with saying, "give diplomacy a chance," like I said before, is that diplomacy requires two rational parties willing to agree on a compromise. HAMAS and Hezbollah have shown in the past that they will compromise and then attack, and then compromise and then attack. About as effective as Neville Chamberlain's Munich Agreement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Hey, I dunno, but how is bombing everyone and making them hate you even more, killing civilians, and starting a war going to help?
Simple: once the terrorists are dead, they are incapable of attacking again. The current situation is not impossible to fix, but it's definitely not going to be pretty. But as long as the Islamic terrorists are dead, it'll be better than playing at an illusion of peace. Frankly, I found President Bush's talk about "a road map to peace" to be extremely naive: the only way there will be peace in the Middle East with the Islamic radicals still there is to give them all of the land and let them institute Sha'ria law there. Then, the Middle East will be at peace, but radical Islam will inevitably spread and start threatening some other area. You seem to forget: the goal of radical Islam is not simply the re-conquest of Jerusalem, it is global domination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Yes I know it is holy land for all the religions (without religion we wouldn't have this damn problem to begin with), but that doesn't make it fair game for one religious group to take over, just 'cuz they feel like it. It was the Muslims' land when it was Palestine. Invading a country, taking it over, and kicking all the people off their land and moving in your people is not right.
Like I said above, the land belonged to the Jews long before it was conquered by the Muslims.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 08:55 PM   #26
Nancy Allen``
Banned
 
Nancy Allen``'s Avatar
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
Thats like saying "we could get all those damn criminals if they didn't pourposefully hide among all the civilians"
That's diffirent, police do go after criminals if they know where they are. If a country knows where terrorists are hiding out then they are expected, especially in this day day and age, to go after them. I know that if the situation was reversed and Israel were sending in suicide bombers to kill Palestinions I would be supporting the elimination of the Israeli terrorist threat. I really couldn't care less about whose land it is or who drove out whose people, the current issue is the point.
Nancy Allen`` is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-14-2006, 09:36 PM   #27
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Because they retaliate against terrorist attacks?
Right, and they retaliate by bombing indiscriminately and terrorizing innocent people. Exactly what terrorists do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
I don't know if you're aware of this, but Israel allows Muslims to live in Jerusalem.
So can the Palestinians come back and live on their land then? No? Why not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
And I haven't heard the Israeli government pushing for the destruction of Islam, just for Muslim terrorists to stop killing Israeli civilians.
Wait... this whole mess didn't even start with the killing of Israel civilians. It started when one Israeli soldier was abducted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
A lot of the contention in the region throughout history (including the Crusades) has been because of Muslims' belief that once they are in possession of a piece of land, it becomes "Muslim land" for the rest of all eternity...and their defense of that belief has been very bloody indeed.
Wait a second, it seems that the Israelis are the ones who believe that if it's their land it's theirs for all eternity. They left (diaspora), and then decided to come back because it's "their" god-given land. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians believe it's "their" land. The difference is, the Israelis were the ones who kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and off their land. All because they thought it is "their" land to begin with. Hmm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
I can't speak for Bush, but frankly, I don't see how the neoconservative agenda to spread democracy to the Middle East excuses the behavior of HAMAS and Hezbollah.
Neocons give the impression that if a country democratically elects its leaders, it suddenly becomes a great civilized nation that will not wage war. The neoconservative agenda gives power to Middle Eastern extremists through their push for democracy in the region. It gives power to HAMAS and Hezbollah. It weakens this country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Buchanan isn't a neocon, he's a wacko.
So you're saying that Pat Buchanon is a wacko, when he's a Nixon/Reagon-type conservative. Okay.

I'll agree he's wacko on his "family values" crap, but his foreign policies beat the hell out of Bush's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
We didn't take enough time for diplomacy to work in Iraq...even though Hussein was using the diplomatic process to toy with the world.
We didn't need to do ANYTHING in Iraq. They weren't even a threat. But that's a different debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
The problem with saying, "give diplomacy a chance," like I said before, is that diplomacy requires two rational parties willing to agree on a compromise. HAMAS and Hezbollah have shown in the past that they will compromise and then attack, and then compromise and then attack. About as effective as Neville Chamberlain's Munich Agreement.
So start a war... that's the solution? What happens, all the Muslims in the Middle East just decide "hey, let's just give up. They win." Eventually, diplomacy will be the only solution. Unless you can kill radical Islam... which is an idea. Which cannot be killed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Simple: once the terrorists are dead, they are incapable of attacking again.
If seems you have a "failure of logic" as well. Clearly, you can't just kill all the terrorists and say "yay, radical Islam is gone!" Because, well, radical Islam is not going away any time soon. It is an idea, not a foreign army that can be fought on the battlefield. That's why the "War on Terrorism" fails so horribly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
the only way there will be peace in the Middle East with the Islamic radicals still there is to give them all of the land and let them institute Sha'ria law there.
Right. And there's nothing wrong with that. Israel never should have existed. If they want to continue to occupy that land, they have to deal with the continuous violence like civilized people: i.e. not starting wars, not killing civilians, not terrorizing innocents, etc. Otherwise they're no better than the people they're fighting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Then, the Middle East will be at peace, but radical Islam will inevitably spread and start threatening some other area. You seem to forget: the goal of radical Islam is not simply the re-conquest of Jerusalem, it is global domination.
As far as we know they want Jerusalem back, and Western powers out of their affairs. These are actually not unreasonable demands... it's the means they use to achieve their goals that are evil.

Until I see Islamic revolutions in Europe and the Americas, you have no proof that radical Muslims would attempt to dominate the globe. Of course they would LIKE to, but a lot of conservative Christians would like to see Islam crushed (i.e. Ann Coulter, Tom Tancredo). Is it gonna happen? Hmm... nope.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-15-2006, 12:43 AM   #28
rccar328
Forumite
 
rccar328's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Right where I should be.
Posts: 567
TK, I can see that I'm not going to win you over, so I will leave you with this:

First, this comment:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Wait... this whole mess didn't even start with the killing of Israel civilians. It started when one Israeli soldier was abducted.
The primary insigator of the current military action was the killing of eight Israeli soldiers and the kidnapping of two by Hezbollah, and a rocket attack by Hezbollah on Israeli towns. But if you think that even that was the start of "this whole mess," you're extremely naive, which I know you are not. According to UN Security Council Resolution 1559, Lebanon was to disband and disarm all militias operating within its borders...including Hezbollah. Obviously, Lebanon has failed to do so. That says to me that not only is Israel justified in retaliating against Hezbollah, but every nation in the United Nations should be defending their actions. So when Hezbollah mounts attack after attack on Israel, they have a choice: they can either give in to Hezbollah's demands, which has been proven to be a failing strategy, or they can make sure, militarily, that Hezbollah will cease to be a threat to them. The only time that Israel will ever be in a position to negotiate with Hezbollah will be after Hezbollah has been beaten into submission (and with Iran and Syria supplying them, that will definitely take quite a beating). And even then, it's more likely than not that Hezbollah will do what it takes to get a cease-fire, lick its wounds, and then bide its time until it is once again in a position to attack Israel.

Quote:
Neocons give the impression that if a country democratically elects its leaders, it suddenly becomes a great civilized nation that will not wage war. The neoconservative agenda gives power to Middle Eastern extremists through their push for democracy in the region. It gives power to HAMAS and Hezbollah. It weakens this country.
If that's what you think, you really are naive. Democracy is not the be-all and end-all. If any nation wants to be treated like a civilized nation, then it has to act like a civilized nation. That's why President Bush, the great touter of democracy, is supporting Israel in this case. Changing the form of government from Sha'ria to democracy, while a step in the right direction, cannot automatically create a civilized nation, and frankly, anyone who thinks that it can or will is just plain stupid. Any nation can have a democratically elected government, but if the citizens under that government elect terrorists such as HAMAS or Hezbollah into power, then there should be no reasonable expectation that the world should treat them as civilized nations just because they held elections. It's simply a fact of life that civilized nations don't elect terrorist organizations into power.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
As far as we know they want Jerusalem back, and Western powers out of their affairs. These are actually not unreasonable demands... it's the means they use to achieve their goals that are evil.
I would say that getting Jerusalem back is not too unreasonable (except that Israel has shown itself to be much more responsible as a nation than any Islamic state out there), but if they want Western powers out of their affairs, then they have another thing coming. Follow the money: As long as the Islamic world controls the majority of oil in the world, Western nations and Eastern nations will have interests there. Most conservatives and neocons don't want to admit it, but the main reason that any nation has interests in the Middle East is their oil. Without oil, these kinds of religious conflicts would be treated much like the civil wars and ethnic cleansings in Africa: causes for concern, but not enough concern for nations to take action. This is why it's not only in the United States' best interests to have stable, democratic nations in the Middle East, but it's in the best interests of every other civilized nation on the planet (stable being the operative term).

Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Until I see Islamic revolutions in Europe and the Americas, you have no proof that radical Muslims would attempt to dominate the globe. Of course they would LIKE to, but a lot of conservative Christians would like to see Islam crushed (i.e. Ann Coulter, Tom Tancredo). Is it gonna happen? Hmm... nope.
When you see Islamic revolutions in Europe and the Americas, it'll be too late. But lest you forget, radical Islamists do refer to America as "the Great Satan." Israel, to them, is "the Little Satan." If you think they're going to take out Israel and then not move on, you ought to have a nice little reality check coming not long after Israel disappears underneath an Iranian mushroom cloud. There's a reason conservative Christians like Coulter and Tancredo would like to see radical Islamic terrorist scum wiped off the face of the planet: the survival of Western civilization depends on it.


Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
~John F. Kennedy

True Conservatism

rccar328 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-15-2006, 01:26 AM   #29
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Lebanon was to disband and disarm all militias operating within its borders...including Hezbollah. Obviously, Lebanon has failed to do so.
Of COURSE they failed to disarm the militia. It's a MILITIA after all. As in not a part of the government. And if you think that a government is so competent that it can convince radical Muslims to lay down their arms, think again.

You seem to think, as so many neocons do, that governments can solve all problems. I do not think that. Holding the people of Lebanon responsible for their government's failure to disarm Hezbollah is wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Democracy is not the be-all and end-all.
And yet that's what the neocons say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
If any nation wants to be treated like a civilized nation, then it has to act like a civilized nation.
Like Iraq, right? Oops...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
That's why President Bush, the great touter of democracy, is supporting Israel in this case. Changing the form of government from Sha'ria to democracy, while a step in the right direction
No no, that's BAD. For example, we're much better off with Saudi Arabia being a monarchy than having it as a democracy. Why? Because they'd friggin' vote in al-Qaeda there or something similar. Democracy in the Middle East is not going to benefit us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
Any nation can have a democratically elected government, but if the citizens under that government elect terrorists such as HAMAS or Hezbollah into power, then there should be no reasonable expectation that the world should treat them as civilized nations just because they held elections.
Then why would you ever support Iraq? They voted in a bunch of Shi'ite Islamists who are turning it into an Islamic theocracy. That militia leader, al-Sadr, is wielding politicial power in Iraq. Why should be treat Iraq as a civilized nation just because they had elections?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
This is why it's not only in the United States' best interests to have stable, democratic nations in the Middle East, but it's in the best interests of every other civilized nation on the planet (stable being the operative term).
No it is NOT in our best interests for democracy in the Middle East. That is BAD. They hate us in the Middle East. They vote in people who hate us, i.e. terrorists. The Saudis are evil, but they are friendly to us. Because they're not a democracy.

Only when people can prove that they are ready for democracy is it good for them to have it. When they're not ready, you get HAMAS, Iraq, Iran, etc...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
When you see Islamic revolutions in Europe and the Americas, it'll be too late. But lest you forget, radical Islamists do refer to America as "the Great Satan." Israel, to them, is "the Little Satan." If you think they're going to take out Israel and then not move on, you ought to have a nice little reality check coming not long after Israel disappears underneath an Iranian mushroom cloud.
That Islamic revolutions line was more of a joke, but I guess it still holds some purpose. If I see movements to build Islamic states around the world, you're right, but until we see such movement, nuh-uh. I mean, would Muslims really try to turn say, Russia and Japan and other such nations into Muslim states?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rccar328
There's a reason conservative Christians like Coulter and Tancredo would like to see radical Islamic terrorist scum wiped off the face of the planet: the survival of Western civilization depends on it.
They don't want just radical Islam destroyed. Coulter after 9/11 said that we should invade every Middle Eastern country, kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity. Tancredo said that bombing Muslim holy sites should be done if terrorists hit the U.S. with nukes. These are not anti-terrorist views... these are anti-Muslim views.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-15-2006, 04:21 AM   #30
Char Ell
Force Enlightened
 
Char Ell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 2,368
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Folder extraordinaire Forum Veteran 
I think it's very unfortunate that this thread has somehow turned into a liberal vs. conservative debate...

A recount of some pertinent historical details for this issue:
-UN Resolution 181 was passed by the UN General Assembly on 1947 November 29 by a 33-13 vote with 10 abstentions.
In favour: 33
Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela.
Against: 13
Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Abstained: 10
Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.
- Resolution 181 called for the establishment of an Arab state and a Jewish state and outlined boundaries for both states. Resolution 181 also directed the city of Jerusalem be administered by the UN as a special regime.

If one evaluates the data from an objective viewpoint one can see that even in 1949 the vote markedly was nations having a Christian population in the majority favored the resolution while nations with a Muslim population in the majority were against. I believe the only reason the UK abstained was because it was overseeing Palestine under a UN mandate and wanted to maintain an official position of neutrality. Of course none of the Muslim countries ever recognized the right of Israel to exist.

Question: Why wasn't the Arab state created when the Jewish state of Israel was?

IMHO the whole Muslim Palestinians (PLO) vs. Jewish Palestinians (Israel) conflict is so deep rooted in the people in that region of the world that there is no way for the matter to be settled peaceably. I only see this millenias-old conflict ending one of three ways. 1) Arab Muslims completely eradicate Palestinian Jews, 2) Palestinian Jews eradicate all Arab Muslims, or 3) the end of the world as we know it. It's as simple as that for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
So can the Palestinians come back and live on their land then? No? Why not?
Not while Israel is on it of course. Why not? [cowboy drawl]Cuz the town ain't big enuf fer the two of 'em![/cowboy drawl]
Quote:
Originally Posted by toms
I thought it was the exact opposite... but who knows. Frankly, the actions of people 100s of years ago that bear no relation to the current people involved are irrelevant.
I was very disappointed to read this statement. If one considers the historical record one will realize the current Islamic Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Iranians, et al. are descendents of the ancient Babylonians, Assyrians, Philistines, etc.. Palestinian Jews are of course descendents of the children of Israel who left Egypt as outlined in the Christian Bible. If one accepts the Bible's historical account then it was Joshua who led the Israelites (ancestors of current Palestinian Jews) into the modern-day Israel, driving out the existing occupants (ancestors of current Palestinian Muslims). So the attitudes of people hundreds and even thousands of years ago have continued to be passed down from generation to generation in this conflict. In essence what we're really talking about here is a 3,000+ years old land dispute. I honestly thought that was fairly common knowledge but I guess I was wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Wait a second, it seems that the Israelis are the ones who believe that if it's their land it's theirs for all eternity. They left (diaspora), and then decided to come back because it's "their" god-given land. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians believe it's "their" land. The difference is, the Israelis were the ones who kicked the Palestinians out of their homes and off their land. All because they thought it is "their" land to begin with
But you seem to favor the idea that Palestine belongs to the Muslims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
In this case, I say to Israel - this is the inevitable consequence for occupying Muslim land.
I honestly think you would find few, if any, Israeli Jews who would say that their ancestors left Palestine by their own choice. The diaspora you refer to was not the Jews leaving because they wanted to. It was because the Jews had been conquered and exiled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
For example, we're much better off with Saudi Arabia being a monarchy than having it as a democracy. Why? Because they'd friggin' vote in al-Qaeda there or something similar. Democracy in the Middle East is not going to benefit us.
I think this is an excellent point and quite true. If the U.S.A. continues on its current campaign of promoting democratic governments in the Middle East it shouldn't complain (or be surprised) if it gets what it wants and newly elected Arab governments thumb their noses at America. On the contrary, American should expect this type of outcome.


Want to battle against cancer and other chronic diseases? Join Team LFN!


Char Ell is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-15-2006, 04:31 AM   #31
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutmeister
But you seem to favor the idea that Palestine belongs to the Muslims.
Perhaps I do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutmeister
I honestly think you would find few, if any, Israeli Jews who would say that their ancestors left Palestine by their own choice. The diaspora you refer to was not the Jews leaving because they wanted to. It was because the Jews had been conquered and exiled.
I see it this way: you are living in a house on some land, but you lose your job and can't make the payments on it, and you're evicted. Then some new family moves into your house and is living in it. So can you come back and forcibly kick them out of "your" house? No, it's theirs now. You were kicked out, but that doesn't make it right to kick the new people out too.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-15-2006, 09:39 PM   #32
Char Ell
Force Enlightened
 
Char Ell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 2,368
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Folder extraordinaire Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
I see it this way: you are living in a house on some land, but you lose your job and can't make the payments on it, and you're evicted. Then some new family moves into your house and is living in it. So can you come back and forcibly kick them out of "your" house? No, it's theirs now. You were kicked out, but that doesn't make it right to kick the new people out too.
Sounds like you're saying two wrongs don't make a right.

If this is the way you see it then that's not likely to change. However I don't think your analogy is an accurate representation of events.

Modifying your housing analogy to fit my interpretation of the Jewish/Palestinian Arab history of Palestine...
1) My ancestors and your ancestors both claimed ownership of a house.
2) For a time both my ancestors and your ancestors lived in the disputed house.
3) My ancestors of their own accord left the house for a time and lived elsewhere but never relinquished their claim to the house.
3) My ancestors returned to the house, found your ancestors living in it, and decided to kick your ancestors out of it.
4) Your ancestors did not forsake their claim to the house and returned to kick my ancestors out.
5) Repeat steps 3 and 4 two or three times.
5) Your ancestors kicked my ancestors out of the disputed house so far that they didn't return for a very long time.
6) A group of influential individuals took pity upon my homeless family. They decided to exert their influence and took upon themselves the authority to rule on the dispute between your family and mine. There are no records that can substantiate your family's claim to the house over my family's claim and vice versa.
7) This influential group of outsiders determines that the only solution is a compromise. Your family will get half of the house and my family will get the other half.
8) Your family doesn't accept the outsiders' decision. My family of course is happy to get back into at least half of the house.
9) Your family gets some friends together to help them kick my family out of our half of the house.
10) My family not only repels your family's attempt but in the process is able to occupy somewhere between two-thirds to three-quarters of the house, leaving your family with the rest.
11) Your family is not willing to accept my family's presence in any part of the house and still works to find a way to kick my family out.
12) Your family appeals to the influential group of outsiders but the group is no longer to able find enough agreement among its members to make a ruling on the matter.
13) Your family continues in its attempts to harass my family. My family has superior weapons and your family does not currently have the ability to effect my family's eviction.

I think this is a fairly accurate analogy of the Palestinian situation.

So I pose the following question to you, TK-8252. Let's say tomorrow you woke up and found yourself the Supreme Overlord of Planet Earth. It's a cool title and all but you find that while you have the ability to make judgements you are forced to rely on other parties to enforce your judgements. How would you address the dispute between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews?


Want to battle against cancer and other chronic diseases? Join Team LFN!


Char Ell is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-15-2006, 10:37 PM   #33
swphreak
My cabbages!!!
 
swphreak's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,510
10 year veteran! Folder extraordinaire LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Personally I'm of the opinion that all the major nations should bomb the mother effing crap out of the Middle East, and then split the oil down the middle. Because of the religious extremists and fanatics, there will never be peace in the Middle East.

As for the current situation, from what I understand, Hamas is some sort of government terrorist organization, which kidnapped Israeli soldiers. That certainly sounds like an act of war to me, and I applaud Israel for not just indiscriminately bombing the crap out of everything. They're supposedly taking out Hamas targets in civilian areas, not just suicide bombing schools and hospitals.

I just hope Bush keeps the U.S. out of it. Just execute the air bridge for U.S. citizens in the area, and watch the show from a distance.
swphreak is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-15-2006, 10:53 PM   #34
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutmeister
How would you address the dispute between Palestinian Arabs and Palestinian Jews?
Pretty simple. Israel is turned over to the Palestinians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StarWarsPhreak
As for the current situation, from what I understand, Hamas is some sort of government terrorist organization, which kidnapped Israeli soldiers. That certainly sounds like an act of war to me, and I applaud Israel for not just indiscriminately bombing the crap out of everything. They're supposedly taking out Hamas targets in civilian areas, not just suicide bombing schools and hospitals.
Except this isn't about HAMAS. It's about Israel bombing the **** out of civilian targets in Lebanon. This whole thing was started by HAMAS, but since Hezbollah got involved it seems that Israel decided to kill a bunch of innocent Lebanese civilians and destroy everything. Bomb gas stations, airports, disrupt medical supplies and food, etc. Their goal is to literally terrorize the Lebanese people until they denounce Hezbollah. Yeah like that's gonna happen.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-15-2006, 11:25 PM   #35
Char Ell
Force Enlightened
 
Char Ell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 2,368
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Folder extraordinaire Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Pretty simple. Israel is turned over to the Palestinians.
Yes, a simple solution indeed. But then what happens to the 6 million Palestinian Jews you just evicted? The Palestinian Arabs obviously aren't going to let them hang around. Where will the Israelis go to live out the rest of the miserable lives?


Want to battle against cancer and other chronic diseases? Join Team LFN!


Char Ell is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-15-2006, 11:36 PM   #36
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by cutmeister
Yes, a simple solution indeed. But then what happens to the 6 million Palestinian Jews you just evicted? The Palestinian Arabs obviously aren't going to let them hang around. Where will the Israelis go to live out the rest of the miserable lives?
Divide up the Israeli government's wealth among the people and have the UN countries accept Israeli immigrants. 'Course this wouldn't happen, because pretty much all the UN can do is make condemnation statements. Sigh.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-16-2006, 12:02 AM   #37
Char Ell
Force Enlightened
 
Char Ell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 2,368
Current Game: The Old Republic
LFN Staff Member Folder extraordinaire Forum Veteran 
^^^
It is indeed fortunate for the Israelis that you're not Supreme Overlord of Planet Earth.


Want to battle against cancer and other chronic diseases? Join Team LFN!


Char Ell is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-16-2006, 12:05 AM   #38
swphreak
My cabbages!!!
 
swphreak's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 6,510
10 year veteran! Folder extraordinaire LFN Staff Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Except this isn't about HAMAS. It's about Israel bombing the **** out of civilian targets in Lebanon. This whole thing was started by HAMAS, but since Hezbollah got involved it seems that Israel decided to kill a bunch of innocent Lebanese civilians and destroy everything. Bomb gas stations, airports, disrupt medical supplies and food, etc. Their goal is to literally terrorize the Lebanese people until they denounce Hezbollah. Yeah like that's gonna happen.
Terrorise the terrorist, oh my!

What about said terrorist organisations launching rockets at Israeli cities? It seems to me like they're just bombing the crap out of everything.

Israel is supposedly attacking terrorist locations. It just so happens that the terrorist are cowering behind civilians. So Israel has to shoot through them.
swphreak is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-16-2006, 01:12 AM   #39
TK-8252
Get Cloned.
 
TK-8252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarWarsPhreak
Terrorise the terrorist, oh my!
Innocent Lebanese civilians are not terrorists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StarWarsPhreak
What about said terrorist organisations launching rockets at Israeli cities? It seems to me like they're just bombing the crap out of everything.
That's why they're the bad guys. But everyone seems to think that Israel is doing nothing wrong when they do the exact same things that the bad guys do. Makes them worse in my eyes, because they are doing these things under the guise of legitimacy and being the "good guys" in all of this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StarWarsPhreak
Israel is supposedly attacking terrorist locations.
Right, like gas stations, power plants, and airports right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by StarWarsPhreak
It just so happens that the terrorist are cowering behind civilians. So Israel has to shoot through them.
So the ends justify the means? If anything has been learned throughout history, it's that they don't.

It's called "special forces." If you know where the terrorists are, go CAPTURE them, rather than blowing them up along with the rest of the city. It's sad how they decide that it's okay to kill innocent children living next door to a suspected terrorist building. Raid the building, stop being lazy, sloppy soldiers. In Iraq we don't blow up all of Baghdad when there are suspected insurgents there, we raid their buildings and bring them into custody.
TK-8252 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-16-2006, 01:25 AM   #40
Tinny
 
Tinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,188
I heard they drop pamphlets though on the civilian areas they plan to hit. Should we request the militant palestinians that they warn civilians living in areas of future terrorist attacks?


Redeemed!

An old school mod for jedi academy.
Tinny is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > JediKnight Series > Community > Senate Chambers > Israel/Lebanon situation

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:07 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.