RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this?

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

caitlyn -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/29/2006 8:03:26 AM)
I don't actually think this is even about "Muslim" radicalism. I think this is about nationalism, like most conflicts. President Bush talks a lot about Christianity. Does that make our war in Iraq an act of Christian radicalism? This same thing was going on at the time of the early Byzantine empire, fighting to the death with the Sassanid Persians. Quite a bit of radicalism, quite a bit before the spread of Islam. We in the west have a bad habit of putting labels on thing, based on our own values. Many think this is conflict based on religion, when the reality is that religion is only being used as a tool to fuel the conflict.

CrappyDom -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/29/2006 8:09:41 AM)
Caitlyn, But if you are right then that implies that George Bush is a fake Christian and is just as much a hypocrite as his best friends the Saudis' and none of them are really religious? But that would mean they don't believe any of the things they say and they only say them because their followers are dumb enough to believe it? I just can't believe that, those people all seem so sincere to me.

ddm -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/29/2006 1:44:35 PM)
I understand your points about no dispute being purely black and white. I'm not saying the west is perfect by any means. You know, Chechnya was a problem before Yeltsin sent in the troops. There were kidnappings of Russians and foreigners in Chechnya before it was bombed. I was actually in Latvia when the bombings of Moscow apartments were beamed in a tennis club and then I heard Clinton state he thought Russia should negotiate. O.K. I do accept Russia was too brutal in Chechnya and wrongs were committed. However, as I understand, Chechnya started the conflict by terrorising Russians and westerners. France: I looked into this a lot. I found there had been threats against young women in schools for not wearing veils and general unrest. France decided to ban the veil for that reason. I also found there had been waves of attacks against Jews, butchers shops and synagogues in France. I know many many Jews left France and I also know the Israeli soldier who was kidnapped in Israel recently had half-French citizenship. My honest belief is that Europe and the U.S. should support Israel at this point of time. Sure, criticize Israel by all means for civilian loss of life but I still believe the west must support countries under fundamentalist attack. The same applies if India is being terrorised or some other country. Democracies cannot stand by passively when their people are bombed.

ddm -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/29/2006 1:54:12 PM)
With Israel I think it's about religion. Islamic extremists want control of Jersusalem. Hamas seeks a totally Islamic MIddle East while the U.S. feels a duty as a Christian country to protect Israel. After all, Jewish ancient sites have a lot of meaning for evangelical Americans - the U.S. being a very religious country. Moslem radicals wish to drive Jews out - I think it's that simple. I asked someone recently how come he was constantly blaming Israel for being religiously exclusive and classing itself as Judaic when Iran classes itself as an Islamic State and actually persecutes Jews and Christians. Myself I'm not religous at all but I just think Jews have a right to their own country based on the logic they lived in the region 1000 years before even Christianity appeared. I think they just want to live in their own small country in peace. quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom Caitlyn, But if you are right then that implies that George Bush is a fake Christian and is just as much a hypocrite as his best friends the Saudis' and none of them are really religious? But that would mean they don't believe any of the things they say and they only say them because their followers are dumb enough to believe it? I just can't believe that, those people all seem so sincere to me.

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/29/2006 2:39:12 PM)
There was a girl buried today who died as a result of all this. She was one day old. Israel / Hezbollah / Lebanon, all of them should be ashamed to mention a God of any name.

michaelGA2 -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/29/2006 2:42:54 PM)
this is one of the main faults of America...how is any of this our business...who cares, really. this is one of the reasons i don't watch the news on TV, listen to it on the radio or even buy a newspaper.

SCORPIOXXX -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/29/2006 2:51:10 PM)
And yours, michael, is one the biggest faults about America: an electorate and a citizenry that doesn't follow the news, doesn't try to understand them, to read the subtext between the lines!!! And because of that the Bushie Boy gets elected not once, but twice!!! Is it any wonder??? In the rest of the world, even the lowest field worker tries to stay informed, and always votes because they know they could lose it at any time... But you people...? Bah! "Those who ignore the news are condemned to become the news -- and they get what they deserve" -- Himself

michaelGA2 -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/29/2006 2:54:31 PM)
when they decide to make it possible for a poor man to become president and the USA minds it's own damned business, then i might concider it. we hare NOT the world police...let the UN have the power and abilities to do that...that's what it was created for.

IronBear -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/29/2006 2:58:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I don't actually think this is even about "Muslim" radicalism. I think this is about nationalism, like most conflicts. President Bush talks a lot about Christianity. Does that make our war in Iraq an act of Christian radicalism? This same thing was going on at the time of the early Byzantine empire, fighting to the death with the Sassanid Persians. Quite a bit of radicalism, quite a bit before the spread of Islam. We in the west have a bad habit of putting labels on thing, based on our own values. Many think this is conflict based on religion, when the reality is that religion is only being used as a tool to fuel the conflict. Actually caitlyn, unless I'm grievously wrong, The Vatican has ever formally by way of a Papal Bull, ended the Crusades, this Bush could legitimately claim he is running the whatever Crusade and refer to the Allied Forces as Crusaders...In fact all efforts to defend Israel and assist them could be so classed as bringing peace to the Holy Land if one were to stretch the jolly imagination I suppose.. quote: ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW There was a girl buried today who died as a result of all this. She was one day old. Israel / Hezbollah / Lebanon, all of them should be ashamed to mention a God of any name. In a simplistic sense you are right, however this will depend on your (the individual) beliefs and understanding of the doctrine or Holy Books you choose to follow. Different sects of most religions could if they chose, could legitimately find scriptures which validate any war and the shedding of blood. Not all Gods and Goddesses are of peace and light. The Norse in order to reach Valhalla needed to die in battle, a warriors death (Cant do that if there is no conflict old chap y’know), Kali required blood shed, Jehovah (YHVH) was a God who, according to the Old Testament, was a blood thirsty bloke. Mars was of course the God of War and so on..

NorthernGent -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/29/2006 3:09:01 PM)
irishbynature, A good way to look at this is how would you have felt if the British Government had decided to bomb Ireland as a result of the actions of the IRA? Just as the the violent arm of republicanism was not endorsed by the majority in Ireland neither is Hezbullah endorsed by the majority of the Lebanese. I can't see how the Israelis can justify this. Regards

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/29/2006 6:57:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear quote: ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW There was a girl buried today who died as a result of all this. She was one day old. Israel / Hezbollah / Lebanon, all of them should be ashamed to mention a God of any name. In a simplistic sense you are right, however this will depend on your (the individual) beliefs and understanding of the doctrine or Holy Books you choose to follow. Different sects of most religions could if they chose, could legitimately find scriptures which validate any war and the shedding of blood. Not all Gods and Goddesses are of peace and light. The Norse in order to reach Valhalla needed to die in battle, a warriors death (Cant do that if there is no conflict old chap y’know), Kali required blood shed, Jehovah (YHVH) was a God who, according to the Old Testament, was a blood thirsty bloke. Mars was of course the God of War and so on.. Indeed, although a one day old girl isn't much of a warrior in battle, or a soldier in war. If anyone's God thinks her death is an understandable or even allowable act, I honestly think they're welcome to that religion.

KenDckey -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/29/2006 11:42:59 PM)
Did anyone see the video on Yahoo of the Hetzbolla fighter pulling weapons out of the closet in his home? I think, at least if I heard correctly, that he was 16 and there was a child in the background. During his interview he also stated that the weapons come from the Lebanonese army. He stated in his neighborhood was the homes were same as his - with weapons stashes. He had an M16, an AK-47 and an RPG all with ammo. For the sake of argument: Doesn't this make the home an arsenal (as small as it might be? Doesn't this make the home a target? Doesn't this make the family, including the children, subject to attack? Who is responsible for placing the family in harms way? Is the family really innocents if they condone the weapons in the home? I don't profess to know the answers to these, but I do have opinions. What are yours?

NorthernGent -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/30/2006 12:55:14 AM)
Ageneral point: Israel/Palestine - without insulting the intelligence of anyone on this board I would guess the vast majority of people are lost in the spiral of tit-for-tat violence and have no idea what underpins this state of affairs. This is a perfect example of how, if you let xenophobia, bigotry and racism go unchecked, it will cause such divisions in society. Both sides seem to have a case: The Israelis - well, their ancestors were forced out of their homes in Europe. There is a good Jewish museum in Prague (even though there is no Jewish community there anymore) and one of the messages the museum points to is that these people did not want to leave their homes in Europe. They may have been Zionists in the sense they supported a state of Israel for those who wanted it but the vast majority of Jews were Czechs, Poles, Hungarians etc first and Jewish second. Before and after the Second World War, The Archbishop of Canterbury appealed for the West to take in Jews who were being persecuted in Eastern Europe - only Britain and the US were prepared to take some in and even these two countries were selective (preferring to take in younger Jews). Ultimately, these people were forced out of their homes and had nowhere to go, they sailed around in ships from place to place only to be refused entry - as a last resort many just rushed ashore at the then Palestine. Granted, there was already a Jewish community in Palestine building up prior to the Second World War but it was limited to the most dedicated of Zionists. The roots of this problem is in European anti-semitism. For the Palestinians, well, obviously they have a case. Having your land confisctaed and your homes bulldozed is unimaginable for most of us. The real point of this post is to say the roots of this lie in Europe and, in its extreme form, this is what happens when xenophobia, racism and bigotry is allowed to masquerade as freedom of speech. Regards.

meatcleaver -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/30/2006 3:47:44 AM)
One can say all the right things and act the exact opposite way so restricting freedom of speach becomes meaningless. You might be able to legislate what people can and can't say but you can't legislate for nuance and implied meaning, therefore restrictions on speach become meaningless. Getting back to the current crisis. We get diplomatic speak where politicians are very circumspect in what they say so they cannot be accused of saying something everyone knows they meant. Who wants to live in a society of diplomats? Now forty women and children have been killed in an Israeli bombing raid on the village of Qana where in 1996 Israeli raids killed over 100 women and children. When does this sort of wreckless negligence stop being called an accident and starts to be called murder? Why is the USA and Britain defending the indefensible? Has Bush got a strategy for the middle east or is his strategy absolute chaos rather than just chaos? Well the Lebanese appear to blame the USA and Britain for giving diplomatic cover while Israel carries on its slaughter of innocent civilians. Now as a Brit, I find our association in all this as thoroughly shaming.

caitlyn -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/30/2006 4:57:29 AM)
What you should be ashamed of, is that you have made 1516 posts, 1510 of which bash and bitch ... and yet you have never once offered an alternative. [;)] Don't they teach constructive criticism, where you live?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/30/2006 5:06:47 AM)
My opinion is that it's impossible to discuss politics with people who talk about the "Lebanonese army." quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey During his interview he also stated that the weapons come from the Lebanonese army. [snip] I don't profess to know the answers to these, but I do have opinions. What are yours?

YokuniCat -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/30/2006 6:00:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pollux Nobody is calling for the destruction of Israel except Hezbollah. And Hamas. And Iran. And Syria. And all their sympathizers. The terrorists are integrated into the civilian population, and they use civilian infrastructure. They don't drive around in army trucks wearing uniforms. They don't get gas from military depots -- they get it from gas stations. They don't set up a base for their missile launchers -- they hide them inside people's basements. That's why they're such a damn problem. And they want exactly the reaction you are giving them -- they want the Israelis to have to kill innocent people while coming after them and they are absolutely dependent on the self-righteours, morally superior "international community" to stand up and demand that Israel stop this "disproportionate" response. You're assuming I subscribe to notions of proportionate response in warfare. I don't. What would've been proprotional -- kidnapping two Hezbollah fighters? Kidnapping three? Where does that get you? In any case, I'd view an Iranian nuclear attack as absolutely consistent with Iran's view toward the existence of Israel. Absolutely. That doesn't mean I condone it -- I mean it would be a consistent response given what Iran's leaders have publically said about Israel in the past. I think when a state is confronted with a grave existential threat -- as Hezbollah is to Israel -- any talk of "proportional response" is ridiculous. Wars are not stopped by proportional response. Wars are perpetuated by proportional response. That's not to say that it's alright to randomly destroy anything you want, but once you decide to go to war, it's best to be decisive and defeat the enemy with massive, disproportionate force rather than screw around and allow the misery to be prolonged. This war did not start with the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. We've been over that ground repeatedly. Hezbollah has been harassing Israel for years, under the guise of "resistance" to Israeli occupation of south Lebanon (their real agenda, of course, is the eventual destruction of the state of Israel). Israel withdrew all of its forces from south Lebanon in 2000 -- SIX YEARS AGO. The reason they were there? To stop shelling of northern Israel by Hezbollah. Hezbollah's response to that was to move back into the formerly occupied territory and, instead of living peacefully with their southern neighbor, to resume firing Katyusha rockets into civilian neighborhoods in northern Israel. All the while integrating themselves into the civilian population, and using civilian locations for weapons storage and firing positions. As far as I'm concerned Israel can and should wipe them out using whatever means necessary. They have had chance after chance to live alongside Israel, and they have chosen to reject that option. Hezbollah made that choice (and some in Lebanon made that choice, along with Syria and Iran) and they will have to live with the consequences. A return to the status quo -- which is what would happen in any sort of "proportional response" scenario -- is not acceptable, IMO. QFT, Pollux you seem to be the only one with his head screwed on right. When Terrorists attacked the US what did you do ?, you invaded !not exactly proportional to the number killed in that attack, but I guess it's different when you are the ones being attacked.

philosophy -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/30/2006 6:06:55 AM)
..i have noted that those who support Israel's disproportionate response consistently avoid answering a question posed by myself and others..........the same logic that allows Israel to bomb the Lebanon indiscriminately would have allowed the British government to carpet bomb Dublin while the IRA were bombing us. Once again, and this time please dont avoid it.......would they have supported such a response from the British government?

YokuniCat -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/30/2006 6:15:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy ..i have noted that those who support Israel's disproportionate response consistently avoid answering a question posed by myself and others..........the same logic that allows Israel to bomb the Lebanon indiscriminately would have allowed the British government to carpet bomb Dublin while the IRA were bombing us. Once again, and this time please dont avoid it.......would they have supported such a response from the British government? Honestly, the Israeli's aren't carpet bombing, they are trying to target terrorists who are hiding behind civilians. As for targetting the IRA, we weren't at war it was just terrorists. Israel is at war, the 2 are completely different sets of circumstances.

Level -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (7/30/2006 6:24:35 AM)
Philosophy, first I have to say I don't believe Israel is bombing Lebanon "indescriminately", even with the horrible deaths in Qana. War is horrible, and innocent people die. That does not make it okay, it just is how it is, and has always been. Hezbollah does hide fighters and weapons in civilian homes. The IRA and Britain.... I see some difference in that situation and the one in Lebanon. Hezbollah wants Israel totally gone, completely destroyed, while the IRA just wanted Britain out, so I can see the British "solving" that without launching an all-out attack on the IRA. Hezbollah initially said they only wanted Israel out of Lebanon, but when Israel left, Hezbollah changed their tune, didn't they? So, if Britain had launched bombing raids into IRA territory, in response to attacks, yeah, I'd say they had the "right", but no, I don't think that would have been the "right" decision.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875