Will Israel Win The War?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]eic wrote:
Wreckless and Dannyrat it is hard to give respect to what you say. Wreckless is from Belgium, which, as I said earlier, is no different that France except that it is even more worthless. And Dannyrat, before you started talking about “stone” or the Queen I knew you were a left-wing Brit; I could smell it.

The funny thing is that one or both you spoke of the growing Muslim menace in the world that is going to be too much for the West to handle some day. Well, seeing as how virtually every western European country has huge Muslim populations that do nothing more than reproduce and populate your ghettos I can understand where that is coming from. Your countries sold themselves to devil a long time ago and will likely rot from the inside out unless something changes. Us Americans on the other hand are doing something about it.

Let me say that there is one element which utterly defeats anything either of you can say about Israel. Israel wasn’t even a country for a week before it was attacked by all of the Arab nations that surround it. How could Israel have done anything even remotely offensive in a few days time that would warrant such an attack? The answer, of course, is that Israel did nothing more than EXIST!!! Clearly then this is not a history of tit-for-tat but a history of one side trying to eliminate the other and the other fighting for survival.

BTW, that war and the Six-Day War is how the Palestinians found themselves without a home: When their Arab “brothers” attacked and had their asses handed to them by a tiny country, the Palestianians (really just Syrians who lived in Gaza and the West Bank) found themselves without a home. Of course, you’d think that the Arab countries would try to help their “brothers” out by assimilating them into their countries and giving them jobs, stipends, etc. But have they done so? Hell no. Instead, Palestinians sit in refugee camps TO THIS DAY!!!

Why won’t the Arab countries help their brothers out? Because that would evaporate any excuse the Arabs would have for their continued hatred of Israel.

What neither of you understand is the Arab-Muslim mentality (my father is Iranian). Since the '70s you’ve seen nothing else in Israel but a steady decline in the amount of land that Israel occupied. You will remember the expression “land for peace.” Israel followed that path until you get to the present situation where all of the occupied lands were returned except for land in the West Bank. Was that good enough for those in Gaza and those in Lebanon? Nope, not good enough; so Israel, after trying the land-for-peace route and being snubbed is understandably pissed.

You both mentioned Rabin. He was shot by an extremist-Israeli. The difference between the Rabin and Sadat situation is that (1) the person who shot Rabin represents a very extreme viewpoint that is openly and harshly condemned; and (2) the shooting of Rabin did not lead to a revolution of sorts. Also, it is a rarity in Israel’s history, whereas violent upheavals and assassinations are the norm in the Muslim world.

You both criticize me and others on this thread for our blind adherence to the actions of Israel and the United States; but you are just as dogmatic about your own viewpoints. I guess time will tell who is right and who is wrong. One difference might be that I am ready and willing to lay my life on the line for what I believe in… Are you? [/quote]

You made a good comment i’d like to respond to a little. Of course the initial strike (1947) was unwarranted aggression from the arabs. OF COURSE, NO DOUBT (what follows may confuse your black-and-white beliefs)
I’ll repeat an entirely pertinent analogy which has been accepted and praised by people who’ve spent most of their adult lives studying this conflict (I made it)

Imagien you live in a medium -sized house, with neighbours all along your street of a similar nature to yourself. A man from the government (Britain) comes to tell you that a foreign man’s grandmother lived in this house 2000 years ago, and since then his family has been sharing homes with other people. They have never been able to get along with the people they houseshared with (no value judgement of jews implied). Recently a very brutal family terrorised them terribly, and now, the government official tells you (no request, you notice) this man will live in almost half of your home. You protest. No-one listens(/cares).

Subsequently, you try to eject them from your hosue. You are repelled by them, along with the help of a very strong but stupid cousin (USA) who then pretends he didn’t help at all. Together they claim that you must accept your half of the house, and be happy. Later, you try to take it back again. Again you’re beaten, now you have even less of your original home. All the people from the next street keep talking shit about how you MUST ACCEPT this person’s presence in what was your home. If you choose to eject them from your home, your opinion is somehow radical. Foreigners now say you MUST let the guy live there, even though he is nothing at all like the nature of people from your street, which constituted a satisfactory balance until this time.

This is very accurate, it’s just a microcosm. I’m not going to answer the rest of your words until you reply and tell me you read, and understand what i wrote. If you do these things, your attitude will alter. You will understand that half a house is not justice. It is not a start. It is midway into the story. Now these people have less than 1/4 of a house. I suggest that Israel has known for it’s whole existence, even imagined (zionism councils) that they could either have a) all of the Israel they crave b) lasting peace. Without at least partial sacrifices of a), i doubt b) will come anytime soon. the British warned the zionists many many yaers before the great exodus that this was the case. They chose war, far more than the disenfranchised, gentrificated arabs did.

None of this denies that terrorism (when violent) is very very very wrong. But no-one except europeans/californians on this forumn seem to be able to see which was the TRUE origin of all this ongoing fighting.

62

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
…

Tell me Zap, was the UN outpost hit? Or wasn’t it?
…

The point is that Hezbollah was hiding behind the UN post.

The guys that were killed warned of this in the email.

They said Israel was NOT trageting their post but feared they would be hit because Hezbollah was hiding behind them in a firefight.

Kofi Annan lied and claimed Israel was targeting the UN post.

You are repeating the lie.

How easy it is for you to claim you know the truth, and that those who don’t agree with you must be lying.

You are the liar. You claim to know things while you have no way of knowing them.[/quote]

The Ottowa Citizen published an article last week directly quoting an email sent by one of the observers. These are the words of the UN observer, not mine. I posted this on the previous page, but since your skull is bigger than your brain I’ll post it again.

Here are a couple points of relevance:

[i]“What I can tell you is this,” he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. "We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.

"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."

“What that means is, in plain English, 'We’ve got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces),” he said.

That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It’s a tactic Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he’s seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.

A Canadian Forces infantry officer with the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry and the only Canadian serving as a UN military observer in Lebanon, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener was no stranger to fighting nearby.

The UN post, he wrote in the e-mail, afforded a view of the “Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base.”

“It appears that the lion’s share of fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah has taken place in our area,” he wrote, noting later it was too dangerous to venture out on patrols.
[/i]

This clearly supports Israel’s claim.

Compare this to Kofi Annan’s statements :

[i]“At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area,” he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.

“Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don’t know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us.”[/i]

This clearly proves Annan is a liar, or an idiot. I suspect it’s a little of both.

63

[quote]dannyrat wrote:
No.
No. That isn’t how it went down. When has violence ceased among Israel and pro-arab terrorists stopped in the last sixty years, enough to declare there is no war?
Hezbollah kidnapped 2 soldiers, Israel’s retaliation (and the 2-way fight which has resulted) has led to 600 dead.
Fuck majority opinion.

Read whatever i write in its entirety. It will be the length it is for a reason- fluency. There is no abstract or blurb (sorry). If you miss a sentence, you’ll miss a point, and mis-understand. I can’t speak for any other. How about you?
Are you so intimidated you have to limit replies to single-answers?

[/quote]

Just because you actually write how convicing your argument is doesn’t actually make it more than semi coherent. Sometimes brevity means you can explain your point clearly instead of rambling in extended paragraphs and faux stream of consciousness.

And a can’t believe an academic gets away with such awkward construction and weird syntax. misunderstand is one word. single answers doesn’t get a hyphen.

64

[quote]dannyrat wrote:

This kind of arrogance makes life much harder, for yourself. Agreed, i think. I’ll act a bit more arrogant and see how many people assent to my will. Not many i bet. Basically, this experiment is a good one. If all of you don’t agree to everything i say, soon, you are proving that Israel’s method of pushing harder each time there’s resistance doesn’t work. Fuckers. I run shit. You can have water, but it’ll cost you. If you slur my name or fire a rocket at me, i’ll destroy the entire town you live in. If you put up a feeble offensive, i’ll crush your petty opinions (this is true anyway).

I wish i could act like that in real life. I can’t. Just because many of you obviously see your whole ideology being systematically destroyed by superior learning and reasoned arguing, and can now only sling insults/unsubstantiated opinions in return, I can’t just ‘crush you’. You would never admit something alien to you, i think, and would certainly not lay down in supplication if i acted like Israel does, you’d resist. There’s no mystery. Like i said, it’s cause and effect, if you don’t want the effect, a good start would be to remove the cause. You obviously don’t understand the causes of terrorism. You must unless you want it to remain forever (to simply hate it, and try to crush it, is not enough).
I don’t deny that the terrorism of the Islamic groups is terrible, and must be stopped. You people who are confounded by mature, objective-as-possible discussion of the causes and solutions, should start a thread titled ‘fucking arab bastards’ and just post obscenities in there[/quote]

Besides the grammatical problems, your argument is also fundamentally flawed.

By using cause and effect language you are effectively using value-neutral language. Israel does x, it follows that the terrorists could only do y. But from this, you are deriving ethical claims, namely, Israel is to blame.

Moving towards value neutral language is a bad move from the start because your argument is at heart a moral one. You argue what Israel is doing is wrong in a moral sense, not a politically disadvantageous sense.

You also fail to note that the natural thing for anyone to do when attacked by terrrorists is to strike back militarily. ‘Being terrorized causes punitive military strikes at those who attacked you.’ So the same reasoning that led you to blaming Israel can lead you to exonerating them. Bad reasoning.

Also it’s worth noting that any historian worth his weight in pink dumbbells knows that establishing true cause and effect is tenuous at best.

You also fail to see the difference, at least in your reasoning in these posts between having a reason to do an action and being justified in doing that action. Israel is justified in defending its people, it may make policy mistakes in doing so, but the action is fundamentally justified. There may be reasons for the Palestinians to be angry and resentful, but they do not justify their actions.

65

[quote]Applesauce wrote:
The Ottowa Citizen published an article last week directly quoting an email sent by one of the observers. These are the words of the UN observer, not mine. I posted this on the previous page, but since your skull is bigger than your brain I’ll post it again.

Here are a couple points of relevance:

[i]“What I can tell you is this,” he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. "We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.

"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."

“What that means is, in plain English, 'We’ve got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces),” he said.

That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It’s a tactic Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he’s seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.

A Canadian Forces infantry officer with the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry and the only Canadian serving as a UN military observer in Lebanon, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener was no stranger to fighting nearby.

The UN post, he wrote in the e-mail, afforded a view of the “Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base.”

“It appears that the lion’s share of fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah has taken place in our area,” he wrote, noting later it was too dangerous to venture out on patrols.
[/i]

This clearly supports Israel’s claim.

Compare this to Kofi Annan’s statements :

[i]“At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area,” he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.

“Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don’t know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us.”[/i]

This clearly proves Annan is a liar, or an idiot. I suspect it’s a little of both.[/quote]

As someone who’s clearly much smarter than me, what would you have liked the unarmed UN-observers to do?

Also, I don’t see a conflict in the two messages where the Canadian UN-observer claims, 9 days before the shelling, that there was Hezbollah activity in the area, and Kofi Annan’s statement that “At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area”

I suspect it’s you that’s both a liar and an idiot.

66

[quote]ExNole wrote:

Besides the grammatical problems, your argument is also fundamentally flawed.

By using cause and effect language you are effectively using value-neutral language. Israel does x, it follows that the terrorists could only do y. But from this, you are deriving ethical claims, namely, Israel is to blame. [/quote]

Yeah, that IS a problem.
This has more about it: Opinion | He Who Cast the First Stone Probably Didn’t - The New York Times

[quote]
Moving towards value neutral language is a bad move from the start because your argument is at heart a moral one. You argue what Israel is doing is wrong in a moral sense, not a politically disadvantageous sense.

You also fail to note that the natural thing for anyone to do when attacked by terrrorists is to strike back militarily. ‘Being terrorized causes punitive military strikes at those who attacked you.’ So the same reasoning that led you to blaming Israel can lead you to exonerating them. Bad reasoning.[/quote]

But, that’s just what’s happening all the time. Israel has the right to defend itself. It’s neighbours don’t have that right. Thanks for making that clear.

[quote]

Also it’s worth noting that any historian worth his weight in pink dumbbells knows that establishing true cause and effect is tenuous at best.

You also fail to see the difference, at least in your reasoning in these posts between having a reason to do an action and being justified in doing that action. Israel is justified in defending its people, [/quote]

Yes, yes, you’ve mad your position clear already.

[quote]
it may make policy mistakes in doing so, but the action is fundamentally justified. There may be reasons for the Palestinians to be angry and resentful, but they do not justify their actions. [/quote]

Of course not. It all makes sense now.

67

[quote]ExNole wrote:
dannyrat wrote:
No.
No. That isn’t how it went down. When has violence ceased among Israel and pro-arab terrorists stopped in the last sixty years, enough to declare there is no war? [/quote] WHEN? That’s right bitch.

[quote]
Hezbollah kidnapped 2 soldiers, Israel’s retaliation (and the 2-way fight which has resulted) has led to 600 dead.
Fuck majority opinion. [/quote]

This is undisputed truth

[quote]Read whatever i write in its entirety. It will be the length it is for a reason- fluency. There is no abstract or blurb (sorry). If you miss a sentence, you’ll miss a point, and mis-understand. I can’t speak for any other. How about you?
Are you so intimidated you have to limit replies to single-answers?

Just because you actually write how convicing your argument is doesn’t actually make it more than semi coherent. Sometimes brevity means you can explain your point clearly instead of rambling in extended paragraphs and faux stream of consciousness.

And a can’t believe an academic gets away with such awkward construction and weird syntax. misunderstand is one word. single answers doesn’t get a hyphen. [/quote]

Sorry you fucking idiot, misunderstand is one word, two morphemes, That was a pun. Miss that? You can’t actually attack what i’ve said because it stands as fact. instead you do what all the other ignorant fucking idots have done, which is to support a war you don’t understand, and criticise my syntax/age. Ohh devastating

68

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
You wanna know a funny thing eic. We don’t have rampant poverty here in our small corner of the world.[/quote]

You don’t? I’m sorry, I couldn’t tell after all of the riots in your ghettos throughout France, Germany, etc. when angry Muslims turned their backs on Westerners throughout the region.

That is the point I was trying to make. Those Muslims know only war; they fight you even though you support them with your propoganda and rhetoric; they fight each other (Sunnis and Shi’ites bombing each other’s mosques); and they fight those that they hate most (Americans and Israelis/Jews). They fight everyone.

[quote]And we don’t have people teaching creationism either. We’re not some backward country.
You are.

Please, crawl back under your rock. [/quote]

That “Please, crawl back under your rock” business is just getting old. It makes you sound like a doll; I pull your string and you say the same old phrase. Also, just how young are you? The above sounds straight out of grade school. I had figured I was dealing with a teenager before, but know I wonder if you aren’t 12 years old or so.

What the hell does creationism have to do with anything? I personally don’t believe it strictly. I accept evolution as an explanation and yet I still know that you are full of shit and that Israel has been and still is doing the right thing (90 to 95% of the time; everyone makes mistakes).

And for the record, my “rock” is having been born and raised in California, studying in Texas and Nebraska, as well as studying at Oxford and traveling extensively throughout Europe. My father was born and raised in Iran and a goodly majority of my extended family doesn’t even speak English, only Persian. I have the benefit of a multidue of viewpoints, yet I conclude that Israel and America are handling this appropriately. It sounds to me like you and your sidekick Dannyrat only know what the left-wing European media have told you. Which is not surprising, given that most of the Western European countries are in bed financially and economically with Muslim-Arab entities anyway, plus most of Western Europe is envious of America’s economic success.

As I am currently finishing my third-year of law school, it doesn’t make sense for me to leave now and waste my last 7 years of hard work. But when I’m finished next May, I will have the freedom to leave an enlist if I choose. The current American an Israeli militaries can adequately handle the threats they face, but if things get more serious and I am out of school, I will join. My point was that you and I both know that neither you nor your buddy Dannyrat would ever bring yourself to do the same.

If I am willing to kill or be killed for my beliefs and you are not, then I will always win. You can preach peace all you want, but if I am dead-set on killing you and you won’t fight back, you (and others like you) will be eliminated. You might remember that lesson from Darwin, you arrogant fuck.

69

Before I respond, let me say that my last post should have been directed at Wreckless and thus any references to “Wreckless” in that post should have been “Dannyrat” instead. Admittedly, it is hard to keep you two straight.

[quote]dannyrat wrote:
eic wrote:
Wreckless and Dannyrat it is hard to give respect to what you say. Wreckless is from Belgium, which, as I said earlier, is no different that France except that it is even more worthless. And Dannyrat, before you started talking about “stone” or the Queen I knew you were a left-wing Brit; I could smell it.

The funny thing is that one or both you spoke of the growing Muslim menace in the world that is going to be too much for the West to handle some day. Well, seeing as how virtually every western European country has huge Muslim populations that do nothing more than reproduce and populate your ghettos I can understand where that is coming from. Your countries sold themselves to devil a long time ago and will likely rot from the inside out unless something changes. Us Americans on the other hand are doing something about it.

Let me say that there is one element which utterly defeats anything either of you can say about Israel. Israel wasn’t even a country for a week before it was attacked by all of the Arab nations that surround it. How could Israel have done anything even remotely offensive in a few days time that would warrant such an attack? The answer, of course, is that Israel did nothing more than EXIST!!! Clearly then this is not a history of tit-for-tat but a history of one side trying to eliminate the other and the other fighting for survival.

BTW, that war and the Six-Day War is how the Palestinians found themselves without a home: When their Arab “brothers” attacked and had their asses handed to them by a tiny country, the Palestianians (really just Syrians who lived in Gaza and the West Bank) found themselves without a home. Of course, you’d think that the Arab countries would try to help their “brothers” out by assimilating them into their countries and giving them jobs, stipends, etc. But have they done so? Hell no. Instead, Palestinians sit in refugee camps TO THIS DAY!!!

Why won’t the Arab countries help their brothers out? Because that would evaporate any excuse the Arabs would have for their continued hatred of Israel.

What neither of you understand is the Arab-Muslim mentality (my father is Iranian). Since the '70s you’ve seen nothing else in Israel but a steady decline in the amount of land that Israel occupied. You will remember the expression “land for peace.” Israel followed that path until you get to the present situation where all of the occupied lands were returned except for land in the West Bank. Was that good enough for those in Gaza and those in Lebanon? Nope, not good enough; so Israel, after trying the land-for-peace route and being snubbed is understandably pissed.

You both mentioned Rabin. He was shot by an extremist-Israeli. The difference between the Rabin and Sadat situation is that (1) the person who shot Rabin represents a very extreme viewpoint that is openly and harshly condemned; and (2) the shooting of Rabin did not lead to a revolution of sorts. Also, it is a rarity in Israel’s history, whereas violent upheavals and assassinations are the norm in the Muslim world.

You both criticize me and others on this thread for our blind adherence to the actions of Israel and the United States; but you are just as dogmatic about your own viewpoints. I guess time will tell who is right and who is wrong. One difference might be that I am ready and willing to lay my life on the line for what I believe in… Are you?

You made a good comment i’d like to respond to a little. Of course the initial strike (1947) was unwarranted aggression from the arabs. OF COURSE, NO DOUBT (what follows may confuse your black-and-white beliefs)
I’ll repeat an entirely pertinent analogy which has been accepted and praised by people who’ve spent most of their adult lives studying this conflict (I made it)

Imagien you live in a medium -sized house, with neighbours all along your street of a similar nature to yourself. A man from the government (Britain) comes to tell you that a foreign man’s grandmother lived in this house 2000 years ago, and since then his family has been sharing homes with other people. They have never been able to get along with the people they houseshared with (no value judgement of jews implied). Recently a very brutal family terrorised them terribly, and now, the government official tells you (no request, you notice) this man will live in almost half of your home. You protest. No-one listens(/cares).

Subsequently, you try to eject them from your hosue. You are repelled by them, along with the help of a very strong but stupid cousin (USA) who then pretends he didn’t help at all. Together they claim that you must accept your half of the house, and be happy. Later, you try to take it back again. Again you’re beaten, now you have even less of your original home. All the people from the next street keep talking shit about how you MUST ACCEPT this person’s presence in what was your home. If you choose to eject them from your home, your opinion is somehow radical. Foreigners now say you MUST let the guy live there, even though he is nothing at all like the nature of people from your street, which constituted a satisfactory balance until this time.

This is very accurate, it’s just a microcosm. I’m not going to answer the rest of your words until you reply and tell me you read, and understand what i wrote. If you do these things, your attitude will alter. You will understand that half a house is not justice. It is not a start. It is midway into the story. Now these people have less than 1/4 of a house. I suggest that Israel has known for it’s whole existence, even imagined (zionism councils) that they could either have a) all of the Israel they crave b) lasting peace. Without at least partial sacrifices of a), i doubt b) will come anytime soon. the British warned the zionists many many yaers before the great exodus that this was the case. They chose war, far more than the disenfranchised, gentrificated arabs did.

None of this denies that terrorism (when violent) is very very very wrong. But no-one except europeans/californians on this forumn seem to be able to see which was the TRUE origin of all this ongoing fighting.

[/quote]

Whatever the merits of your “analogy” it is hard to listen to your explanation when the landmass of the Arab world surrounding Israel is so enormous. Arab muslims look stupid shouting at Israel for a few scraps of desert (most of Israel is comprised of the Negev which was a worthless piece of crap until the Israelis developed advanced irrigation). Moreover, it is not like anyone had a solid right to that land before 1947.

During WWII, there were both Arabs AND Jews living in Israel. In fact, you should know better than anyone that Jews helped England fight in WWII by helping move munitions and other supplies in the Middle Eastern region. So, post WWII, you have a lot of Jews who want the hell out of Europe (understandably so) and a lot of Jews already living in the area that is now Israel. The easiest solution was to allow the European Jews to come to meet the other Jews and to have the Arabs who live there share their land.

But right from the get-go the Arabs said “no” and wanted it all for themselves. All or nothing. They got nothing.

So according to your analogy there is no solution to this mess. Because from what you say, even if Israel gave Gaza back (which it has) and gave back all of the West Bank (which it hasn’t; not all of it), there would still be unrest and anger because Israel exists in the first place.

So what is Israel supposed to do, just give up and walk into the sea? You can understand how that option is unacceptable. Why can’t the Arabs just share? Israel would gladly leave them alone if they would leave Israel alone.

Bear in mind also that Arab Muslims live and work happily in Israel itself. They are citizens and enjoy all the benefits of that status. Doesn’t that tell you anything? Some Arabs have enough sense to realize that Israel has a right to exist and have decided to quit bitching and to get a job, make a life, etc.

Unfortunately, most others simply need a reason to justify their existence and Israel is that reason. You want to get “elected” or brought into power in an Arab Muslim or Persian Muslim country? Proclaim that Israel is the “great Satan” and that it must be destroyed. See, e.g., the President of Iran.

Again, I think you and your buddy Wreckless don’t understand the mentality of militant Muslims. You try to pretend like there is a logical and even sympathetic reason for their aggression against Israel, but in reality they are bloodthirsty people that are looking to make trouble whereever they can find it.
How else do you explain the fact that they fight each other just as ruthlessly as they fight Jews and Americans?

The sad part is that if they are ever given the chance, and someday they might, they would kill you and Wreckless just as quickly as they would kill me. I hate to draw analogies to WWII because it is over played, but you and Wreckless sound just like the appeasement policies of the English and French with Hitler. Is it a coincidence that you speak with an English accent and he speaks French?

70

Hi

I’m new to this site. In fact it’s my first post. Probaly a poor way of introducing myself but i felt i had to reply to this thread.

A lot of you guys have extremeist views yourselves. The actions that are suggested are just as extremist as those that the terroists would take if the situations were reversed.

I’ve read about what happened in the middle east and i’m personally of the opinion that the jews should of never been given their own state within palestine. Unfortunately leaders make mistakes especially when they’re following some dumb ass relgious doctrine.

I happen to think the terroists in the middle east have some good points and probaly have the right to hate Israel. If it were the choice of the majority in the middle east to whether a Jewish state exist in palestine then they would all chose no.

The anger towards the west and Israel come from the complete injustice of the situation and the impotence of not being able to do anything about it. The jews barged their way in and treated the palestinians like shit for attempting to barge back. On top of this Israel are funded and armoured by western countries who couldn’t seem to care less how Israel remains in the middle east as long as they remain there.

There are people in EVERY country in the world that if pushed would be become terrorists. If you ask me, if i was born in palestine i’d probaly join up with Hamas, or leave.

Whether you like it or not there has been a lot of injustice in the middle east.

On the other hand. This does not excuse the actions of terroists. If it were up to me israel would be disbanded and a joint arab jew state would exist.

These nations and people need to accept the way the world is. Accept the injustice and work on building security and peace. From there they can build powerful alliances that could shape the world in the future.

On the other hand most people do not have the luxury of being able to view the situation as objectively as me. So it’s only natural that what Israel has done and continue to do will spark terrorism.

The more extreme the actions of the west the more extreme the reactions of the middle east will be and more ingrained the hatred.

So to some things up. Israel can’t justify what they’re doing. They shouldn’t be there in the first place!

71

[quote]ExNole wrote:

Besides the grammatical problems, your argument is also fundamentally flawed.

By using cause and effect language you are effectively using value-neutral language. Israel does x, it follows that the terrorists could only do y. But from this, you are deriving ethical claims, namely, Israel is to blame.

Moving towards value neutral language is a bad move from the start because your argument is at heart a moral one. You argue what Israel is doing is wrong in a moral sense, not a politically disadvantageous sense.

You also fail to note that the natural thing for anyone to do when attacked by terrrorists is to strike back militarily. ‘Being terrorized causes punitive military strikes at those who attacked you.’ So the same reasoning that led you to blaming Israel can lead you to exonerating them. Bad reasoning.

Also it’s worth noting that any historian worth his weight in pink dumbbells knows that establishing true cause and effect is tenuous at best.

You also fail to see the difference, at least in your reasoning in these posts between having a reason to do an action and being justified in doing that action. Israel is justified in defending its people, it may make policy mistakes in doing so, but the action is fundamentally justified. There may be reasons for the Palestinians to be angry and resentful, but they do not justify their actions. [/quote]

VERY, VERY GOOD post!!!

I encourage reckless and the rat to read this.

JeffR

72

beaver,

Welcome to the forum.

I read your post and it was thoughtful.

However, it is a waste of time railing against Israel for being created. It was born. It may have been conceived in error.

However, it is there.

Now, nothing can justify deliberately targeting little girls. NOTHING.

Your commentary about joining hamas speaks volumes. Your level of bias and prejudice blinds you to the fact that terrorism is NEVER justified.

If you use terrorism, your cause is automatically invalid.

In summary, try to imagine being an IDF member. Imagine if your family was being targeted by dumb missles using ball bearings for maximum damage.

Imagine seeing those rockets streaking overhead toward your homeland. Imagine not knowing if your mother, daughter, wife, girlfriend, brother, father will be killed or maimed. Imagine seeing them shrieking in pain. Imagine knowing that the slime firing those missles don’t care who they hit as long as they hit as many of them as possible.

Then imagine walking into a known hezbollah stronghold.

I’d say the Israeli’s are using admirable restraint.

JeffR

73

[quote]SuperBeaver wrote:

These nations and people need to accept the way the world is. Accept the injustice and work on building security and peace. From there they can build powerful alliances that could shape the world in the future.

Sounds like a future candy land to me

On the other hand most people do not have the luxury of being able to view the situation as objectively as me. So it’s only natural that what Israel has done and continue to do will spark terrorism.

Yes you are so level headed thank god for you and it is Israels fault for getting killed darn them

The more extreme the actions of the west the more extreme the reactions of the middle east will be and more ingrained the hatred.

So i say give them candy. I mean thats not extreme at all so they will be well behaved enless we give them the wrong kind and that would be a horrible mistake

So to some things up. Israel can’t justify what they’re doing. They shouldn’t be there in the first place! [/quote]

Umm did they just kill some off all well lets look away

74

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Applesauce wrote:
The Ottowa Citizen published an article last week directly quoting an email sent by one of the observers. These are the words of the UN observer, not mine. I posted this on the previous page, but since your skull is bigger than your brain I’ll post it again.

Here are a couple points of relevance:

[i]“What I can tell you is this,” he wrote in an e-mail to CTV dated July 18. "We have on a daily basis had numerous occasions where our position has come under direct or indirect fire from both (Israeli) artillery and aerial bombing.

"The closest artillery has landed within 2 meters (sic) of our position and the closest 1000 lb aerial bomb has landed 100 meters (sic) from our patrol base. This has not been deliberate targeting, but rather due to tactical necessity."

“What that means is, in plain English, 'We’ve got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defence Forces),” he said.

That would mean Hezbollah was purposely setting up near the UN post, he added. It’s a tactic Maj.-Gen. MacKenzie, who was the first UN commander in Sarajevo during the Bosnia civil war, said he’s seen in past international missions: Aside from UN posts, fighters would set up near hospitals, mosques and orphanages.

A Canadian Forces infantry officer with the Edmonton-based Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry and the only Canadian serving as a UN military observer in Lebanon, Maj. Hess-von Kruedener was no stranger to fighting nearby.

The UN post, he wrote in the e-mail, afforded a view of the “Hezbollah static positions in and around our patrol Base.”

“It appears that the lion’s share of fighting between the IDF and Hezbollah has taken place in our area,” he wrote, noting later it was too dangerous to venture out on patrols.
[/i]

This clearly supports Israel’s claim.

Compare this to Kofi Annan’s statements :

[i]“At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area,” he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.

“Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don’t know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us.”[/i]

This clearly proves Annan is a liar, or an idiot. I suspect it’s a little of both.

As someone who’s clearly much smarter than me, what would you have liked the unarmed UN-observers to do?

Also, I don’t see a conflict in the two messages where the Canadian UN-observer claims, 9 days before the shelling, that there was Hezbollah activity in the area, and Kofi Annan’s statement that “At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area”

I suspect it’s you that’s both a liar and an idiot.[/quote]

Go away troll. You are ill informed and add nothing to the discussion.

75

[quote]

You also fail to note that the natural thing for anyone to do when attacked by terrrorists is to strike back militarily. ‘Being terrorized causes punitive military strikes at those who attacked you.’ So the same reasoning that led you to blaming Israel can lead you to exonerating them. Bad reasoning.

But, that’s just what’s happening all the time. Israel has the right to defend itself. It’s neighbours don’t have that right. Thanks for making that clear. [/quote]

Are saying that the terror attacks against Israel are defensive?

The right to defend yourself doesn’t include terrorism as an option, even if Hezbollah had a legitimate claim against Israel.

76

Isreal MUST win this war.
If it does not, radical Islam will spread further.

Additionally I don’t like how America is standing by watching. We need to understand that Iran is mainly to blame for this setup war by them.

This is not just Islam vs Jews…this is an attempt at deliberately creating unrest in Lebanon. It’s also a diversion from Iran created to get attention away from their Nuclear program.

Why are we not holding Iran accountable?

Why are there no protests against Iran and Hezbolla? How can they operate in civilian areas like hospitals an UN posts? Where is the world outrage on this?

I just don’t get it.

77

[quote]JeffR wrote:
ExNole wrote:

Besides the grammatical problems, your argument is also fundamentally flawed.

By using cause and effect language you are effectively using value-neutral language. Israel does x, it follows that the terrorists could only do y. But from this, you are deriving ethical claims, namely, Israel is to blame.

Moving towards value neutral language is a bad move from the start because your argument is at heart a moral one. You argue what Israel is doing is wrong in a moral sense, not a politically disadvantageous sense.

You also fail to note that the natural thing for anyone to do when attacked by terrrorists is to strike back militarily. ‘Being terrorized causes punitive military strikes at those who attacked you.’ So the same reasoning that led you to blaming Israel can lead you to exonerating them. Bad reasoning.

Also it’s worth noting that any historian worth his weight in pink dumbbells knows that establishing true cause and effect is tenuous at best.

You also fail to see the difference, at least in your reasoning in these posts between having a reason to do an action and being justified in doing that action. Israel is justified in defending its people, it may make policy mistakes in doing so, but the action is fundamentally justified. There may be reasons for the Palestinians to be angry and resentful, but they do not justify their actions.

VERY, VERY GOOD post!!!

I encourage reckless and the rat to read this.

JeffR
[/quote]

Thanks man

78

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Isreal MUST win this war.
If it does not, radical Islam will spread further.

Additionally I don’t like how America is standing by watching. We need to understand that Iran is mainly to blame for this setup war by them.

This is not just Islam vs Jews…this is an attempt at deliberately creating unrest in Lebanon. It’s also a diversion from Iran created to get attention away from their Nuclear program.

Why are we not holding Iran accountable?

Why are there no protests against Iran and Hezbolla? How can they operate in civilian areas like hospitals an UN posts? Where is the world outrage on this?

I just don’t get it.[/quote]

I dont think we should stand by but we cant take military action right now…our country doesnt have the money and our military is currently spread thin…remember we still have to keep tabs on north korea and we are running around in iraq and afganistan.

And if you haven’t seen by the way the news is presented…the U.N is in hezbollahs corner. Annan has some shit up his sleeve. Alot of people are trying to make israel look like the bad guys in the situation and thats why there is not alot of press about the bombing of israeli towns…there isnt alot of press about israel broadcasting that they were going to bomb specific areas and telling civilians to leave. They dont talk about hezbollah in civillian clothes or the fact that they hide weapons in civilian houses. They dont talk about anything except civilians getting killed. Hez has used the media extremely well.

79

[quote]dannyrat wrote:
coolexec wrote:

Why should the world worry about Darfur? The Janjaweed killers are Muslims. They slaughter black African tribespeople. The victims are not Muslim.

There are countless thousands of victims but no one cares. The international media and United Nations turn a blind eye and allow ethnic cleansing … genocide even … because the money and power lies in Muslim hands.

The fact that there have been fewer Israeli civilian casualties is not because of any purity of intention from Hizballah’s side, but because Iran and Syria have not yet supplied Hizballah with more deadly weapons, or have not yet permitted Hizballah to use the most deadly weapons. Israeli casualties are also fewer because ever since the first Gulf War, when skuds were fired into Israel, Israeli buildings have, by law, to be built with bomb shelters. So far Hizballah has fired more than 2000 rockets into Israel, all of them aimed at civilian centres of population, and designed to intimidate and terrorise. As it is, Hizballah has been packing its missiles with ball bearings - useless against military targets, but designed to maximise civilian casualties, in the same way that Palestininan suicide bombers regularly stuff their explosives with nuts and bolts to achieve the same effect. It is horrible … terrible … that children are being killed and we should, rightly, be upset about it. We should not see the one side as villains and the other as innocents. Yes, the kids caught up in it are innocents. Their caregivers, who should know better, are not necessarily equally innocent. They, after all, let them sleep with rockets. We shouldn’t forget that Hizballah deliberately places its rocket launchers, and its ordnance, in civilian areas knowing that civilian deaths are a political disaster for Israel.

This is a disaster for the vast majority of innocent Lebanese who watch mainly the southern bit of their country (from the Litani river south to the Israeli border) being torn up in a fight between Hizballah and Israel. Is was Hizballah which launched a raid into Israel, kidnapped 2 soldiers and killed others. In other words “they started it.” One suspects that their timing was orchestrated by Iran in order to deflect attention from its nuclear weapons programme. Israel’s reaction may have been ‘disproportionate,’ but what were they meant to do? Sit back and watch rockets rain on the northern bit of their country? How do you root out terrorists who shoot at you from the protective embrace of women’s skirts and and the shield of little children? Or do you sit and do nothing as your innocent women and children are being killed in their homes?

I believe that our children will not be afforded the luxury of neutrality in this issue and that Islamic imperialism is a huge, and growing, global problem. The clerics sitting in the mosques of Damascus, Tehran and Mecca still speak of the ‘tragedy’ of their loss of Spain and seek to regain the Iberian Peninsula (at the very least). A mere 500 years has passed! (Ironically 1492 saw the fall of Granada AND the expulsion of the Jews from Spain). The Wahhabi nutters fund, and build mosques and madrassas across the world. Unfortunately they aren’t propagating the ‘world-view’ of Islam subscribed to - and contributed to - by, inter alia, Averroes (Ibn Rushd), Avicenna, (Ibn Sina), Al-Khayyam, Abulcasis (among many others).

You made SOME good points, and others were embarrasingly ignorant. Darfur etc- You stupid evil bastard.

Hezbollah in civilan areas- good point, true, that is wrong.

Israel can’t stop terrorism. who can? No-one. How do you kill a vengeful idea? Ask the jews of Israel. Funny you should mention the Iberian peninsula (by the way, have you been spending much time in the mosques of Tehran, Damascus et al?)
Spaniards still speak of ‘El Desastre’. Americans still teach of the war of Independance. English schools still teach about Henry VIII. The whole zionist program was worryingly based upon a 2000 years+ grudge. It was not the arabs of Palestine/Lebanon who kicked out the jews from that region. Yet zionism is what is happening out there now. I know many jews, who, being spiritual and compassionate people, disagree entirely with zionism. There is plenty of room for everyone in the world.

I don’t know about this Muslim empire you speak of, they are reproducing at an incredible rate, while all but the most conservative (read- submissive) Muslim states are being dramatically fucked by every other group except maybe the Buddhists and jainists.

In a few years there will be so many muslims in the world you couldn’t hope to contain them. I don’t intend to convert. Maybe we should stop rubbing their noses in the shit of history, one day they may be actually powerful enough to retaliate with some weapons similar to the Wests’.
To ignore the muslim birthrate, and the nature of zionism, not to mention the siezure of many religiously significant sites which were until recently in the Muslim world’s possession, you are pulling the tail of a cat which will grow up to be a lion. America isn’t shit, europe isn’t shit. If muslim clerics REALLY had the capacity to turn all muslims against all non-muslims, we’d all be dead by now. Let’s not be arrogant in our war-starting and international ‘diplomacy’[/quote]

I am a WHAT you arrogant little cretin? I am, to quote you, both embarrassingly ignorant and a stupid evil bastard? You have finally succeeded in getting me angry so let us descend to a personal level and allow me to tell you a few home truths:

  1. Maybe you got a first for your one or two courses in History and maybe you did equally well in a short course in International Relations. Please do not overlook the following salient facts:
    First, all of your voluminous study has been at an undergraduate level.
    Secondy, the university you attended is, at best, a second rate jumped-up mining college in Cardiff, Wales. Not exactly Oxbridge old chap.
    Thirdly, the famous scholars at whose feet you have studied are, of course, leading international philosophers and historians. The most important thinkers naturally gravitate to the famous University of Glamorgan. Oh yes, a member of your faculty once went to a conference where a serious and ranking academic spoke - another of your teachers once met someone famous - hahaha

  2. You are actually not very bright. It is no wonder that you weren’t accepted at a better university. Do not give the lame excuses of your relatively disadvantaged background and flawed schooling. It is easier for a lout like you to get into a good university in the UK than it is for your peer from a fine Public School. Do you ever read your posts on these forums? Do you actually understand what you are on about half the time? Your logic is usually flawed, your rhetoric incomprehensible and your grammar appalling.

  3. Did none of your teachers, lecturers or professors ever take issue (or even laugh) at your gratuitous use of long (so-called big) words? Do you think it makes you sound intelligent when you litter your writing with puffed-up verbiage? Do you think the guys on here will think you are clever? Will they think you are cleverer than they are? Will they think you are better educated than you are?

  4. Your understanding of History is hopelessly flawed. Obviously it must be superficial given both your level of education and your age, but it is simply embarrassing. It is embarrassing because you do not seem to understand your limitations. Arrogance is despicable, misplaced confidence laughable.

  5. You do not know who I am. Whilst I have no intention of enlightening you please accept the following: I, unlike you, have been to the Horn of Africa and know Darfur. I, unlike you, have been well educated at good universities. I, unlike you, have met and worked with some of the most important leaders in the international academic, business and political arenas. I, unlike you, have better things to do with my time so I shall not waste much more of it on you.

Finally, dannyRAT - your choice of nickname evidences your low self esteem - your deservedly low self esteem. You recognize yourself for the rat you are and reflect this reality in the name you chose for yourself. Do all of your peers consider you a rat? Does anyone like you? Did you have any friends at school?

Maybe I’ve been cruel - but you have earned every word I’ve written here.

80

[quote]eic wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
You wanna know a funny thing eic. We don’t have rampant poverty here in our small corner of the world.

You don’t? I’m sorry, I couldn’t tell after all of the riots in your ghettos throughout France, Germany, etc. when angry Muslims turned their backs on Westerners throughout the region. [/quote]
You make it sound like a riot during a black-out in the US. Hasn’t happened here though.

Yeah, I got that. And it’s a stupid point. You can also say the US fights everybody.

Sure you do. And no you are.

Please, crawl back under your rock.

That “Please, crawl back under your rock” business is just getting old. It makes you sound like a doll; I pull your string and you say the same old phrase. [/quote]
That’s because you keep pulling the same string.

Also, just how young are you? The above sounds straight out of grade school. I had figured I was dealing with a teenager before, but know I wonder if you aren’t 12 years old or so.

What the hell does creationism have to do with anything? I personally don’t believe it strictly. I accept evolution as an explanation and yet I still know that you are full of shit and that Israel has been and still is doing the right thing (90 to 95% of the time; everyone makes mistakes).

And for the record, my “rock” is having been born and raised in California, studying in Texas and Nebraska,
[/quote]
Study harder. You’re still a stupid fuck.

[quote]
as well as studying at Oxford and traveling extensively throughout Europe. [/quote]
Where you were no doubt frequently attacked by Muslims.

[quote] My father was born and raised in Iran and a goodly majority of my extended family doesn’t even speak English, only Persian. I have the benefit of a multidue of viewpoints, yet I conclude that Israel and America are handling this appropriately. /quote]

Are you a Muslim yourself perhaps?

And your freedom. You forgot that we hate you for your freedom.

[quote]
Are you enlisting? Or are you driving around with an “I support the troops” bumper sticker?

As I am currently finishing my third-year of law school, it doesn’t make sense for me to leave now and waste my last 7 years of hard work. But when I’m finished next May, I will have the freedom to leave an enlist if I choose. The current American an Israeli militaries can adequately handle the threats they face, but if things get more serious and I am out of school, I will join. My point was that you and I both know that neither you nor your buddy Dannyrat would ever bring yourself to do the same.[quote]

I see. You don’t know yet what you will do, but you do know what I will do. I’m just amazed.

[quote]
If I am willing to kill or be killed for my beliefs and you are not, then I will always win. You can preach peace all you want, but if I am dead-set on killing you and you won’t fight back, you (and others like you) will be eliminated. You might remember that lesson from Darwin, you arrogant fuck. [/quote]

I’m not arrogant. I’m simply smarter than you.