• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Support Israel or else attitude?

nogoodname

Banned
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
526
Reaction score
0
Location
Arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Um anyone notice on the forums the peolpe that codem Isreal are just looking at civilian deaths and saying that Isreal has a right to defend it self but not be zionistic. Well i was just noticing this and noticing how people say you should codemn Hamas then and most of us do so why are we yelled at? Im sure people who support Isreal should see that Isreal also uses terror tactics?
 
Re: Suppor isreal or else attitude?

what are some terror tactics Israel uses?
 
Re: Suppor isreal or else attitude?

BudLizard101 said:
what are some terror tactics Israel uses?
Click to expand...
bombing civillians. Shooting civillians, then confirm killing civilians? Bulldozing houses? Taking Palestian land?

p.s i ment to say Support*
 
Re: Suppor isreal or else attitude?

nogoodname said:
bombing civillians. Shooting civillians, then confirm killing civilians? Bulldozing houses? Taking Palestian land?

p.s i ment to say Support*
Click to expand...
Those don't fit the definition of terror tactics.
 

Show me some examples of where people who condemn Israel also condemn Hamas or Hezbollah. One rule, though; the condemnation can't be followed by something like, 'but Israel was worse, or did this', or something like that. Post some examples, please, though I doubt you can post many if any at all.
 
Re: Suppor isreal or else attitude?

nogoodname said:
bombing civillians. Shooting civillians, then confirm killing civilians? Bulldozing houses? Taking Palestian land?

p.s i ment to say Support*
Click to expand...

The difference is that when Israel attacks, any civilian casualties are generally inadvertant or collateral damage. The terrorists target civilians.

As for buldozing of houses, I would need to know the circumstances. There is a big difference between running a bulldozer through an active residential area and bulldozing bombed out and abandoned houses that are used as cover by their attackers. Note, I am just presenting these as examples of two extremes of "bulldozing behaviour", not as actual examples of what has happened.

As for it being Palestinian land, the Israelites have a claim to that geography that predates the origin of the Muslim religion by a few thousand years.
 
And then there is the point with Hizballah that they have a stated objective of the destruction of Israel. They state outright that there will be no peace agreements, no treaties and no cease fires.

The rules that Hizballah has set means that the conflict can never end until either Hizballah or Israel is destroyed.

So, that gives the choice of either ignoring a war of religious persecution against a country that we consider an ally. A war that is, as dictated by Hizballah, a war to the death. Or the only other choices are supporting either Hizballah or Israel.

Israel has offered land to the Palestinian people in the past, but it was REJECTED BY THE PALESTINIANS.

Israel has tried. The Palestinians are the ones who rejected a possible solution.

Tell me, who do you think deserves support more, Hizballah, with the declaration that Israel must die, or Israel, who has tried to make peace in the past?
 
Re: Suppor isreal or else attitude?

MrFungus420 said:
As for it being Palestinian land, the Israelites have a claim to that geography that predates the origin of the Muslim religion by a few thousand years.
Click to expand...

The Native Americans geography predates the European colonist claim by 10,000 years in the Americas. What's your point? Who came first gets the land? I cannot see the US giving the Native Americans their own country, but they came first I'm afraid the world does not work that way, nor that simple. There is Palestinian people there, that is good enough for me to get their own state. I just which they would stop shooting themselves in the foot.
 
Re: Suppor isreal or else attitude?

nogoodname said:
bombing civillians. Shooting civillians, then confirm killing civilians? Bulldozing houses? Taking Palestian land?

p.s i ment to say Support*
Click to expand...


That land was never palestinian. It belonged to the jews long before there was even a "palestine", which I might add is a name given to the land by a jew-hating roman general. Therefore, the jews DID NOT take that land from ANYBODY.

nogoodname said:
bombing civillians. Shooting civillians, then confirm killing civilians?
Click to expand...

This sounds to me like the conduct of Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaida, and a number of other arab terrorist groups.

What about the mullahs of Iran... who executed a 15 year-old girl for allegedly violating the law of chastity? This was a state-sanctioned murder, which the pro-terrorist supporters seem to be condoning.

I don't see you condeming their actions?

 

If you get to the point where you can use American made missles and fighter planes, then you are pretty much risk-free of being called a terrorist regardless of how many civilians you kill. When you have enough resources to use real weapons, then it is called collateral damage. But when you don't have modern weapons and people are driven to use whatever they can put together, aimed at whatever they can hit, to fight a stronger enemy, then it is called terrorism.

Both side have claims to the land, both seek military targets, both kill civilians, both claim they are defending their people and territory, etc., etc.

The difference is one has very advanced military technology, and a seat at the UN - the otherside (the remaining occupied territories, Golan, Shabba, Gaza, West Bank, etc.) does not.
 
Last edited:
Re: Suppor isreal or else attitude?

Native Americans have a lot of autonomy in the US. I haven't heard about them asking for more. The vast majority want to be part of the US, but they also have autonomy. They have their own lands with their own governments, their own laws, etc., but they like being part of the US.

How do you feel about Northern Ireland? Should the Brits give it back to the Irish?
 
It all depends on who you're targeting. I find it hard to believe that you didn't know that.
 
mpg said:
It all depends on who you're targeting. I find it hard to believe that you didn't know that.
Click to expand...

It takes capability to strike military targets, because they are defended. That is why they are striking civilian targets. Israel is striking civilian targets too, communications infrastructure, transportation routes, etc.

Contrary to rhectoric prepared for the pro-war position, it is not as simple as good vs. evil - unless you are a Christian extremist getting ready for the four horseman.
 
Re: Suppor isreal or else attitude?

mpg said:
How do you feel about Northern Ireland? Should the Brits give it back to the Irish?
Click to expand...

Now heres a crazy idea. Why not actually listen to the people of northern ireland, The vast majority of whom statisitically want to stay part the uk, and let them have there democratic right to do so.
 
Lacking the capability to strike military targets doesn't excuse targeting civilians.

Civilian infrastructure can also be used as military infrastructure.
 
Re: Suppor isreal or else attitude?

Red_Dave said:
Now heres a crazy idea. Why not actually listen to the people of northern ireland, The vast majority of whom statisitically want to stay part the uk, and let them have there democratic right to do so.
Click to expand...
Why not let all of Ireland vote?
 
mpg said:
Lacking the capability to strike military targets doesn't excuse targeting civilians.

Civilian infrastructure can also be used as military infrastructure.
Click to expand...

But lacking the ability to specifically pin-point terroist targets does excuse killing civilians?

Again, if you have advanced weapons, you still kill civilians (in fact you kill much more) - you just call it collateral damage. Terrorism is the collateral damage without actually striking the military targets, due to lack of ability.

When I see an Apache launching a hellfire missle into an apartment building in Gaza, that is no better than a suicide bomber detonating on a bus in Tel-Aviv.
 
Last edited:
How is that better? The Israelis are trying to target terrorists, the terrorists simply want to kill Jews. So yes it is better. If terrorists wouldn't hide amongst the civilian population they wouldn't put the people they are supposedly fighting for at risk.
 

It is hard to sympathize with an occupying force. Solve the Mid-east problem, end all the occupations and there will be no mechanism for the "terrorist" forces to draw support from the population.

As long as the population supports Hamas and Hezbollah, all the bombs in the world will not bring peace. And when you are bombing the hell out of what should be a model society for ME reforms, the "terrorists" are winning more support not less. Not a smart policy. Not a recipe for sucess. Not a pathway to peace.
 
The Geneva Convention disagrees with you, and so do I. One is a necessary evil, and the other is just pure evil.
 

I got a pathway to peace for you . . .

Every Hezbollah member, man, woman, and child, a rotting corpse.

Have you ever heard of a Katyusha attack from a graveyard ?

A fight to the death always produces peace, because the opposition is dead.
 

You forgot to mention that the arabs refuse to recognize that the jews have a claim to the land. The jews have never denied the arabs have no claim; in fact, the jews have given back some of that land to appease the arabs. It's the arabs who are unwilling to live and let live.

:roll:
 
mpg said:
The Geneva Convention disagrees with you, and so do I. One is a necessary evil, and the other is just pure evil.
Click to expand...

Pure evil? I didn't know we were talking spirituality. Making this a religous war only aids extremism.

The Geneva Conventions are violated all the time by both sides. No one has a monopoly on rightousness. The bottom line is what is going to bring peace. Painting the other side as evil isn't going to do it, I assure you - in fact, that is exactly what Bin Laden and company want you to do.

Do you want peace? Or do you want the four horseman? Cause if you want peace, framing this as a good vs. evil battle is pretty useless.
 
Voidwar said:
I got a pathway to peace for you . . .

Every Hezbollah member, man, woman, and child, a rotting corpse.

Have you ever heard of a Katyusha attack from a graveyard ?

A fight to the death always produces peace, because the opposition is dead.
Click to expand...

Yeah nice one dude. Genocide is the answer!

Praise the lord and pass the amunition!
 
python416 said:
Yeah nice one dude. Genocide is the answer!
Click to expand...

Genocide has to do with race. Islam is a creed.

Creeds are chosen, and there a good ones and bad ones.

Thughees were bad, now they are gone.

Druids tried the ongoing terror thing with Julius, and look how they fared.

Anyway your buzzword does not apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…