Whose side are you on?

[mixedmedia]

Well, now we have a somewhat better idea of who the anti-Americans are.

This time I voted.

Senseless????? When someone is murdering your people on a daily basis, when security must be number one, when all around you there are "people", actually animals who hate you..and the scum in Lebanon is shooting rockets at you - what would you do ???
Be thankful that the Jew is civilized and decent; were this me, I would be as bad as the Islamic terrorist.... or worse....

Oy vey....here we go.

 

[Goobieman]

I thought we have been through this all Palestinians and some Palestinians at the beginning of this thread.

A point you ignored when I made the same comment regarding the Israelis.
I took that as you not really being serious about it.

I did not ignore something. I said, Palestinians are defending their rights and these rights are limited today.

And -why- are those rights limited?
Because the Palestinians are constantly trying to murder Israelis.
Apparently, to you, that's not a good enough reason for their rights to be limited?

Why do the Palestinians have the right to infringe on the rights of Israelis, but the Israelis do not have the right to infringe on the rights of Palestinans?

 

[TheNextEra]

Every time Israel strikes at the Palestinians, it is in response to a terrorist attack or at terrorists. Also, what is wrong with Israel striking the terrorists after a cease fire is broken?

Wrong, their response was to a terrorist attack, but instead of working WITH the palestinians, they took matters in their own hands.

Can you tell me one war, just ONE war where there wasn't still scirmishes going on after the war was over? Does that mean you start the war over again because of ONE incident in which the government does not claim responsibility over? NO, that is why Israel does not want peace.

I don't see how someone can choose the Palestinians/neither... The Palestinians support terrorism and want to eliminate Israel.

In my opinion, I think people say "neither" because they don't want to admit that they want to side with the Palestinians. People that side with Israel tend to strongly support Israel.

Well your opinion of my choice matters to me about as much as the dung in my neighbors yard from his dog. I gave you my reasons and if you don't like them, well tough.

I don't see how people can give unconditional support to Israel or Palestine. Neither one wants peace, they want the other annihilated or suppresed.

 

[Gibberish]

Wrong, their response was to a terrorist attack, but instead of working WITH the palestinians, they took matters in their own hands.

If mexico kidnapped two American soldiers and started shooting missles into San Diego would you be ok with the US invading Mexico to create a buffer zone between the two countries? Or would you want America to work politically with Mexico to resolve the issues while San Diego is being attacked?

 

[TheNextEra]

If mexico kidnapped two American soldiers and started shooting missles into San Diego would you be ok with the US invading Mexico to create a buffer zone between the two countries? Or would you want America to work politically with Mexico to resolve the issues while San Diego is being attacked?

If MEXICO'S GOVERNMENT did that yes, you be in the right to attack. But when it was just two mexican civilians doing it, no, you do not have the right.

 

[Gibberish]

If MEXICO'S GOVERNMENT did that yes, you be in the right to attack. But when it was just two mexican civilians doing it, no, you do not have the right.

And if Mexico's government and civilians supported the group doing the attacks it is still not ok to invade? Keep in mind America will not be invading to take over the country but to make a buffer zone so that more long range attacks cannot occur.

 

[TheNextEra]

Keep in mind America will not be invading to take over the country but to make a buffer zone so that more long range attacks cannot occur.

Put the f**king buffer zone in YOUR country if you are afraid of someone, don't take away land from another country.

Nothing is stopping Israel from putting a buffer in THEIR country.

 

[Gibberish]

Put the f**king buffer zone in YOUR country if you are afraid of someone, don't take away land from another country.

Nothing is stopping Israel from putting a buffer in THEIR country.

So you would vote to evacuate and relocate the 2 million residents of San Diego and the population of every other city along the Mexico border instead of putting military protection along the border and inside a buffer zone of the Mexico?

We as a nation must suffer the turmoil of relocation (we saw how well that went with Katrina) simply because you think it's wrong to invade a country that contracts their attacks out to militants?

Interesting.

 

[Goobieman]

Put the f**king buffer zone in YOUR country if you are afraid of someone, don't take away land from another country.
Nothing is stopping Israel from putting a buffer in THEIR country.

Israel is the agrieved party, the one under threat of violent action from someone else.

Why should Israel lose the usefulness of its land when someone else is the cause of the problem?

Lebanon is responsible for the security of its borders -- if it cannot keep someone from attacking Israel across its borders (either because they cannot, or because they do not want to) then Israel has EVERY right to secure itself thru thge creation of a buffer zone INSIDE Lebanon.

 

[Harshaw]

Put the f**king buffer zone in YOUR country if you are afraid of someone, don't take away land from another country.

Nothing is stopping Israel from putting a buffer in THEIR country.

Yeah. Someone starts raining bombs on your land, you're morally compelled to just pack up and leave. Got it.

 

[mpg]

They negotiated with almost everyone willing to.
They usually show interest in diplomatic solutions.

They elected a government that's not willing to negotiate. they're committed to the destruction of Israel. The terrorists enjoy wide spread support.

 

[Harshaw]

They elected a government that's not willing to negotiate. they're committed to the destruction of Israel. The terrorists enjoy wide spread support.

Not to mention that Arafat was always all smiles in English and then fire and brimstone and "we will show them!" in Arabic once he got home. He never intended to honor a single agreement he signed.

 

[mpg]

Put the f**king buffer zone in YOUR country if you are afraid of someone, don't take away land from another country.

Nothing is stopping Israel from putting a buffer in THEIR country.

Do you expect to have a shred of credibility after a post like that?

 

[Goobieman]

Yeah. Someone starts raining bombs on your land, you're morally compelled to just pack up and leave. Got it.

He -has- to be kidding. Really. Because he can't be serious.

Otherwise:
Japan attacks Pearh Harbor; the US should react by giving Hawaii to Japan.

Right?

I mean, isnt that the necessary conclusion if you apply his argument to the situation?

 

[mixedmedia]

Yeah. Someone starts raining bombs on your land, you're morally compelled to just pack up and leave. Got it.

Well, I can tell you if bombs started raining down on my city I'd feel morally compelled to pack up my kids and leave. After all, isn't this what Israel asked the citizens of southern Lebanon to do?

 

[Harshaw]

Well, I can tell you if bombs started raining down on my city I'd feel morally compelled to pack up my kids and leave. After all, isn't this what Israel asked the citizens of southern Lebanon to do?

A warning to civilians that Hezbollah was holed up in their neighborhood and therefore bombs would fall, and they might want to clear out, is called "humane," especially when doing it hampers the success of the mission -- both by warning Hezbollah and by giving them a chance to escape with the civilians (seeing as they refuse to wear uniforms, as required by the rules of war).

Saying that if someone bombs your land, unprovoked, it's up to you to leave is called "asinine."

 

[mixedmedia]

A warning to civilians that Hezbollah was holed up in their neighborhood and therefore bombs would fall, and they might want to clear out, is called "humane," especially when doing it hampers the success of the mission -- both by warning Hezbollah and by giving them a chance to escape with the civilians (seeing as they refuse to wear uniforms, as required by the rules of war).

Saying that if someone bombs your land, unprovoked, it's up to you to leave is called "asinine."

I don't think he was referring to a permanent evacuation and abandonment of the land.

 

[Goobieman]

Well, I can tell you if bombs started raining down on my city I'd feel morally compelled to pack up my kids and leave. After all, isn't this what Israel asked the citizens of southern Lebanon to do?

You are fleeing for your own safety, and that's what Israel suggested Lebanese civilians do.

I dont rceall HB suggesting that Israeli civilians leave for their own safety -- do you?

Anyway...
Thats distinclty different than arguing that Israel needs to abandon its own land to protect itself from those that would attack it.

 

[Harshaw]

I don't think he was referring to a permanent evacuation and abandonment of the land.

Oh, I think he was, what with referring to establishing a buffer and all.

 

[mixedmedia]

You are fleeing for your own safety, and that's what Israel suggested Lebanese civilians do.

I dont rceall HB suggesting that Israeli civilians leave for their own safety -- do you?

Anyway...
Thats distinclty different than arguing that Israel needs to abandon its own land to protect itself from those that would attack it.

It wouldn't be abandoning its land, it would be using its land to protect itself.

 

[Harshaw]

It wouldn't be abandoning its land, it would be using its land to protect itself.

So you agree? If you have a city on a border with another country, and someone starts bombing that city from that other country, it's up to you to move your own city and use the land where it stood "to protect yourself"? As opposed to using your land as you wish to, i.e., living there?

 

[mixedmedia]

So you agree? If you have a city on a border with another country, and someone starts bombing that city from that other country, it's up to you to move your own city and use the land where it stood "to protect yourself"? As opposed to using your land as you wish to, i.e., living there?

Uhhhh, during wartime. Absolutely, yes. War is very inconvenient. I say with all logic and no pointing fingers at anyone.

 

[Harshaw]

Uhhhh, during wartime. Absolutely, yes. War is very inconvenient. I say with all logic and no pointing fingers at anyone.

During wartime, you think a country being attacked, unprovoked, is morally obligated to shrink inside itself and simply bear the attacks, rather than to root out and stop the aggression against it?

Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, said that it's an "open war" until Israel ceases to exist and "every Jew is dead."

So Israel is morally bound simply to shrink inside itself and let that happen?

 

[mixedmedia]

During wartime, you think a country being attacked, unprovoked, is morally obligated to shrink inside itself and simply bear the attacks, rather than to root out and stop the aggression against it?

Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, said that it's an "open war" until Israel ceases to exist and "every Jew is dead."

So Israel is morally bound simply to shrink inside itself and let that happen?

Your simplification of a very complex issue does not lend itself to debate. At least not with me. This is why I find it very hard to talk about Israel here. It's as if it's not a debate unless one side or the other is expressing total disbelief or shock at what the other is saying. It becomes very tiring for me real fast.

All I am saying is that it would not be unheard of for a nation, provoked or not, to use their own land to provide a buffer between themselves and a hostile nation. Especially if that hostile nation is not really a hostile nation.

Lebanon did not attack Israel, and oh boy, I can hear the engines revving up already, but Lebanon is one of the most hopeful nations we have in the Middle East and we ought to be encouraging its progress instead of treating it like its just another country full of Arabs that needs to be dominated and given no consideration in its own sovereignty.

<edit> I would like to qualify my statement above by saying that I don't think Israelis are the one considering the country of Lebanon in this way. They live next door to them. The Israelis know who the people of Lebanon are. It is those who like to sit in their living rooms here in the states and corral the identity of all Arabs into a convenient little terrorist package for the ease and convenience of condemning them all that I am speaking of. I don't necessarily think that of you, Harshaw, in fact, I don't know where you live or anything much about you. But if it is not you, then perhaps you know of the mindset I am referring to.<end edit>

For now Israel has its buffer zone, though. So don't despair. I think it's not very likely they will give it up anytime soon. And that's okay, too, as long as it works. Because you see, I prefer anything that forwards the aims of peace. I'm just not so sure this buffer zone will assure it, and it may even hinder it.

 

[Harshaw]

Well, "wartime" requires there to be a war. Who is the war between?