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

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

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

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this?

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 7/31/2006 9:13:10 PM

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

Alumbrado,

Unless I missed a sudden rash of dungeon closings that somehow didn't make the papers, I simply use reality as the judge.

As for basic facts about warfare, you are welcome to use an encyclopedia as your foundation of knowledge, some of us prefer more in depth sources. However, any chance you could stoop to making an actual counterclaim rather than simply hurling your normal personal insults?

My 'insults' all too often consist of posting references that anyone can use to check your version of reality for themselves.

If they want to believe that only a few states outlaw prostitution, or that the reason fighting in Iraq is limited to cities is because the generals didn't learn from imaginary military blunders of Vietnam like you did, more power to them.

If it really bothers you that much to have your faith based opinions measured against the factual references I make, just take a page from our retired transportation worker friend, and ignore them.

< Message edited by Alumbrado -- 7/31/2006 9:14:01 PM >

(in reply to CrappyDom)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 7/31/2006 9:33:46 PM

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/13/2006
Status: offline

Why is it stupid? Because it is. Read Cr0cdile's first post if it isn't obvious to you. In fact, the only thing stupider than this argument is your comment about the jewish run-media.

(in reply to Alumbrado)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 7/31/2006 9:37:14 PM

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

I never made a comment about the jewish run media, or called anything stupid...but I easily could at this point.

(in reply to amastermind)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 7/31/2006 9:39:55 PM

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Isreal can do what it wants, I doubt we should in all cases support it, but I firmly believe that we are incapable of self-governance...........

So, unless it affects us in terms of RealPolitik we should not have an opinion that we hand out like ballons at Summerfest.

Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to amastermind)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 7/31/2006 10:00:33 PM

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/13/2006
Status: offline

I think I get the point of your first sentence. If the west can call the deaths of civilians in Lebanon colateral damage then the arabs can call the loss of life in 9/11 also collateral damage. But clearly this isn't the case; i.e., 9/11 wasn't collateral damage. Therefore, the loss of innocent lives in Lebanon isn't collateral damage either. Conclusion: Loss of life in Lebanon isn't collateral damage but is rather something akin to a slaughter.

It sounds nice but it doesn't make any sense logically. That is, unless you refuse to accept the principle that there can be a distiction between loss of civilian life and collateral damage; i.e, you believe that every death is a slaughter. But there clearly is a distinction. Collateral damage occurs when the damage is in the vicinity of the target but not specifically the target. Targeted damage is damage to the intended target. (Not only simple logic but simple english too). Thus, the first part of your argument doesn't hold. It doesn't follow that because collateral loss of life happened in Lebanon, that all loss of life, partcularly loss of life in a building into which an airplane intentonally crashed for the sole purpose of killing its occupants and the occupants of the airplane is also collateral damage. But then again, maybe this is precisely the point you wanted to make. It really isn't clear.

Basically what I am saying is that we agree that the deaths of 9/11 were not collateral. So if you accept that there can be a distinction between collateral damage and targeted killing, you have no grounds for calling the innocent loss of life in Lebanon anything other than what it was; collateral damage.

Why don't we occupy Saudi Arabia? Do you want the short answer or the long answer? I am lazy so will only give the short one. A country should be invaded whenever it is the location from which threats of physical attacks or physical attacks are launched. Since, as far as we know, no rockets have been launched from Saudi Arabia, the standard for invasion has not been met.

As my original post said, I seriously doubt you woud find this standard low if your neighborhood were hit by a katusha rocket.

Your drivel comment is simply silly.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 7/31/2006 10:04:12 PM

Posts: 54
Joined: 1/13/2006
Status: offline

Apologies to Alumbrado. My post about stupidity was intended in response to EnglishDomNW

(in reply to Alumbrado)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 7/31/2006 10:18:08 PM

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

I am unsure about you............this asswipe about collateral damage. War ain't clean. I don't buy the argument about collateral damage at all, I cannot fathom how that is an issue, if it was, you would have cleanly striked that cocksucker of a Yassar Arafat long before kennedy was president in the us.

I see you are from Israel. So, I understand you are beset from all sides, but I am moheftigly pissed that you took the position as a nation that you did against King Hussein. And drug our stupid asses into it as well.

Your nation is as quarrelsome as the next. It is hard to support a position in favor of Israel when you settle the banks. Now, I don't disagree that you have contention and want a buffer, but you still are like the parliment of king george over there, buddy.

It was not amazing to me to live in Boston and have engilshmen and mad dogs fighting over my right as an american to set a suitcase wherever it pleased me.

Difficult, but Philistines are your sworn enemies.

LOL,
Ron

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to amastermind)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 7/31/2006 10:18:31 PM

Posts: 5560
Status: offline

My apologies back..it is late, and I should have kept up.

(in reply to amastermind)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/1/2006 3:58:41 AM

Posts: 493
Joined: 12/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW

quote:

ORIGINAL: amastermind

ok. So you are buying the stupid disproportional response argument.

And this is a "stupid argument" why? Practically everyone outside of Israel and the Jewish-run media of America says it's exactly that.

The appropriate response would be kidnapping a couple of junior Hezbollah members and while "negotiating" lobbing a few antique rockets every day into Lebanon. That would have been okay by you?

This is a "smart argument" why?

How clearly do you need it laid out?

Did Israel just destroy Hezbollah? I think it probably increased its supporters a thousandfold

If you're one of the Fathers of the kids killed in Lebanon, or the husband or brother of a woman killed, are you likely to say "Oh well, Israel was right"? Of course you're not.

They're going to support - and probably actively join - whoever is likely to hit Israel hardest.

And guess who that is?

< Message edited by EnglishDomNW -- 8/1/2006 4:23:32 AM >

_____________________________

"I am woman hear me roar!"

(Yes and I am Man, keep the noise down, bitch.)
.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/1/2006 4:19:48 AM

Posts: 493
Joined: 12/24/2005
Status: offline

I love this.

"Jewish-run media" means that section of the media in the USA that is owned by people who happen to be Jewish and therefore more likely to be sympathetic to Israel. It doesn't say "All of your media is owned by Jewish people".

So please. Seriously. Stop with the Klan references, or Nazi accusations. They only make me laugh.

Similarly, whenever Gerald Kaufman criticises Israel, he gets slaughtered for it as an anti-Semite. I think he already has been on this board because he has never held back his belief that Israel is not beyond condemnation and he regularly speaks out against it.

But for those of you intelligent enough to think before you type, please note:

Gerald Kaufman is Jewish.

< Message edited by EnglishDomNW -- 8/1/2006 4:20:19 AM >

_____________________________

"I am woman hear me roar!"

(Yes and I am Man, keep the noise down, bitch.)
.

(in reply to EnglishDomNW)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/1/2006 4:25:40 AM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: amastermind

Basically what I am saying is that we agree that the deaths of 9/11 were not collateral. So if you accept that there can be a distinction between collateral damage and targeted killing, you have no grounds for calling the innocent loss of life in Lebanon anything other than what it was; collateral damage.

Many people would disagree with your analysis. 9/11 was murder but many people would call the killings in Lebanon equally murder because they were inflicted through criminal negligence, the Israeli forces obviously not having a care if civilians were in civilian targeted residential apartments or facilities. Places where you would expect civilians to be just like you would expect civilians in the WTC. Hence, most deaths in Lebanon are murder and have been called war crimes by more than one UN prosecutor.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 8/1/2006 4:26:14 AM >

(in reply to amastermind)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/1/2006 9:42:14 AM

ddm

Posts: 18
Joined: 7/23/2006
Status: offline

This may help and I'll try and break this down:
The conflict between Israel and the Islamic World is about religion. Extremist Islamic factions want Jews out of Israel since they seek control over Jerusalem. I can prove it. This comes from the Hamas Charter:
"Palestine is an Islamic land which has the first of two kiblahs, the third of the holy Islamic sanctuaries and the point of departure for Mohamed's midnight journey (Jerusalem)"
To counter this claim that Jerusalem is an Islamic land, I can only point out that Judaism was actually practised in Israel some 1,400 years before Islam appeared on the stage (Islam arrived around 600 A.D.) Therefore, it seems clearly ridiculous that Jews should move out of Jerusalem and return to Europe when they have deep roots in the region.
Another crucial point: The Palestinians claim they have been ethnically cleansed from their land by Jews despite the fact Israel agreed to the U.N. proposed Palestinian State. Also, what Palestinian authorities don't tell people is that it was actually Jews who were ethnically cleansed and displaced.
This happened when the Roman emperor Hadrian began to rebuild Jerusalem as a pagan city which caused Jews to rebel against Roman rule. As a result, Hadrian killed half a million Jews and renamed the city "Aelia Capitolina" and only allowed Jews to enter the city one day a year to weep at the temple wall.
It was after this slaughter of half a million Jews that the Palestinians gradually replaced the Jewish population and arrived from countries such as Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria and even Italy and Rome.
The only conclusion you can draw from that is Palestinians have rights but Jews certainly have rights as well.
The whole idea that Jews stole land that belonged to the Palestinians from the Palestinians needs to be challenged and the facts presented to Americans and Europeans, rather than only hearing one side of the story (as interpreted by the BBC).
The next time a Palestinian activist tells you that Israel stole land from the Palestinians, ask them how come Jews were living in their current location 1,400 years before Islam appeared on the scene. Also, ask them if they are aware Jews have been invaded by Babylon and exiled, invaded by Assyria, banned from Jersalem by the Romans and then millions killed in the concentration camps of Hitler.
I am not Jewish myself but having read up carefully on tis situation I am 100 per cent convinced Europe has been hoodwinked by too much one-sided Palestinian propaganda. Moreover, Israel has agreed to a 2 state solution and is still attacked by Islamic extremists and it seems to me Israel now needs all the support it can get.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/1/2006 10:07:00 AM

ddm

Posts: 18
Joined: 7/23/2006
Status: offline

Also, with regard to the modern conflict, Hezbolah has been armed by Iran after Hezbolah had agreed to disarm under a U.N. resolution. They must have stored all those Iranian supplied rockets in village bunkers for a reason - obviously to get ready to attack Israel.
Hezbolah was breaking its agreement to the U.N. so far as I can see.
Then you have Iran. The Iranian President has said he wants to rid Iran of Christianity and, therfore, many churches have been closed down and other religious groups have been persecuted.
Iran subjects Moslems to the death penalty if they convert to another religion. Iran also wants to carry out an investigation into the hollocaust in Europe to try and prove its case the hollocaust never happened. I guess this is cause for concern if the Iranians have been training and funding Hezbollah.
The problem the IDF now has is how to disable rocket launchers that are being used in towns and villages in Lebanon without injuring or killing women and children. Apparently, Hezbolah told these civilians to stay right where they were in the middle of conflict.
Final point - the neo cons. I honestly don't think Bush's policy on Israel would be so different from John Kerry and, in fact, Kerry could have taken an even more pro-Israel stance. I think the same could be said for Regan, Bush Senior or Clinton. All these Preidents would have backed Israel although not all of them would have goofed over Iraq.

(in reply to ddm)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/1/2006 10:29:57 AM

Posts: 493
Joined: 12/24/2005
Status: offline

How is that any better or worse than the first Prime Minister of Israel declaring

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."

The answer is it isn't.

< Message edited by EnglishDomNW -- 8/1/2006 11:14:00 AM >

_____________________________

"I am woman hear me roar!"

(Yes and I am Man, keep the noise down, bitch.)
.

(in reply to ddm)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/1/2006 11:09:23 AM

Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW
How is that any better or worse than the first Prime Minister of Israel declaring

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."

The answer is it isn't.

The only real important point to this, is the one that seems to have been missed. The statement on one side, are being made by a modern leader that is in power today. The statements of the other, come from someone that was already out of power, before you were even born.

And dude ... and you are fucking old.

(in reply to EnglishDomNW)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/1/2006 11:13:34 AM

Posts: 493
Joined: 12/24/2005
Status: offline

Only you could have responded 30 seconds after I cancelled it.

It's amazing but I know the occasional words Jesus spoke (spaketh?), so I'm even older than you think

You know, there are times I wish there were other intelligent people on here. It gets lonely on my own.

And P.S. caitlyn.................(I still think you're a man)

< Message edited by EnglishDomNW -- 8/1/2006 11:17:30 AM >

_____________________________

"I am woman hear me roar!"

(Yes and I am Man, keep the noise down, bitch.)
.

(in reply to caitlyn)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/1/2006 1:04:48 PM

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW

quote:

ORIGINAL: amastermind
ok. So you are buying the stupid disproportional response argument.

And this is a "stupid argument" why? Practically everyone outside of Israel and the Jewish-run media of America says it's exactly that.

The appropriate response would be kidnapping a couple of junior Hezbollah members and while "negotiating" lobbing a few antique rockets every day into Lebanon. That would have been okay by you?

This is a "smart argument" why?

How clearly do you need it laid out?

Did Israel just destroy Hezbollah? I think it probably increased its supporters a thousandfold

If you're one of the Fathers of the kids killed in Lebanon, or the husband or brother of a woman killed, are you likely to say "Oh well, Israel was right"? Of course you're not.

They're going to support - and probably actively join - whoever is likely to hit Israel hardest.

And guess who that is?

quote:

You know, there are times I wish there were other intelligent people on here. It gets lonely on my own.

Mr Mensa,
Please answer slowly for us less intelligent.

Considering the documented Israel withdraw from Lebanon in 2000 didn't lessen the activity or membership of Hezbollah; and you position is the attacks on Hezbollah won't accomplish that either. What does your superior intellect recommend?

While you are educating us, perhaps you can name one school, hospital, highway, or even a rest stop in the desert that was constructed with the $85 Million per year the US has given the PLO since 1993.
Source: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45198.pdf

quote:

In 1982 Israel launched an offensive into southern Lebanon in order to suppress the PLO entrenched there . In June 1985, Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres ordered a unilateral withdrawal of most of Israel's troops from Lebanon , leaving only a small residual Israeli force and an Israeli-supported Lebanese militia in a "security zone," a 15 km wide strip of land paralleling the border.

The May 2000 decision to unilaterally end control of the Lebanon security zone was forced on Israel by the relentless stream of casualties inflicted on its forces by Hezbollah's low-intensity guerrilla campaign. When then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak gave the order to withdraw, in line with a campaign promise to pull out within a year of his election, he was expressing the will of some 70 percent of Israeli voters, who could no longer see any valid purpose in sending their sons and daughters to die in Lebanon in the vain pursuit of security for Israel's northernmost towns.
Source: http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_lebanon_withdraw_2000.php

(in reply to EnglishDomNW)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/1/2006 1:36:34 PM

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

Merc,

From your link...

quote:

Quick Facts
! The United States has never provided aid to the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO).

From another US govn't site...and this is one item among many.

quote:

USAID has built or renovated 3,274 classrooms and kindergartens; constructed and equipped 200 youth, sports and computer centers and more than 127,000 square meters of playgrounds.

http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/1/2006 1:47:39 PM

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

Merc,

From your link...

quote:

Quick Facts
! The United States has never provided aid to the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO).

From another US govn't site...and this is one item among many.

quote:

USAID has built or renovated 3,274 classrooms and kindergartens; constructed and equipped 200 youth, sports and computer centers and more than 127,000 square meters of playgrounds.

http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/

CD,
And the third sentence? "US economic aid to the Palestinians has average about $85 Million per year since 1993" There is even a table to consult.

Although the reference to the PLO was misdirecting. The US government couldn't grant money openly to the PLO which it identified as a terrorist organization. However, same guys wearing a different label.

The USAID reference proves the point regarding the Palestinian leaders. It was built by USAID NOT the Palestinians.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? - 8/1/2006 2:00:33 PM

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

Merc,

I am not defending the PLO, the Palestinians, I am not attacking Israel. I am simply striving to create a bit of balance and a deeper understanding of the issues.

quote:

About 80% of U.S. aid to the Palestinians is channeled through contractors and 20% is channeled through private voluntary organizations, both groups selected and monitored by USAID.

All of the $85 million per year SEEMS to be counted as USAID funds. So I would think you either have to accept that things WERE done with the money or ignore it altogether.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this?

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.105