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

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

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

Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 6:43:59 AM)
quote: I think Israel is a state with zero right to exist, even under its own religion. You are known by the company you keep. Here is another who share your same philosophy. quote: Iranian President: Solution to Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel [image]http://haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif[/image] By The Associated Press [image]http://haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif[/image] PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel, Iranian state media reported. At least you and Ahmadinejad are honest and on record supporting death and destruction, and would accept no compromise. It's the main reason why there can be no compromise and no backing off by Israel in this case. Again, you make the point and answer the OP question. If you are fighting a people who's stated goal is your destruction, until they change it publicly and in action, you can not back off your resolve to destroy them first. It's unfortunate that except for Israel few take the Iranian president seriously.

meatcleaver -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 9:43:46 AM)
Iran having a president as an idiot has nothing to do with what Israel is doing to Lebanon, though he gives Israel cover for its criminality. Despite what the Whitehouse, Israel and Bush's stooge Blair says, Hezzbollah was a creation of the last Israeli invasion and is a Lebanonese guerilla group and not a creation of Iran. Of course it has to get it weapons from somnewhere, where do you suggest, the USA? That does not mean to say that peace cannot be reached and cross border skirmishes have existed since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon because there was still outstanding grievances. Bush and Blair are simplistic in their analysis of the middle east which is why Iraq is a fiasco but simplicity suits the bellicose attitude of Israel. Actually, having sat and watched ABC news for a hour last night, I am not surprised Americans are so pro Israeli, I have never seen such simplistic and one sided analysis of a conflict. The only time the reporter and the camera wasn't concentrating on finding some new hole in a roof to condemn Hezzbollah for (remember, they only have about twenty dead civilians in the whole conflict despite 2,000 missiles. That's how deadly Hezzbollah are), they were in Lebanon with Israeli soldiers. Never once did they dwell on the 900 dead Lebanese, of which over 300 are children. If those children were white and spoke English with an American accent, maybe ABC would hae found them more important.

CrappyDom -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 9:52:15 AM)
The problem with dealing with social issues like this is that the only solution is genocide. If country A has the right to destroy people B as long as some tiny element of people B are terrorists, and we see from history that when people B feel oppressed (rightly or wrongly) some element will resort to violence, then country A has the right to keep killing them to the violence stops, which will be when people B = zero. The inverse is true. If people B have elements within them that desire country A to be destroyed, they will not stop till country A is destroyed. So the two outcomes are either B is always in conflict with A or country A = zero. The only real solution is to create a different equation, something that neither side seems willing to do.

meatcleaver -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 9:55:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CrappyDom The problem with dealing with social issues like this is that the only solution is genocide. If country A has the right to destroy people B as long as some tiny element of people B are terrorists, and we see from history that when people B feel oppressed (rightly or wrongly) some element will resort to violence, then country A has the right to keep killing them to the violence stops, which will be when people B = zero. The inverse is true. If people B have elements within them that desire country A to be destroyed, they will not stop till country A is destroyed. So the two outcomes are either B is always in conflict with A or country A = zero. The only real solution is to create a different equation, something that neither side seems willing to do. So so true CD. If you take the pro-Israeli line to its logical conclusion, the Nazis didn't do anything wrong. Now who really believes that?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 9:57:18 AM)
quote: Actually, having sat and watched ABC news for a hour last night, I am not surprised Americans are so pro Israeli, I have never seen such simplistic and one sided analysis of a conflict. MC, Repeating as often as necessary. I am NOT pro-Israeli. I am pro-pragmatic. The OP asked "if Israel has the right and if so why?" As long as the position represented by the leader of Iran is that the only peace will come from Israel's destruction the pragmatic response is total destruction of that enemy until they are gone or they change their official stated position. quote: Hezzbollah was a creation of the last Israeli invasion and is a Lebanese guerrilla group and not a creation of Iran. Of course it has to get it weapons from somewhere, where do you suggest, the USA? Why get them from anywhere? Once Israel abandoned the area from the last invasion why should there be a need for them? In effect, they "won", Israel was gone. Occupying the border for the sole purpose of launching rockets was the cause of the current action. quote: border skirmishes have existed since the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon because there was still outstanding grievances. If the level of addressing those "grievances" is lobbing rockets daily over the border, again the pragmatic response currently occurring is correct. The land was turned over to them. There was no Israel presence that was dictating how the land should be used. It was used to store and launch weapons. The only pertinent "grievance" seems to be stated very clearly by President Ahmadinejad. Everything else is rhetoric. Again, I complement his honesty. As long as the most important "grievance" is the existence of Israel there can be no other "grievances" discussed.

CrappyDom -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 9:57:44 AM)
Cleaver, Actually, the right wingers here would support the jews against hitler because they meekly went to the slaughter and didn't try acts of terrorism. The ones they would support hitler killing would be the ones who fought back like those in the Warsaw ghetto, they had terrorists among them and so it was okay to kill them all. Sort of puts the whole line of bullshit into perspective, doesn't it.

CrappyDom -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 10:05:23 AM)
Merc, To a great extent, I agree with this post. My issue with Israel at this point regarding this conflict, is that they fell for a clear trap set up by Iran. Iran wanted to bog Israel down and Israel and the US fell for it hook line and sinker. Iran is clearly going to force the issue on the nukes and they want to take Israel out of the game and they succeeded at zero cost to themselves. As for Iran wanting to destroy Israel, how is that differnt than the chest thumping from Bush about Iran? We have the ability (at least Bush thinks we do) and yet we haven't. It is easy for Iran to say they want to destroy Israel, hell I could say it to and with the same cost, zero. Iran knows that Israel has the capability to blast them to hell even if Iran managed (highly unlikely) to lob two or three nukes and hit Tel Aviv and other cities in a surprise attack. Iran talks tough regarding Isreal but he has as much credibility as Bush does regarding followthrough. What slays me is how many people listen to the bluster (designed for political consumption in Iran) and think it has any real meaning. That would be like believing Bush wanted smaller government and a lower deficit!

Mercnbeth -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 11:47:47 AM)
quote: how is that different than the chest thumping from Bush about Iran? We have the ability (at least Bush thinks we do) and yet we haven't. It is easy for Iran to say they want to destroy Israel, hell I could say it to and with the same cost, zero. CD, I distinguish this by this fact; Washington DC to Iran - 6300 Miles. 858 Miles. I won't try to influence your opinion of President Bush, but I'll use his actions in Iraq as an example of the distinction between US chest thumping versus Iran's. Considering we attacked Iraq and overran the country, we did NOT take over the country. We are still spilling US blood in an effort to support the local people and set up their own idea of a government. I don't' think you can represent Iran's president's words would result in the same end for Israel if he was able to accomplish in Israel what we accomplished in Iraq. It may not have any distinction to the dead, but the living appreciate the difference. Should Iran ever prevail over Israel, I do not believe there would be any living. President Ahmadinejad, does not distinguish between Jewish people and Israel. He interchanges in his speeches the killing of Jews with the destruction of Israel. It's never been a stated position to kill or destroy the people of Iraq or Iran. I don't think the difference is rhetoric. Again, the living in Iraq, after the invasion and attack speak to the difference. As the invading occupying army of Israel, Iran's forces following the stated policy of the country and the leaders, would kill all Jews on sight.

meatcleaver -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 12:23:56 PM)
Who has Iran ever invaded? Who has the USA ever invaded? Who has Britain ever invaded? Who has France ever invaded? Who has Israel ever invaded?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 12:41:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Who has Iran ever invaded? Who has the USA ever invaded? Who has Britain ever invaded? Who has France ever invaded? Who has Israel ever invaded? I don't understand the materiality in context of the argument. The current Iran regime has only been in place a couple years. Ask the same question of every country, except France, with the suffix clause "without a treat" and the answer still isn't important. In the context of Lebanon and Israel, without rockets being fired from over the border, they wouldn't have invaded this time. But so what? Your argument would seem to support that Israel didn't invade but instead just responded with rockets from their side of the border in perpetuity. That makes no sense to me. Eliminating the source and believing your enemies stated intentions makes sense to me and is a better goal.

meatcleaver -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 1:10:41 PM)
Iran has invaded no one and while they have made threats, the USA has made endless threats against regimes and tried to murder the leaders of other countries so are we to assume that 9/11 was proportionate? Destroyng a country is disproportionate to any threat to Israel who have probably invaded because Ehud Olmert wanted to prove he is a hard man. Most people keep saying that Israel is surrounded by enemies and fighting for survival which is not true. Egypt and Jordan have peaceful relations with Israel and are not a threat. Lebanon is also not a threat to Israel who have a military regime unmatched by anyone in the area, in fact thanks to the US taxpayer they have a military of the size of large European countries so the arguments about threats to Israel are disingenuous. Bush keeps preaching to the world about civilisation and freedom, which is echoed by Israel as one of their excuses for fighting this war, yet both countries invade other countries, both countries abduct and imprison people without trial and Israel keep over a million people penned in occupied territory with barely enough food to prevent starvation and lob in 500 shells a day against innocent civilians, according to the American organisation, Human Rights Watch. Yet all people can talk about is Iran who do none of these things, though I admit are guilty of supplying inaccurate missiles to a guerilla army that want to free up to 2,000 Lebanese who are held without trial. Just pointing out western hypocrisy and illustrating muslim anger is not irrational but on the contrary, understandable.

cr0ckdile -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 2:08:36 PM)
I was hoping this thread would die out and I wouldn't have to post here, I hate politics. But the rubbish that meatcleaver is spewing out is so vile, I guess I have to rejoin... quote: If you take the pro-Israeli line to its logical conclusion, the Nazis didn't do anything wrong. Now who really believes that? The difference between the Third Reich and Israel is the concept of intention. Nazi Germany desired to conquer and impose its rule on neighbouring states for the sake of conquest and power, which is to say, to satisfy Adolf Hitler's megalomaniacal ambitions. The desire of the signatories of the Versailles Treaty for peace, demonstrated by their willingness to ignore the re-militarization of Germany's border with France, the annexation of Austria, and the annexation of the Sudeten territories of Czechoslovakia, proves that Germany faced no security threat, and that any argument that Germany needed to pre-empt a war on those powers for its own defense is false. Israel's intention has been, and remains, to secure a territory in the Middle East which is to be a safehaven for Jews. This is not only a part of Israel's unwritten constitution, but is provable from its past actions. Not only is Israel the most vibrantly democratic society of the Middle East, and is a home to many refugees beyond Jews, but its relations with its neighbours show it is not an expansionist state, and that is has been willing, since 1967, to return territories in exchange for peace. You can argue all you want on this latter point, meatcleaver, but it is simple historical fact that Israel offered to return the Gaza Strip to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan after the 1967 war, and was refused on both accounts. It is a historical fact that Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in exchange for peace after a war it did not start. And it is a fact that Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000. The only argument remaining to you, meatcleaver, that Israel in any way resembles Nazi Germany, is to point out the conquests of 1948 and the ongoing problem of the West Bank. In 1948, to make a long story short, the Jews who had been settling in Palestine for over 50 years by that point, were attacked by the armies of 5 Arab states, who rejected a UN resolution dividing territory that had not belonged to any Arab state. The occupation of the West Bank is a product of the conquests of 1967. That territory had belonged to Jordan (somehow, no one called for Palestinian independence when it was Jordanian territory, go figure!), was conquered in a war Israel did not initiate, and was refused when Israel offered to return it in exchange for peaceful relations. Furthermore, it is demonstrable that Israel acted in the interest of its security. I disagree with the occupation, but it is a fact that in that time, when wars were still won by conventional armies, the borders of pre-1967 Israel were barely defensable, and it is a fact that Israel's immediate neighbours were still hostile. That is in no way comparable to Nazi conquests. Now we can get on with the discussion of Hezbollah. You must judge Israel by its stated intentions. Since you distrust Israel and prefer to follow the Islamicist party line, you can only judge it by its history. I don't need to re-state everything I've written above here, so let it suffice to say that Israel has no desire to conquer territory (which, with any of its neighbours, it can easily do) and when it does, it is demonstrably for its own self-defense. You are right, Hezbollah was a reaction to Israel's invasion of Lebanon (but it was also an army under which Lebanese Shi'ites unified to fight fellow Lebanese Sunni's and Christians), yet since Israel withdrew from Lebanon, what justification does it have to exist? And moreso, what justification does it have in kidnapping two Israeli soldiers? None. Israel only invaded Lebanon because of Palestinian terrorist activities there. All Hezbollah need do is disarm, or at least cease threatening Israel, and there could be peace. Yet the Arab, and Muslim, states and their subsidiaries, have over the past 60 years, demonstrated that they have little interest in stability or peace (with the exceptions of Jordan and Egypt). As for tactics? Israel should use whatever measure it deems necessary to secure its borders and to maintain a democratic government. If that means destroying a neighbouring terrorist organization and its base of operations, by all means. Such organizations and their tyrannical backers have no sovereignty. Sovereignty, to paraphrase the American founding fathers, rests with the people, and only through them, can a government be sovereign. No Arab state today is a functioning free society. I am always astounded when leftists cry for peace, but completely ignore the war that tyrants wage against their own people. Somehow peace between states is a value, but peace between governor and governed can be totally ignored. But this is a tangent, isn't it?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 3:27:14 PM)
quote: Just pointing out western hypocrisy and illustrating muslim anger MC, I don't see this as a "chicken/egg" situation. Not one western philosophy contains language or action that represents the same as the basic tenant of Muslim philosophy. The philosophy being, you must be a Muslim or you must be killed. Not one Western country has a stated policy regarding a country and people similar to Iran's policy concerning Israel and Jews. The lack of any condemnation of that policy within the world Muslim community indicates justification of that policy at minimum and agreement of that policy. I think it's hypocrical to only apply civilized behavior to one side. Unless you believe the other side is not capable of living civil among a group of people who they don't agree with for religious reasons. Regardless of any pointing to the lack of "rights" of Muslims living in Israel, the fact is they do live in Israel, and can attend a Mosque in Israel. In Iran, the reciprocal is not true and not possible. Isn't it hypocritical to ignore the facts regarding stated policy? And why again bring up disproportionately as an issue? Speed in LA and you'll get 20 cop cars chasing you for the 5:00 news. Run into the White House screaming you're going to kill the President and 100 secret service will be on your ass. Attack the US at the border with a bazooka and a tank brigade is liable to show up. If you have a knife and come into my house, I should toss away my shot gun and go into the kitchen for a steak knife? I don't think so. As soon as you breached my border, my safety, you surrendered your security, whether you did it yourself or by your ineffective control of your own country, you permitted some renegade group to use you as a base of operations. After this many years of waiting and hoping Lebanon would do something Israel has the right, and obligation to its citizens, to remove the threat. No amount of action can be "disproportionate" based not on speculation, but based upon history.

meatcleaver -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 4:00:07 PM)
In the end it matters little. Israel would have recruited thousands of new terrorists with its war in Lebanon just like it created Hezzbollah with its actions in the first place and war for several more generations to come and treating Gaza like a Warsaw ghetto does the same. Israel keeps thinking it can impose a settlement on its terms but it keeps being proved wrong, that peace without justice won't happen and sooner or later an Israeli leader will realise that and if an Israeli leader doesn't an American president will. Especially if Iraq goes further down hill which is being widely predicted.

IronBear -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 4:16:21 PM)
Q: What or who is the most dangerous enemy possible to face?????? A: An enemy who does not expect to live after killing you!!!!! This was what made the ledgendary Ninja the most fearsome and inpleccable enemy in Japanese history.. This is the why suicided missions are almost impossible to stop. Is israel at this level? Probably not but God help the Middle east of they are backed into a corner where as a nation they do not expect to survive. Under those circumstances, a nation could look at suck ultimate weapons as "Dirty Bombs" devistating for a Millinnium the whole Middle East.. Just a sobering thought.....

Mercnbeth -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 4:34:19 PM)
quote: In the end it matters little. Israel would have recruited thousands of new terrorists with its war in Lebanon just like it created Hezzbollah with its actions in the first place and war for several more generations to come and treating Gaza like a Warsaw ghetto does the same. MC, Only because I respect your position, I want to pose the same question to you that I posed to another. The first invasion created terrorists, and leaving the area obviously created more terrorists. How is going back now creating more or less? In this case you have examples of Israeli occupation and Israeli abandonment. In both cases there was no peace. The argument that the current activity is creating more terrorists seems very weak against history. Besides, more or less, only rationalizes genocide if regardless of the response more enemies are created. Further, what about the impact of the daily lessons being taught in the Mosques and schools to youth in Hezbollah held territory. If you'd like I'll refer you to the lesson plans from Muslim websites, but I'm sure you are already aware of the lesson plans being taught regarding Israel and the Jewish people. You know it comes across that I'm the biggest Israeli supporter, but honestly I'm not. I only point to published positions and statements made by people who claim to be Muslim/Arab leaders. I'd love to have an outspoken reference to the contrary. The only logical argument I've been given from Muslim acquaintances is that it's against to Koran to criticize in any way any other Muslim cleric or reference to the Koran. I want to believe that the Muslim religion can co-exist with other beliefs but nothing I read or can observe bears out that position. I have to take them on their word on the issue. I don't pretend to be able to understand it, because in reading the Koran I can see there is latitude. But I can also see the ability to manipulate it in the most radical terms, which seems to be the public face that Muslim leaders are comfortable representing. I haven't yet had the opportunity to attend a cleric lead presentation on the subject or visited a Mosque, but I'd welcome the opportunity to have my perspective changed.

Level -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 4:56:41 PM)
Just saw this on MSNBC: WASHINGTON - The United States plans to help train and equip the Lebanese army so it can take control of all of the nation’s territory when warfare between Israel and Hezbollah eases, the State Department said Thursday. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14171553

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 4:57:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: I think Israel is a state with zero right to exist, even under its own religion. You are known by the company you keep. Here is another who share your same philosophy. quote: Iranian President: Solution to Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel [image]http://haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif[/image] By The Associated Press [image]http://haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif[/image] PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis was to destroy Israel, Iranian state media reported. At least you and Ahmadinejad are honest and on record supporting death and destruction, and would accept no compromise. It's the main reason why there can be no compromise and no backing off by Israel in this case. Again, you make the point and answer the OP question. If you are fighting a people who's stated goal is your destruction, until they change it publicly and in action, you can not back off your resolve to destroy them first. It's unfortunate that except for Israel few take the Iranian president seriously. If I'm known by the company I keep because I don't believe Israel has a right to exist, at least that company is shared with a large number of Jews. It's an idea to recognise a distinction between "Zionist" and "Jew", although I do congratulate you on withholding the words "Hitler", "Holocaust" or "anti-Semitic" in your post. Read why True Torah Jews oppose Israel, it's enlightening. www.JewsAgainstZionism.com

Mercnbeth -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 5:13:31 PM)
quote: Read why True Torah Jews oppose Israel, it's enlightening. ED, Reading position papers from tin-hat wearing groups is only good for distracting humor. I don't know if this is the same group or not, but I recently read an article about a Jewish group that supports Hezzbollah and the destruction of Israel because it would foreshadow the Jewish messiah. Of course it would also, according to their teaching, augur the end of the world, so it does have it's downside. I do appreciate and respect your honesty and directness. I do try my best not to label or name call unless someone has already self labeled. Name calling, like cursing, in a debate is a display of defeat.

cr0ckdile -> RE: Does Israel have the RIGHT to deploy over this? (8/3/2006 5:18:33 PM)
EnglishDomNW, you keep reiterating the same point about "a large number of Jews" who oppose the existence of the state of Israel. Why is it then that the largest Jewish organizations in the world are Zionist? The organization you keep making references to is a tiny sect within Orthodox Judaism (which is the smallest denomination within Judaism) that rejects the state until the time of the Messiah. Otherwise, the vast number of Jews, including most of the Orthodox community, supports the state's existence.

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.699707E-02