posted
Its great that you decided that you'll ignore me because you didn't read what I said. If you think terrorists are justified in throwing stones at soldiers then you believe it is justified for terrorists to throw stones at any Israeli because every Israeli has been, is, or will be a soldier. If you don't stop/shoot the rock thrower he/she will kill you. What do you think is stopping them from truly becoming dangerous. Everything I've claimed you've said you have said. If you don't mean that soldiers aren't deserving of safety you shouldn't have said that.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I've said I wouldn't, but I hate being lied about.
I said:
quote: Not opening fire on peaceful protesters (peaceful meaning, not threatening people at all).
NFL says:
quote: They don't do that unless you consider throwing rocks to be peaceful and even then rubber bullets are used.
Things go on from there. I clarify several times that when I said that I did not even intend to include rock throwers (at soldiers) but that I meant those who were not attacking humans at all (once referencing an instance where palestinians were attacked when trying to tear down a section of the wall -- NOT attacking any soldiers).
I apologize, the article I cited earlier is unclear that some of the protests did not involve stone throwing, though when I read it I thought it made that clear. Though it does make it clear both the high lethality compared to rocks of rubber bullets, AND that Israel was using live ammunition in response to some rock protests, something NFL has asserted is not so.
However, my position has always been, and I have so clarified several times, such as here:
quote:I can't find it in a cursory look back over what I wrote, but I don't think I asserted that protesters throwing rocks were peaceful ... I was referring to protests where they were not endangering any people, and not doing general property destruction,
After all this NFL of course is still saying:
quote: Fugu likes to claim that people with harmful intentions are actually peaceful
. No, I have said they are harmless, not peaceful. I have explicitly clarified multiple times that peaceful did not include them. See above.
Then I make it even clearer:
quote:Thirdly, you're the one who connected rock throwing with peaceful protests. I'm referring to instances where there wasn't even that when I say peacefully, as I have already explicitly stated.
And now of course, NFL says:
quote:Everything I've claimed you've said you have said
quote:Quite frankly, recognizing sin is more important, Bob.
The kind of judging you're talking about is a sin, too, so recognition kind of covers that.
Wow! I couldn't disagree with you more and still consider us as being from the same species.
Are you serious? It's more important for your children to recognize sin in themselves and others than to heed one of the clearest prohibitions in the New Testament?
Especially when sin is such a nebulously defined concept?
I'm just floored. Really I am.
And I'll stop talking about it because I find I can't continue without seriously impugning your parenting ideas, skills and whatever.
And I really have no right or basis on which to do that, not having been a parent myself.
But I'm shocked that any Christian would even begin to entertain the notion you have just espoused.
I fear, however, that I'm about to be educated by the other parents here at Hatrack...I'm betting more people feel the way you do than I'd ever imagined.
<hides from the world...again!>
This seriously has made my day a lot darker.
This sucks.
I think I'll start a new thread rather than further de-rail this one...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, judging like that IS a sin. If they are recognizing sins, that's one of the sins to recognize.
---
I hate it when discussions turn into hypothetical arguments and statements are made for shock value when one person is still discussing the problem as it exists in this world and looking for a solution that might actually occur.
I mean, if we're going into a illusionary discussion, let's just pass a law that creates a mirror image of all of Isreal/Palestine, and Isreal gets one and Palestine gets the other.
That would solve everything.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Throwing rocks is NOT a threat. I have not heard of Israeli soldiers being killed by thrown rocks, while I have heard of Palestinian protesters being killed by rubber bullets and live rounds (heck, I've seen it happen on TV live!). Tear gas or other responses at a similar degree of force, ok, but firing on an unarmed crowd that is throwing rocks?!
And not all the protesters were even doing that. Not too long ago a group of Palestinians were protesting the building of the wall, and had approached it and begun dismantling a section of it. They were fired on, and at least one live round was fired (that is the number Israel maintains). Two protesters were killed. Dismantling a wall is a justification for killing someone?
So when you said rock throwing was not a threat you didn't mean that it shouldn't be considered violent? When you specifically pointed out that they were "unarmed" you weren't saying they were non-violent? If you didn't say that rock throwing ought to be considered peaceful protest you were certainly implying that in your post.
quote: I was referring to protests where they were not endangering any people, and not doing general property destruction,
quote: Things go on from there. I clarify several times that when I said that I did not even intend to include rock throwers (at soldiers) but that I meant those who were not attacking humans at all (once referencing an instance where palestinians were attacked when trying to tear down a section of the wall -- NOT attacking any soldiers).
Destroying a wall is property damage. Is there something you don't get about that? Furthermore, you're attacking people when you endanger their lives. You endanger their lives when you remove something that greatly contributes to their safety. I've already explained how the wall contributes to Israelis' safety and you've never responded to that.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep meaning to read this thread when I have more free time. As it is, I've just read the first post and this page. The only thing he's possibly changed my mind on is Meryl Streep. I was pretty neutral about her before, and now I can kind of see what bugs him about her.
I don't fully agree with him about Israel, but him having an opinion is probably better than me throwing my hands in the air and thinking "there will never be an answer". I heard different things from different people all the time that keep me feeling confused and upset about it. I guess it is because I am stuck on the underdog archetype. In the Israel/Palestinian struggle, Palestinians are the underdog. But in the Zionist/Arab struggle, the Zionists are the underdog. But since culture and nationality are not really the same thing, it creates very mixed feelings for me. I use Zionist in this context to highlight the kind of remarks made about "them" by pan-Arab and organizations. I don't mean it derogatorily.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The best thing the Palestinians could do is start a peace movement, stick to it,[ sorry for the obvious Out of Contextness, but I'm too lazy to fix it]
What would happen if the Israelis did the same thing, I wonder? Is it possible that surrounding Arabs states would leave them alone?
I was going to bring up the anti-semite paradox in my apology for the zionist label. But what about when Asian Muslims speak of the need to drive Zionists from Palestine?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Recognizing sin in others is not a priority lesson for children. (IMHO)
Recognizing sin (error) in self does top the list, though. It's part of the maturation/discipline process. Recognizing when I have screwed up and done something that harms another or myself. Making amends. Asking forgiveness. Changing the behavior.
I dunno - I always thought the greatest commandment was "Love one another as I have loved you." The capper, as it were.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, the Israelis had no interest in fighting a war in 1948, they were perfectly content to live with half of Palestine and Jerusalem as a UN city but every Arab nation decided peace was not a good idea. Then Egypt tried to starve Israel out of existence by closing the Suez Canal. Then Egypt formulated a plot to destroy Israel in 1967 but the Mossad picked up on it and launched an incredibly successful pre-emptive attack which really created this whole mess by creating the "occupied territories" such as the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Hieghts. Israel managed to successfuly trade the Sanai for peace with Egypt later. Then in 1973 Arab nations launched a suprise attack on the holiest holiday for Jews. During this whole time Syria and its puppet state Lebanon have actively supported terrorist groups and have done it covertly. This is why Israel maintained a 20 mile buffer between Lebanon and Israel for a couple decades. The whole point is an Israeli peace movement would have no effect on the racists who will not be satisfied until all Jews are dead.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) explains my POV pretty well.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
