posted
I cannot understand why it is so hard for people in our culture to look at the Fundementalist Islam Jihadist and say, yep, that is evil. Their is an cowardice in that position, a reluctance to appear foolish by believing in the reality of evil. A fad of the apearance of tolerance.
Yet even if you toss out God, placing man at the top of your personal pantheon, evil is still real and significant. Compassion for civilized society demands that evil be halted and destroyed. It is fine to seek a cure for the Sickness in Islam, but nothing about controling the acute symptoms in the meantime is immoral or prevents the ongoing treatment.
Lisa is in a position to know far better then most, as an interested party I think she needs the benefit of the doubt. Those under threat have a right to choose their response.
The Government of Isreal is a chaos of debate and various interests. Yet its policy lately has been beautiful. It has shown sweet reason and retreated offering peace worthy of the Christ himself. In response they have been met with attack, their offer of peace is seen as weakness, blood in the water to the circling sharks. I think Isreal has done enough, it is time for them to prove their mercy by domonstrating their strength.
Maybe the memory of what Isreal can do will remain fresh enough this time so that when they choose not to do it next time it will be accepted as the kindness it truely is.
quote:The Government of Isreal is a chaos of debate and various interests. Yet its policy lately has been beautiful. It has shown sweet reason and retreated offering peace worthy of the Christ himself.
Ow. Pardon me while I wince on behalf of the nation of Israel at your chosen comparison.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I cannot understand why it is so hard for people in our culture to look at the Fundementalist Islam Jihadist and say, yep, that is evil.
If that was what was being done, I bet the disagreement would differ in kind and quantity.
The problem comes when one proves himself unable to recognize the difference between "Muslim" and "Fundementalist Islam Jihadist."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The term chickenhawk was used correctly earlier in this thread, its just not an accepted dictionary definition. Click the (politics) entry.Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lisa is in a position to know far better then most, as an interested party I think she needs the benefit of the doubt. Those under threat have a right to choose their response.
Experiencing a threat often does not give one better judgement in regards to how to solve that threat. Often, exactly the opposite occurs.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:A polite murderer is still a murderer. No, I don't see it as progress at all. And I don't get how such verbalizations, calculated only to impress the West and get money, make his continued drive to destroy Israel any more palatable. It's not as though Germany and Japan didn't recognize the US in WWII.
Just because the Arabs have invented an additional insult of refusing to even recognize a country that has existed for almost 60 years doesn't mean that an Arab who doesn't engage in that particular piece of propaganda is "moderate". Sheesh. How low has the bar dropped here?
Forgot I wasn't talking to a reasonable person. They aren't going anywhere, in the same way that Israel isn't going anywhere. I think more than them getting used to that idea, YOU need to get used to it. Thus, land negotiations, and the recognition of Israel are all progressional steps towards some future peace. Your government has made any progress impossible so long as Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, which is perfectly sound and reasonable. Now they are trying to change their system, after decades of operating on a different creed. I call that progress. I don't think you see a middle ground.
quote:Squad? How many people do you think stand around doing guard duty? Have you been watching the Dirty Dozen again, or something? This is reality.
I'm sorry, what's the smallest number of people in a group of soldiers? You're telling me you only have one or two guys patrolling the perimeter? I guess all those stories my brother told me about guard duty while he was in the Marines were just made up. I figured military institutions would have more sense than that. I guess in reality, you just have one guy jogging laps around the base trying to stop something? But cute old timey movie reference, if that's all you have in your arsenal, I'd stay quiet if I were you.
quote:For God's sake, Lyrhawn. They didn't aim for a school. They aimed for a city. At 7pm. It was actually our good fortune that it hit near a school, rather than the city center.
That's likely, but I am curious as to whether or not the new longer range version has any sort of new guidance package in it that allows for greater accuracy. They'd need a laser guided bomb to hit a target so cleanly. I'm curious as to how this counts as a "major escalation" according to the Israeli government. Israel has been pounding Gaza for days with shells and missiles. ONE missile hits a city, after what you call months of constant "shelling" and that's a major escalation? Wouldn't a major escalation be like, Palestinian gunmen roving the streets of Tel Aviv with RPGs and machine guns killing willy nilly? Or some such? Sounds overblown. But yes, I still consider it something of a warning shot, or demonstration shot if you prefer. They might not have been intending to kill as many people by firing later at night, unless more people are out in that area of the city at 7, I honestly don't know, but they were demonstrating the abilities of a new weapon that was previously unknown.
quote:Of course not. Negotiating with these people tells them that they can do what they do with impunity. Look what happened to them when they kidnapped Gilad Shalit. Even barbarians can get a clue.
Which is why they are totally right not to accept quid pro quo. They can't expect Shalit's release in return for prisoners, it'll just keep going until the prisons are empty and then what? Which is why I said they shouldn't do that. But that has nothing to do with negotiations after this situation is past, IF it gets past. And it had nothing to do with the situation before June 25th.
Land negotiations are going to be a part of Israel's future at some point, for a side by state status of Palestine and Israel. Maybe you're the one who needs to get the grip on reality and the real world.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Squad? How many people do you think stand around doing guard duty? Have you been watching the Dirty Dozen again, or something? This is reality.
I'm sorry, what's the smallest number of people in a group of soldiers? You're telling me you only have one or two guys patrolling the perimeter? I guess all those stories my brother told me about guard duty while he was in the Marines were just made up.
I've never been in the Marines. But yeah, when I sat in a guard tower, it was with one other person. When we walked the perimeter, it was maybe 2, maybe sometimes three. I don't really have a lot to compare it to, not being an expert on military tactics like yourself. I just know how it works based on my own experience.
Furthermore, we're not talking about 2 young and hard Israeli soldiers, either. We're talking about 2 overweight, out of shape, immigrants. And there were still only the two of us.
The reason I mentioned the movie is that you seem to have a really unrealistic view of things.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Land negotiations are going to be a part of Israel's future at some point, for a side by state status of Palestine and Israel. Maybe you're the one who needs to get the grip on reality and the real world.
If there are land negotiations, they'll be on whether or not individual Arabs get paid for the land they're no longer living on once they're gone. Lyrhawn, eventually I'm going to be telling you "I told you so." I'll try and do it gracefully.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, let me start out by apologizing for apparently offending you by not using your most accepted abbreviation of your handle
"And what does Jordan (Palestine) have to do with this?"
Well I thought it was pretty clear based on the general politics of the situation that Palestine is in general on the other side of this conflict. However, if you're referring to some other nation/region/group when you state: "One innocent life on our side is worth more than all the innocent lives on their side combined." whoever "They" are doesn't really matter when you have already asserted that "they" are innocents.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by TheGrimace: You also keep making statements as if we are saying it's worse to kill/attack a known terrorist than to allow a civilian to dies, which is blatantly false. There is a fairly clear distinction that has been mentioned between harming combatants and harming civilians. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pelagius claimed that both sides target civilians. When called on it, he produced websites about Israel destroying the homes of terrorist murderers. Israel does not target civilians. But the Arabs do use their own civilians as human shields, and sometimes they die because of it. We go over and above to prevent civilian casualities on their side, while they deliberately target civilians on ours. We act against them in order to stop the incessant attacks, while they act against us because they want us out of our land.
Again you are sidestepping (more of a legitimate word than sidepedalling if it makes you feel better). No one here has said that military reprisal against military or terrorist forces is wrong. I don't envy the position the Israelis are put in by having their enemies hide behind civilians, and certainly the vast majority of any evil perpetrated in such a situation is on the part of the terrorists, but that doesn't mean that killing those innocent civilians in order to get at the terrorist isn't also wrong, even if a lesser wrong.
Personally I'm not questioning the Israeli actions in general, though I am strongly questioning what your actions would be in their situation.
as to terrorists using "civilians" to deliver their carnage: "That you don't see this for the sickness it is says much about you."
I am greatly offended that you would so misunderstand what I am saying... I absolutely think that these actions are completely vile, and no one here would disagree that disguising onesself as a noncombatant in order to bomb innocents on the other side isn't an absolutely deplorable thing. The Terrorists are WRONG, the bombings of busses and school and anything else is WRONG, how can you take anything that any of us has said as a defense of these offenders?
"And their entire support system. A culture that names schools and streets for these terrorists, which sees the terrorists as heros and teaches its children to aspire to martyrdom in that way... it's a diseased culture. An evil culture."
See, this is what I was getting at, if you want to argue that everyone in Palestine or Gaza or wherever is in fact a terrorist, or by association should be treated as one because of their willful support of terrorist activities, so be it. I personally think this is not a completely fair judgement, but I respect your reasons for believing so. HOWEVER, it does not excuse that you stated: "One INNOCENT life on our side is worth more than all the INNOCENT lives on their side combined"
If you live in a world where the "general morality of the world" or objective morality that innocents being killed is wrong, then I greatly pity you for the sick world that you live in...
starLisa, I used to at least sometimes respect the opinions you voiced on this board, but I have to say that after seeing your views on this topic I doubt I can take much of anything you say seriously anymore.
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa is in a position to know far better then most, as an interested party I think she needs the benefit of the doubt. Those under threat have a right to choose their response. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experiencing a threat often does not give one better judgment in regards to how to solve that threat. Often, exactly the opposite occurs.
Unfortunately those under threat of death often do not have the luxury of calling a committee meeting with the uninterested. What kind of idiot are you to think like this?
Posts: 1249 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, "idiot" isn't going to make anyone listen any better. You're right about the principle, but there are better ways to say it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, ElJay, believe me when I tell you that it takes quite a bit of restraint on my part not to call certain people idiots. I just figured that if I can do it, anyone can.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not talking about the word idiots in particular, Lisa. I'm talking about your overall tone and approach to "debate" on this subject. You, personally, have done more to increase my sympathy for the Palestinian cause than any three other factors combined. Before you joined this forum I was pretty neutral on the subject, and now I have to remind myself that you are in no way representative of the Israeli position as a whole. If you were, I'd be tempted to support relocating the Jews out of Israel on the general principle of being too obnoxious to be given what they want, like when you tell a kid if he doesn't stop screaming you'll send him to his room. And you're telling BC that calling someone an idiot isn't going to make them listen any better? It's laughable.
Which, you know, fine. You're certainly entitled to voice your opinions any way you want. And maybe somehow they've swayed someone out there. And I can remember that you're an extremist, and read your posts more as an interesting sociological phemomenom and not as something I should bother responding to.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Glad to help you exercise restraint.
<snicker>
Again I would be happy to know what the pro palestinian crowd expects Israel to do as a policy in regards to the Palestinian people.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We should give the Jews Mexico, let them run it for a century or so, we will be better neighbors then they have and they will be better then we have. What say you Lisa? You guys want the holy city of the Aztec's? We could let the Arabs build their own hell to live in and drink Corona while they burn in it! Don't worry about the Mexican's, if we don't get some relief at the border soon they will all be here.
posted
I've frequently suggested giving the Jews the entire state of New York. It's better land than Israel, it's bigger, it's far more profitable, and it's at least 300 miles away from the nearest enemy state.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if it's because of your heritage, but it's not a reaction exclusive to your heritage.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand why people think Israel needs to show any restraint when an aggresive government launches continuous strikes against it.
How much restraint would the USA show if Canada fired missiles into North Dakota and blew up USA's boarder gaurds on the Canadian border?
It's such a ridiculous double standard that it's laughable.
A foreign, hostile army is launching attack after attack on innocent Israelis, fires rockets into shools and conducts acts of terror, let's have a rational sit-down and talk to an enemy that savage.
Anyone who thinks like this has already made a mistake by assuming people like this are in anyway rational. These people don't want peace.
That is what everyone here has to understand. Everyone here is talking from a conditioned sense of morality they were raised with, safely in the suburbs of Wisconsin where the only thing they ever have to worry about was getting a pimple on prom night.
How dare any of you who have not witnessed the savage barbarity the Arabs inflict on the Israelis first hand attempt to be the moral police and say what Israel should do. You have no right; you are blinded by rose-colored ignorance.
Palestinians want is the death of every Jew. That's all they want. How do you negotiate with that? You don't.
And don't say that not every Palestinians wants this; that the brutal, fanatical minority is holding the majority of good people hostage. That is a complete lie. They were able to have free elections, and they elected Hammas ON THEIR OWN, KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT THEY STAND FOR.
The Palestinian people, on the whole, want only two things. Israel's destruction, and Palastine back.
But this, in itself is amazingly foolish. They want a piece of land back that was NEVER theirs by right. The Jewish people have had claims to that land before Islam was even a glint in Mohammad's eye.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How much restraint would the USA show if Canada fired missiles into North Dakota and blew up USA's boarder gaurds on the Canadian border?
Well, we wouldn't nuke them. So that right there shows some restraint.
Israel has every right to respond militarily to the invasion of their country. They don't have a right to pull a Dresden on them.
Somewhere between those two points is the limit of what they can do, although I can't say exactly where it's located.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And don't say that not every Palestinians wants this; that the brutal, fanatical minority is holding the majority of good people hostage. That is a complete lie. They were able to have free elections, and they elected Hammas ON THEIR OWN, KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT THEY STAND FOR.
The Palestinian people, on the whole, want only two things. Israel's destruction, and Palastine back.
This is dramatically incorrect. While Hamas is without a doubt a terrorist organization, by far most of their funds go to humanitarian assistance for Palestinians rather than terrorism, and (ironically) they are known for being generally uncorrupt, unlike the other candidates for office. While many palestinians are hardly friendly to Israel (much as many Israelis are hardly friendly to palestinians), it is more correct that most of them don't care if somebody attacks Israel than that they support the attacks on Israel. Not a laudable moral quality, but not as bad as the invalid caricature you paint by ignoring all qualities of Hamas but terrorism.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And don't say that not every Palestinians wants this; that the brutal, fanatical minority is holding the majority of good people hostage. That is a complete lie. They were able to have free elections, and they elected Hammas ON THEIR OWN, KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT THEY STAND FOR.
The Palestinian people, on the whole, want only two things. Israel's destruction, and Palastine back.
This is dramatically incorrect. While Hamas is without a doubt a terrorist organization, by far most of their funds go to humanitarian assistance for Palestinians rather than terrorism, and (ironically) they are known for being generally uncorrupt, unlike the other candidates for office. While many palestinians are hardly friendly to Israel (much as many Israelis are hardly friendly to palestinians), it is more correct that most of them don't care if somebody attacks Israel than that they support the attacks on Israel. Not a laudable moral quality, but not as bad as the invalid caricature you paint by ignoring all qualities of Hamas but terrorism.
What evidence do you have that most of the money goes to the humanitarian wing of Hammas?
Certainly Hammas does many charitable things for PALESTINIANS, but no amount of right doing will simply erase the fire and brimstone that spout from the militant wing. They are one organization. You cannot vote for the humanitarian side, and simply pretend the militant side does not exist. If you make donation of say $1 to Hammas, a % of that GOES to the militant side, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
If you insist on giving Hammas the humanitarian label it deserves, based on its humanitarian acts, that is fine; but you must also acknowledge the militant terrorist wing too, as both right now, are inseperable.
Hammas then becomes a Humanitarian Terrorist organization.
The assertion that if there are two people, one commits acts of evil, the other simply stands by and does nothing, therefore person 1 is evil, person 2 is not is an old, and completely wrong idea.
It reminds me of the American Revolution where we had a radical group called, "The Sons of Liberty." They were all staunch pro independence. They crossed the moral line, by assaulting British sentries, and were fired on during, "The Boston Massacre." Somebody had to stand up and say, "Their cause may be right, but what they did here was wrong." John Adams, one of the more firey of radicals was the attorney for the British Soldiers. When everyone else was screaming for the soldiers heads, he spoke just as strongly for justice and jurisprudence. He refused to call it a massacre, and was in considerable danger because of the position he was taking.
The humanitarian side of Hamas is tainted by the militant wing. As long as they fly under the same banner, the same blood is on all of their hands.
If you voted for Hammas because they did so many humanitarian things for your family, you are still doing so with full knowledge that they commit horrible acts of terrorism against other human beings.
There has never been an evil force that did not have some self described good in mind when it commited its acts of evil.
I would be completely taken aback with shock if Hammas, once it has finished building its state upon the blood of thousands of innocent Israeli's, that they then settled down and governed the nation with peach, justice, and respect for all.
Having said that, I still think Abbas ought to be given more credit than he is. He stood up to Hammas and at great risk to his own life. Prime Minister Rabin was assasinated by another Israeli because he tried to broker a peace with Palestine. I see men like Abbas and Rabin as being just the sort of men that John Adam was.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its widely known. The council on foreign relations is an authority on the subject:
quote:Is Hamas only a terrorist group?
No. In addition to its military wing, the so-called Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigade, Hamas devotes much of its estimated $70-million annual budget to an extensive social services network. It funds schools, orphanages, mosques, healthcare clinics, soup kitchens, and sports leagues. "Approximately 90 percent of its work is in social, welfare, cultural, and educational activities," writes the Israeli scholar Reuven Paz. The Palestinian Authority often fails to provide such services; Hamas' efforts in this area—as well as a reputation for honesty, in contrast to the many Fatah officials accused of corruption—help to explain the broad popularity it summoned to defeat Fatah in the PA's recent elections.
And where on earth do I not acknowledge Hamas' terrorist activities? I explicitly state them in what you quote! I also speak against the palestinian attitude towards Israel, just not to the incorrect degree you do. A person's vote for Hamas need not equal terrorism being a primary goal of that person.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I appreciate the link. Its unfortunate that they could only quote one, albeit, Israeli's scholars figure of 90% to the humanitarian, and 10% to the military.
I'm sorry if you were in fact condemning the Hammas party because of its military wing. I was under the impression that you were saying "Well most people actually just don't care that they are killing Israeli's, which is not quite as bad as them supporting it."
I am arguing that unless the humanitarian wing distances itself from the militant wing, they are one and the same. A vote for Hammas does in fact entail a vote for terrorism as any power you give to Hammas and any money you give to Hammas WILL translate into an act of terrorism.
What reasons could the humanitarian wing of Hammas give for being affiliated with the militant wing? It brings in more money so we can do more good? We hope that by being affiliated with us the militant wing will be positively influenced by our good example? What?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's an overview, not a paper arguing for it. The information found on those pages is considered general knowledge. I can dig up some papers on the topic, though unless you're at a university I doubt you'll have easy access to them.
You're an idealist living in a comfortable world. Imagine you were a palestinian, whose infrastructure is periodically attacked by someone else. All the parties you can vote for support terrorism, though some are more open about their support than others. All but one are corrupt. That one is providing you significant humanitarian assistance while the other has been repeatedly found to steal money intended for humanitarian purposes.
Say all you want that a vote for Hamas is a vote for terrorism. Its not. A vote for Hamas is a vote for being apathetic about their terrorism, which is also very bad, but it is understandable, and an opinion that can be influenced by providing better options. I am saying most Palestinians don't really care about their terrorist operations.
(And on a side note, your logic is generally incorrect; people make balancing decisions every day in all parts of life, including voting. The number of people who vote for someone they support every activity of approaches nil; it is, however, reasonable to say that voting for a group partaking somewhat in terrorism is a compromise that should never be made).
As for your pleas for Hamas separating, sure that would be nice, but it isn't reality. Its not what's happening, and nice as it would be, try to focus on the situation as it actually exists for the people having to make very hard choices.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is dramatically incorrect. While Hamas is without a doubt a terrorist organization, by far most of their funds go to humanitarian assistance for Palestinians rather than terrorism, and (ironically) they are known for being generally uncorrupt, unlike the other candidates for office. While many palestinians are hardly friendly to Israel (much as many Israelis are hardly friendly to palestinians), it is more correct that most of them don't care if somebody attacks Israel than that they support the attacks on Israel. Not a laudable moral quality, but not as bad as the invalid caricature you paint by ignoring all qualities of Hamas but terrorism
Minds me of the the KKK, pro marriage, fidelity, brotherhood, neighbor helping neighbor, family, democracy and hanging uppity blacks. If we could overlook that last they are a great bunch of guys.
quote:How dare any of you who have not witnessed the savage barbarity the Arabs inflict on the Israelis first hand attempt to be the moral police and say what Israel should do. You have no right; you are blinded by rose-colored ignorance.
I certainly think we have the right, because we give money, technology, and expertise. It is an unknowable hypothetical whether or not Israel would have survived the past decades without Western in general and American in particular support. What is neither unknown nor hypothetical is that many of the steps and methods Israel has used to survive and thrive have been derived from the USA and the West.
So, you know, we do have some right to question what is done.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, you know, we do have some right to question what is done
You're not questioning anything, you're making statements that it's Israel's fault fanatical barbarians are attacking it. As if the Israelis should bend over to the will of terrorists in order to spare themselves any further attacks.
I'd suggest looking at what your own governmenmt is doing in it's own war on terror in Iraq before judging Israel. Israel does not stick its nose into USA foriegn policy, as such, what presidence do you have to tell a sovergn country how it may defend itself. Israelis aren't protesting the unfair treatment of those insurgents that are killing your own solders daily. Why the double standard?
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, because God knows the Israeli lobby in America holds no power or sway over the government, and never uses it ever. [/sarcasm]
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt very much whether you know what I think about Israel, Gecko, if you've come to that conclusion. I have certainly never said what's happening is Israel's fault, nor is that in any way the position of the American government. Don't put words in my mouth.
Also you completely dodged the point I made: given that the USA gives money, technology, and expertise to the state of Israel, we do have a right to give our input on what Israel does.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And now you're labeling someone who points out the pro-Israeli lobbies within the USA do exert political power here as anti-Semitic and paranoid? You're a pleasure to talk to.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Denying the existance of a powerful POLITICAL pro-Israeli lobby in the United States is just silly Gecko, and trying to discredit my argument by leveling accusations at me via implication is a sad, pathetic debating tactic.
And I think what Israel gets out of the deal is a hell of a lot better than what we get. We get more assistance, more concrete physical assistance from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia than we do from Israel, which is about what I'd expect. Israel is too far away from where we are over there to be a good base of operations, in anyway, and they don't provide military assistance, which I also wouldn't expect them to, given their situation and the size of their military.
Saying they are our biggest ally over there is misleading. I would say that they share the same basic ideologies as we do, and in that sense I suppose they are our greatest intellectual ally in the area, but try firing that out of a gun. Pretending that we couldn't make due just fine without them is bordering on comical.
And all that we do in the world doesn't give us a right to dictate to anyone, but it gives us a voice.
Also, I don't see where Rakeesh said that it was all Israel's fault. I think you must have misinterpreted something.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're not questioning anything, you're making statements that it's Israel's fault fanatical barbarians are attacking it. As if the Israelis should bend over to the will of terrorists in order to spare themselves any further attacks.
He is? Where?
quote:So any country that the USA gives foreign aide to, they can also dictate its actions on?
Beyond the general right anybody has to comment on anything, there is a specific duty for Rakeesh to comment on this.
Any country that supports another has some responsibility for moral faults committed using that support. Therefore, any citizen of that country has duty, as a participant in a democratic government, to make form an opinion on the consequences of that aid and to make that opinion known.
What is your problem with the English language? You've converted "give our input" to "dictate [] actions." You've converted statements expressing concern about particular actions to expressions of fault for others' actions.
Rakeesh is a pretty straightforward guy. What he says is a lot more interesting than what you pretend he says.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't aware that such an outrageous statement required a "proper debating tactic" to dismantle as being ridiculous.
quote:they don't provide military assistance, which I also wouldn't expect them to, given their situation and the size of their military.
First, Israel isn't engaged in the conflict because it's just smart diplomacy. The reason is pretty much the same reason the USA didn't want them engaged in the Gulf War. If they enter the conflict, it has a serious chance to unite the Arab countries under one banner of repelling a religious Crusade. This is the reason Saddam fired rockets at Israelis during the Gulf War, he wanted to goad them into the conflict because he also thought that if they entered the fray, more Arab countries would enter on his side. Could you imagine the field day the Al Queda recruitment officers would have if Israel entered the War on Terror by putting troops into Iraq?
quote:Yeah, because God knows the Israeli lobby in America holds no power or sway over the government, and never uses it ever.
To make a comment like this and then become offended when I point out it's almost an identical photocopy of the same argument anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists use to argue American/Israeli foreign policy is outrageous.
If there wasn't a group of people arguing that the Jews control the American government behind the scenes, I would be more tolerant of a comment like this. You will have to forgive me being a little hostile about it, I think there may have been some prejudice against the Jews for a few thousand years or so that has made me a little jaded.
Yes, I'm aware there are Jewish advocates in the government, but you make it seem as if the power they weild can dictate the USA's actions at a whim.
First, what kind of political power do the Israelis really hold on the world stage when almost a third of UN human rights resolutions are directed at condemning them for their treatment of the Palestinians when Palestinian terrorism isn't even bothered to be mentioned in a single resolution? Israel is singled out on human rights violations when countries like Syria and Lybia and Saudi Arabia are overlooked. And let's not forget the dandy resolution that proposed classifying Zionism as a form of racism.
Second, the USA's help is very much conditional. Israel has to maintain a certain moral high ground at all times. For instance, if Israel had launched a pre-emptive strike during the Yom Kippur war, a pure war of aggregation by the Arabs, Henry Kissinger himself said that Israel would not have received any aid, even though the strike would have been in self-defense. Israel tries very, very hard to be the good guy. It's good guy status has cost the lives of its people, but it's a status that must be upheld to maintain the USA's support.
quote:What is your problem with the English language? You've converted "give our input" to "dictate [] actions." You've converted statements expressing concern about particular actions to expressions of fault for others' actions.
quote:So, you know, we do have some right to question what is done
English is my third language, so you will have to pardon me. Giving input is fine, but it's a far cry from having a say in Israel's defense policy by questioning what is best for its people. The Israelis don't question the USA's foreign policy, maybe they should be given the same benefit of the doubt by assuming they know what's best for their people as you do yours.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Israelis don't question the USA's foreign policy...
Hm. You know, I almost believed you were Israeli until I read this. Now I'm not sure you even know any. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Among the Israelis of my acquaintance, both in and out of Israel, questioning US foreign policy is practically a contact sport.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
When Israel starts paying a significant chunk of the U.S. defense budget, I'm sure that'll become a more popular topic. Right now, Israel as a country exists only because of U.S. handouts.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You say that as if the USA gets nothing out of the deal, which is just wrong
Also, you're wrong to say Israel is sustained on hand-outs. Israel's ecnomy is one of the most advanced in the middle east. What the USA gives help a lot, it doesn't make or breakt the country.
Posts: 340 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bean Counter: We should give the Jews Mexico, let them run it for a century or so, we will be better neighbors then they have and they will be better then we have. What say you Lisa? You guys want the holy city of the Aztec's? We could let the Arabs build their own hell to live in and drink Corona while they burn in it! Don't worry about the Mexican's, if we don't get some relief at the border soon they will all be here.
Cute, but no. We didn't accept Uganda when that was offered, either. Jerusalem is ours. That was our home back before the first Arab barreled out of Arabia with a sword. They can go back to Arabia for all I care. Give them Mexico. Let them see what America does in response to their little games of murder.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And don't say that not every Palestinians wants this; that the brutal, fanatical minority is holding the majority of good people hostage. That is a complete lie. They were able to have free elections, and they elected Hammas ON THEIR OWN, KNOWING FULL WELL WHAT THEY STAND FOR.
The Palestinian people, on the whole, want only two things. Israel's destruction, and Palastine back.
This is dramatically incorrect. While Hamas is without a doubt a terrorist organization, by far most of their funds go to humanitarian assistance for Palestinians rather than terrorism, and (ironically) they are known for being generally uncorrupt, unlike the other candidates for office. While many palestinians are hardly friendly to Israel (much as many Israelis are hardly friendly to palestinians), it is more correct that most of them don't care if somebody attacks Israel than that they support the attacks on Israel. Not a laudable moral quality, but not as bad as the invalid caricature you paint by ignoring all qualities of Hamas but terrorism.
Since they took power, all of that changed. Now they spend obscene sums of money on weapons of death, while their people continue to live in refugee camps.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
