quote:Originally posted by starLisa: [QB] To repeat what was said before, if they were to lay down their arms, the conflict would end. If we do the same, we're dead.
Ever consider that maybe they feel the same way?
Consider? Sure. They don't. They say it themselves, loudly. Their goal is to keep shooting so long as there's a single one of them left and there's still a single one of us living in our land.
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I'm sure you'll respond that it wasn't your side that started it, and your side is just defending itself. You have a point.
I would, if you were as right as you are sure. But you aren't. The question you asked has nothing to do with who started it. It has to do with who is continuing it. We have stopped hostilities times without number. They always start again. I repeat, if they were to stop killing us, this conflict would be over. We're not fighting for land. It's our land, and we don't need to give it up to people who have no right to it, but we aren't fighting over land. We're fighting over them killing us. They, on the other hand, are fighting over us being there at all.
quote:Originally posted by Javert: But the problem with 'an eye for an eye' is that everyone ends up blind.
Gosh. That's so... creative.
Thank you for letting me know that to make a point you must be creative. I'll remember it for future debates.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: My god you're full of it. Thankfully katharina called you on it right away.
How, exactly, did she "call me on it"?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You are declaring something then trying to justify it, but your justification doesn't work.
That makes no sense.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When it comes down to it, you're saying that anyone who kills because something was taken from then is an animal, something physical, not something alive, where I think you even said things are less clear.
Maybe you're upset, but I'm not understanding you. I can't even parse that.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Someone who murders for the sake of houses or land is an animal. Your justifications are thin, vapor thin, so why bother making them? We all know how you feel. Baiting me doesn't make me look stupid, it makes you look ridiculous.
Does writing an unintelligible post make you look stupid? That wasn't my goal, incidentally. This is the first time I've seen you post something this garbled. Normally, even when I completely disagree with you, you're at least cogent.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wonder though, what this makes Israel for killing women and children in Lebanon and other places, for the sake of land, for the sake of houses.
Israel does no such thing. We didn't attack them when they held Judea and Samaria and Gaza from 1948 to 1967. Yes, that's our land. So is Jordan. So is Lebanon, for that matter. But it's nothing that we're going to start a war over.
We fight to stop them from killing us. That's it, Lyrhawn. They aren't even fighting for land. They're fighting to get rid of us.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Stop tying to have it both ways.
Um.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yet again you are calling them animals.
Yet again, you're making things up. I deny that they are attacking us because of house demolitions. That wasn't me who said they were. If they were murdering people because of house demolitions, animal would be the correct term. But they aren't doing that, so "animal" is the wrong term.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Just to clarify, if I object to being called sL, you'll go back to ignoring me?
My choices are to ignore you, or do as I have been doing.
Feel free to make the choice for me.
Fair enough. Given that, ignore me. Someone who can't be decent enough to comply with a request that would cause her absolutely no harm whatsoever like calling me by my name isn't someone I care to have responding to me anyway.
If you ever decide those aren't the only choices, that'll be fine as well.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: [QB] To repeat what was said before, if they were to lay down their arms, the conflict would end. If we do the same, we're dead.
Ever consider that maybe they feel the same way?
Consider? Sure. They don't. They say it themselves, loudly. Their goal is to keep shooting so long as there's a single one of them left and there's still a single one of us living in our land.
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I'm sure you'll respond that it wasn't your side that started it, and your side is just defending itself. You have a point.
I would, if you were as right as you are sure. But you aren't. The question you asked has nothing to do with who started it. It has to do with who is continuing it. We have stopped hostilities times without number. They always start again. I repeat, if they were to stop killing us, this conflict would be over. We're not fighting for land. It's our land, and we don't need to give it up to people who have no right to it, but we aren't fighting over land. We're fighting over them killing us. They, on the other hand, are fighting over us being there at all.
quote:Originally posted by Javert: But the problem with 'an eye for an eye' is that everyone ends up blind.
Gosh. That's so... creative.
Thank you for letting me know that to make a point you must be creative. I'll remember it for future debates.
My point was that tossing out an inapplicable cliche doesn't count as making a point.
I note that you're choosing to ignore the fact that you assumed my answer above would be something it was not, and that I was not raising the issue of "who started it".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I guessed wrong. I'm willing to concede the point.
How is it an inapplicable cliche? They kill you, you kill them back, they kill you for killing them back...and so on. An eye for an eye. It may be a cliche, but that doesn't mean it's not true.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Someone who can't be decent enough to comply with a request that would cause her absolutely no harm whatsoever like calling me by my name isn't someone I care to have responding to me anyway.
My intent was certainly not to upset you. And if you cannot understand my reasons, that's fine.
Henceforth, I will abide by your decision.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm glad you find my attitudes odious. No matter how I fail, I can look back on this day and think-- HECK YES! On that day, I was doing something right, because starLisa found my "moral relativism" odious.
My point about Esau is just saying that the Israelites were not the first in Canaan. So claiming "We were here first! It's ours, preciousss, preciouss..." just doesn't fly.
I hope Israel wins, and becomes a secure nation, free from suicide bombers and Kasaam rockets. I think Israel, once it is stabilized, will be a stronger influence for the good of that whole region than if it were governed by those that attack Israel now. But I'm NOT willing to tolerate the idea that the atrocities that starLisa subscribes to in every single thread like this are necessary.
They haven't worked in the past. They don't work now.
Where is the evidence, starLisa, that bulldozing those homes stopped families from raising Billy-the-Bomber? Did the attacks on Israel stop? Where is the evidence that assassinations worked at all?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: And a quote from Tolkien is applicable here why?
Edit: And while I'm sure most hatrackers recognize it immediately, it is considered good form to appropriately cite quotations. [/QB]
I included this quote because, at least to me, it aptly explains why Isreal goes to war. Not because they love war, but because they must fight to protect their home.
As for leaving out the source, I apologize to all of the acemadicians out there. I simply recalled the quote and felt it appropriate to bring it up, but in a more conversational manner.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
