They're innocent!!

[brien]

Quote by: PatrickHenry How about targeting the Knesset in an all out war?

This is what I find so ironic about these so called wars. Used to be either there was "war" or there wasn't a war. One side won and one side lost. War was hell.

In WWII the Reichstag was fair target.

All of this aside, it is precisely because there hasn't been an all out war in the middle east that these conflicts haven't been settled. How does one deal with radical factions that are committed to the destruction of the State of Israel?

There are two options that I see:

1) The Europeans and the UN broker a final and lasting peace involving everyone. There must be a mutual contract that recognizes each faction has a right to exist peacefully in the middle east. Any violations would be dealt with swiftly and harshly by the Europeans and the UN.

2)Total all out war with the vanguished being totally anihilated.

[bishop]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Are you saying that Israel always hits what they aim at? And that Hizballah should get better munitions if they want to engage Israel? :rolleyes: Evenhandedness in this conflict is all spin. Negotioations will ultimately bring peace, not military means.

can't give you any statistics over how many of israel's missiles hit their intended targets or not... sorry. but, they certainly do have guided munitions (because we gave israel those munitions), and they've shown that they can perform precision attacks.

can you show me where israel has intentionally targetted civilians, in civilian locations that have not been bastardized by hezbollah for military purposes?

likewise, can you show me how hezbollah has intentionally targetted the IDF with its rocket attacks?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Zeebadee Maybe it's just time to admit that it was a mistake to locate a Jewish homeland on land that wasn't free to give away and find someplace new for that nation. Pick some nice pro-Israel country and give away some of their land.

Quote by: PatrickHenry Why do Jews need a homeland? That's a purely racist concept. Despite the pogroms of previous centuries, Jews are doing quite well in the Diaspora. The place where they are taking a licking is in Palestine...

Before Britain decided to start dividing up land, there was tension but not that bad.

Then Britain took that land and instead of it being divided, it was all given to one country.

So, PatrickHenry, the problem is that those cultures embrace the idea of a homeland. Zee isn't saying anything racist, he's commenting on a return to what was.

But since we can't go in and just redraw borders, they're pretty much doing it themselves.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Rick, the Lebanese are responsible for their own government, their kids probably can't be held accountable for the government their parents live under, but one would expect responsible parents to elect governments which don't endanger their kids.

Hey, if we don't do that here in the U.S. how can you expect the Lebanese to do it??

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: bishop can't give you any statistics over how many of israel's missiles hit their intended targets or not... sorry. but, they certainly do have guided munitions (because we gave israel those munitions), and they've shown that they can perform precision attacks. can you show me where israel has intentionally targetted civilians, in civilian locations that have not been bastardized by hezbollah for military purposes? likewise, can you show me how hezbollah has intentionally targetted the IDF with its rocket attacks?

So neither one us of can PROVE anything. However, you must admit that Israel has better PR/spinmeisters...

I allege that Hizballah targets IDF installations, and that they exist in otherwise "civilian" areas. They just need better accuracy in their rockets.

Also, I allege that Israel targets areas for purposes that are not supported in the conventions of war...

[shrike]

Quote by: PH Why do Jews need a homeland? That's a purely racist concept

No its racist concept to deny the Jewish right for self determination. Are you denying this right from other nationalities?

The EUMC developed a working definition of anti-Semitism that defined ways in which attacking Israel or Zionism could be anti-Semitic, while stating that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country could not be regarded as anti-Semitic. According to the EUMC, examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself include: Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor; Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation; Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis; Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/material/pub...tion-draft.pdf

. Despite the pogroms of previous centuries, Jews are doing quite well in the Diaspora

Please learn the facts first before you make baseless statements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Se...hristian_world
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...nds_(gen).html

[PatrickHenry]

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis;

I calls 'em as I sees "em...

Hehehh. The AntiSemitism card...

Why do Jews have a right to a nation but Hawaiians don't? We still live in our homeland, just haven't had the aggressive visciousness characteristic of the Zionists. Should all peoples who want their homeland begin blowing things up?

[bishop]

Quote by: PatrickHenry So neither one us of can PROVE anything. However, you must admit that Israel has better PR/spinmeisters... I allege that Hizballah targets IDF installations, and that they exist in otherwise "civilian" areas. They just need better accuracy in their rockets. Also, I allege that Israel targets areas for purposes that are not supported in the conventions of war...

it's undeniable that the israelis do an infinately better job of communicating with the western world than the muslims.. all i usually hear from the muslims is a lot of primal chest puffing.. they're great at giving threats, sounding like they're a lot stronger than they really are, repeating the same anti-israeli propaganda that's been beaten into their heads since the day they were born, etc... none of that rhetoric is particularly persuasive imo.

your allegations mean nothing unless you can support them with at least a shread of information.

if you allege that hezbollah's targeting IDF installations..

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0607/S00322.htm

Hezbollah's attacks in Israel on Sunday and Monday were at best indiscriminate attacks in civilian areas, at worst the deliberate targeting of civilians. Either way, they were serious violations of international humanitarian law and probable war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today. In addition, the warheads used suggest a desire to maximize harm to civilians. Some of the rockets launched against Haifa over the past two days contained hundreds of metal ball bearings that are of limited use against military targets but cause great harm to civilians and civilian property. The ball bearings lodge in the body and cause serious harm. Hezbollah has reportedly fired more than 800 rockets into Israel from southern Lebanon over the past five days, killing 12 civilians and wounding many more. The vast majority of these rockets, as in past conflicts, have been Katyushas, which are small, have a range limited to the border area, and cannot be aimed with precision. Hezbollah has also fired some rockets in the current fighting that have landed up to 40 kilometers inside Israel. “Attacking civilian areas indiscriminately is a serious violation of international humanitarian law and can constitute a war crime,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of the Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch. “Hezbollah’s use of warheads that have limited military use and cause grievous suffering to the victims only makes the crime worse.”

this, however, seems to be a legitimate attack against a legitimate target.. only problem was that they missed the target. there's nothing in the rules of war that makes it illegal to accidentally miss your intended target.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060715/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

A Hezbollah rocket barrage aimed at Israeli warships missed their target and struck a civilian ship in the Mediterranean Sea, Israeli military officials said early Saturday. The officials did not know the nationality of the ship, or whether there were casualties. They spoke on condition of anonymity under military regulations. Earlier, a Hezbollah attack struck an Israeli warship, causing heavy damage to the vessel.

[Fonceai]

@PatrickHenry

Yeah, your arguments, with that last statement, have become baseless.

Hawaiians and Jews are a bit different.

That area has been rife with conflict throughout all recorded history. Then, when there is something resembling a tentative peace, Britain swoops in and changes everything around.

Now they simply want things back they way they were.

The problem is that the ones who made out better after Britain are saying no.

In my lifetime I've watched them try over and over to resolve things peacefully.

Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long for it to boil ovre.

And your question...

Should all peoples who want their homeland begin blowing things up?

You know perfectly well that's a silly question. Of course they shouldn't.

But have you tried to understand WHY they think this is necessary?

Until you understand, you're doing nothing more than arguing for the sake of arguing.

[bishop]

Quote by: PatrickHenry We still live in our homeland, just haven't had the aggressive visciousness characteristic of the Zionists. Should all peoples who want their homeland begin blowing things up?

off-topic, but hawaii is not your homeland.. you were born in texas if i'm not mistaken and only moved to hawaii later on in your life.. claiming it as your homeland is pretty laughable imo.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: bishop Quote by: PatrickHenry We still live in our homeland, just haven't had the aggressive visciousness characteristic of the Zionists. Should all peoples who want their homeland begin blowing things up? off-topic, but hawaii is not your homeland.. you were born in texas if i'm not mistaken and only moved to hawaii later on in your life.. claiming it as your homeland is pretty laughable imo.

Probably just as laughable as shrike's positions...

[shrike]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I calls 'em as I sees "em... Hehehh. The AntiSemitism card...?

Its not my definition but EUMC
http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/index.php
And stop with strawmans.

Why do Jews have a right to a nation but Hawaiians don't?

Yes you have but if following you logic you have nothing to with that becouse you stolen you land from natives or at least you ancestors.

We still live in our homeland, just haven't had the aggressive visciousness characteristic of the Zionists.

Yes well you should thank god that natives aren't Muslims.

Should all peoples who want their homeland begin blowing things up

You should ask Arabs this kind of question.
You ignored my question

No its racist concept to deny the Jewish right for self determination. Are you denying this right from other nationalities?

[brien]

Quote by: Fonceai I never said they are exempt. Not even close. I said that one needs to really see things through their eyes to understand what is going on over there. I understand rape, murder, infidelity, chronic masturbation, bestiality, and Jessica Simpson, but that doesn't mean I endorse or like them. It just means that by understanding them I can better evaluate them in reference to my own ethics and morality. So it's not a high horse I'm on. Drop the "cowpoke." If someone presented the case, in a debate thread, with both my argument (they have a different culture) and your statement (that doesn't justify violating Humanitarian Law) it would be more effective than linking to pictures of dead children.

Here is what you wrote:

It's arrogant to assume their way of doing things is wrong. That is why they can hate us.

Get off the high Western horse and see the world through their eyes.

I write: It is not arrogant to understand what they are doing is wrong. Because when they beat innocent women and children, it is WRONG You say we have to understand that is their way. And as you say we must understand it, and I say we do because we understand beating women and children is wrong.

You said " Get off the high Western High Horse", not me. I wrote everyone at sometime or another ends up on the posterior end of the high horse. Thus my reference to "Cowpoke". You used the image of the High Horse, and when I expand on it by using terms like "Cowpoke" you get insulted. :rolleyes: Lighten up or don't use imagery in your writing and then condem someone else for doing it as well.

Right and wrong are not arbitrary and subjective catagories in terms of humanitarian law, either something is right or it is wrong. No if and or buts.

Now to you last statement.

If someone presented the case, in a debate thread, with both my argument (they have a different culture) and your statement (that doesn't justify violating Humanitarian Law) it would be more effective than linking to pictures of dead children

I fully agree.

[bishop]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Probably just as laughable as shrike's positions...

i believe he was born in israel... that's a pretty big difference compared to you claiming hawaii as your homeland.

[Fonceai]

me It's arrogant to assume their way of doing things is wrong. brien I write: It is not arrogant to understand what they are doing is wrong.

Notice I used the word assume.

I think you are dead-on correct. When you understand why they are doing what they are doing, THEN you can say, "Yeah, it's extreme and wrong."

My criticism was of those who say, "Killing innocent women and children!! That's fundamentally wrong!!"

I want people to get past fundamentalism and understand the conflict over there, why Israel feels the need to kill innocents (they don't have to, they have modified F-16s capable of surgical-precision bombing runs), and then evaluate what is happening.

On the Cowpoke thing... don't you people read and then think before responding?

I said others were on a high horse. Not me. So I'm not the "cowpoke".

And did I write that I was offended? Not at all. Don't put words in my mouth. Or should I say, don't assume I'm like some of these other clowns on here that make a simple statement dripping with innuendo and hidden meaning. You'll find I'm very easy to debate when you take what I say at face value.

Quote by: brien Right and wrong are not arbitrary and subjective catagories in terms of humanitarian law, either something is right or it is wrong. No if and or buts.

Right and wrong are always subjective when those terms are established by people. As long as one person can say, "I don't think it's wrong to do <blank>" then it has become subjective.

There are no absolutes in right and wrong. That's just how it is.

Quote by: brien If someone presented the case, in a debate thread, with both my argument (they have a different culture) and your statement (that doesn't justify violating Humanitarian Law) it would be more effective than linking to pictures of dead children I fully agree.

This is the kind of expressive simplicity I'm talking about.

Dead kids? Shitty way to present a case.

The above statement? Invites intelligence instead of emo.

[brien]

Quote by: Fonceai But since we can't go in and just redraw borders, they're pretty much doing it themselves.

I ask why not?

I personally think it should be considered that Iraq be divided into three separate countries.

Kurdistan
Shiistan
Sunistan

With the oil fields being shared by all.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: bishop Quote by: PatrickHenry Probably just as laughable as shrike's positions... i believe he was born in israel... that's a pretty big difference compared to you claiming hawaii as your homeland.

You sure about shrike's birth? Even if you are correct, what about all the other immigrants who are killing natives in Palestine? What is a homeland anyhow? Where your unproven ancestors came from? Pretty presumptuous isn't it?

[brien]

Quote by: Fonceai Notice I used the word assume. I think you are dead-on correct. When you understand why they are doing what they are doing, THEN you can say, "Yeah, it's extreme and wrong." My criticism was of those who say, "Killing innocent women and children!! That's fundamentally wrong!!" I want people to get past fundamentalism and understand the conflict over there, why Israel feels the need to kill innocents (they don't have to, they have modified F-16s capable of surgical-precision bombing runs), and then evaluate what is happening. On the Cowpoke thing... don't you people read and then think before responding? I said others were on a high horse. Not me. So I'm not the "cowpoke". And did I write that I was offended? Not at all. Don't put words in my mouth. Or should I say, don't assume I'm like some of these other clowns on here that make a simple statement dripping with innuendo and hidden meaning. You'll find I'm very easy to debate when you take what I say at face value. Right and wrong are always subjective when those terms are established by people. As long as one person can say, "I don't think it's wrong to do <blank>" then it has become subjective. There are no absolutes in right and wrong. That's just how it is. This is the kind of expressive simplicity I'm talking about. Dead kids? Shitty way to present a case. The above statement? Invites intelligence instead of emo.

On the cowpoke thing, it really isn'ty a derogatory term. It is more just western slang. But that said I apologize if I miunderstood your meanings here "Cowpoke" Just kidding.

I wrote that I do think there are absolutes when it comes to right and wrong in humanitarian laws.

For example: It is absolutely wrong to stone a woman to death because she committed adultry in Saudi Arabia. There is no room for debating the "righteousness of stoning a woman to death because she violated a sacred Muslim Law. Humanitarian Law trumphs Muslim law in this instance. This is what I meant if you read my statement closely. I made reference to Humanitarian Laws. This is what I wrote:

"Right and wrong are not arbitrary and subjective catagories in terms of humanitarian law, either something is right or it is wrong. No if and or buts."


So, perhaps we all need to read what we write more closely.

[bishop]

Quote by: PatrickHenry You sure about shrike's birth? Even if you are correct, what about all the other immigrants who are killing natives in Palestine? What is a homeland anyhow? Where your unproven ancestors came from? Pretty presumptuous isn't it?

no, i'm not sure about shrike's birth..

but, at least my argument's consistent. your homeland = where you were born.

[shrike]

Quote by: PatrickHenry You sure about shrike's birth? Even if you are correct, what about all the other immigrants who are killing natives in Palestine? What is a homeland anyhow? Where your unproven ancestors came from? Pretty presumptuous isn't it?

You really have some strange logic. What does it matter from where anyone comes? Killing civilians on propose and indiscriminately is wrong and it did not matter who do it native of the land or immigrant.
Are you aware that there was large Arabs influx to British mandate because good economic situation there?