Originally posted by StarValleyWyWell what you're missing SVW is the umpteen resolutions Israel has not complied to, the total destruction of Palestinian infrastructure, the occupation of Palestinian territory and basically the whole historic picture of the entire region.
Let me see if I understand you.
Israel, the US and GB are nuts because the beheaders cross into Israel, kill soldiers on guard duty, and attack Israel with a thousand rockets? After Israel has fully complied with UN resolution 1559 and withdrawn from all the disputed territory?
Does that about sum it up?
What am I missing? Other than the fact ...[text shortened]... of commies who lie about in govenment supplied flats doing drugs and writing meaningless songs.
Other than that, you're spot on!
Keep up the good work!
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes, however...
Shav: "Every country in the world wants a cease-fire in the Middle-East, except Israel, the US and Britain."
Is this really true ? Hezbollah for instance doesn't want a cease-fire either. An important fact to consider, don't you agree ?
Hezbollah isn't actually a country now, is it?
Originally posted by techsouthA cease-fire with terrorist organisations has always been achieved through dialogue and never through violence (PLO, ANC, IRA for example).
How exactly do you reach a "cease-fire" with a terrorist?
How have previous "cease-fires" worked out for Israel?
We're all chess players here, let's think like a chess game from Israel's perspective. If Hezbollah launches rockets into Israel from amoung civilian areas (at civilians no less), but Israel must not kill any civilians, should not Israel ...[text shortened]... make some tough calls in which undesireable results will occur no matter what they do.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyWell what you're missing SVW is the umpteen resolutions Israel has not complied to, the total destruction of the Palestinian infrastructure, the occupation of Palestinian territory and basically the whole historic picture of the entire region.
Let me see if I understand you.
Israel, the US and GB are nuts because the beheaders cross into Israel, kill soldiers on guard duty, and attack Israel with a thousand rockets? After Israel has fully complied with UN resolution 1559 and withdrawn from all the disputed territory?
Does that about sum it up?
What am I missing? Other than the fact ...[text shortened]... of commies who lie about in govenment supplied flats doing drugs and writing meaningless songs.
Other than that, you're spot on!
Keep up the good work!
Originally posted by shavixmirAbsolutely.
A cease-fire with terrorist organisations has always been achieved through dialogue and never through violence (PLO, ANC, IRA for example).
Moreover, bombing Nationalist-populated areas of Belfast, in an attempt to wipe out the IRA, resulting in collateral innocent death, and on the premise that the UK has a right to defend itself, would not have been a good idea. And I think that most of the British public would have grasped this.
Yet, today, apparently 87% of Israelis think that adopting a similar strategy against Hizbolleh-populated areas of Lebanon is a good idea.
So why isn't it a good idea? Two reasons.
First, it's far from certain that you can defeat a terrorist organization with conventional military means. Can anyone furnish a compelling example of this being done? Hence, this offensive may be a waste of time, effort, and life.
Second, warring with a country generally, and killing innocent people in particular, breeds resentment. Resentment in turn breeds terrorism.
So it's a counter-productive way to fight terrorism (i.e., the King quote).
To make a sore better, you have to apply a balm, not keep scratching it. But sometimes it gets so itchy you have to keeping scratching it, making it worse.
This is the medical metaphor that defines the tactics of both sides of the conflict in the Middle East.
Note that these points have nothing to do with morality. They only have to do with intelligence.
I suggest we start condemning Israel and Hizbolleh for stupidity, not immorality, because the latter is more easily rationalized than the former.
Originally posted by shavixmir😴
Is it just me or has the whole world went completely mad?
Or, to put it more accurately: Is it just me or has Israel, the US and Britain gone completely coocoo?
Watching the news nowadays is like having a hot poker rammed up one's bum, twisted around, removed and then thrice smacked over the head with it (the poker, not one's bum).
There was an int ...[text shortened]... ever were. Which makes it an even greater pity they were evacuated, really...
ashamed to be british?...please do us all a favour then and bog off to live in the middle east...
Originally posted by shavixmirMedia is ultimately owned by the government and also only interested in making the sales. If it's a democratically elected government and the majority of the population are showing a genuine lack of wanting to understand the whole issue; need to generilise to keep it as simple as the regular streetdumby can grasp; wish to provoke certain situations that are economically benefitial to themselves in the end, these things happen.
I really don't understand how the media can get away with this biased reporting on the attrocities being committed.
Reporting along the lines of 20 minutes spent on 3 being killed in Haifa by a vicious terrorist assault and then at the end quickly mentioning 30 killed in Southern Lebanon by Israeli retaliation.
GOOD GRIEF!
Originally posted by shavixmirHave you read Security Council resolutions 1559,1655 and 1680 ?
Well what you're missing SVW is the umpteen resolutions Israel has not complied to, the total destruction of the Palestinian infrastructure, the occupation of Palestinian territory and basically the whole historic picture of the entire region.
Other than that, you're spot on!
Keep up the good work!
Studying them is absolutely indispensable if you want to try and understand what is happening in Lebanon at the moment.
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions04.html
http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions06.htm
- Joined
- 21 Jul 06
- Moves
- 94140
Surely the crux of the entire issue is that good and evil doesn't actually exist. Certainly not on such a grand scale.
Despite popular belief, we don't actually live in Middle Earth. This world is not black and white, but shades of grey, if you will excuse the cliche.
I'm sure it will not come as a shock to anyone, that a person's concepts of good and evil are entirely a matter of perspective, and in no way definitive.
For instance, would anyone be willing to suggest that Hitler actually believed that he was evil? And yet, I'm certain that 99% of people that have learnt about him, would place A.H. somewhere at the top of the examples list for the definition of an evil man.
There is no way to take a side on issues regarding religion/ideals, and to remain unbiased - it is quite simply not possible.
I agree entirely with Pawnokeyhole concerning 'intelligence'. For that is what it comes down to in the end. Falling short of meticulously organised genocide, followed by enforced quarantine on your own state, or other equally extreme, and perhaps more credible (!) methods, force will never be succesful. Religion is at the forefront of this global conflict; there is no state to defeat, no conditions of victory.
The reason that diplomacy would never work is because neither side has the common sense to realise that it is all a game of 'tic tac toe' - and a draw in terms of war is a loss for both sides. The extent of their losses depend solely on the time it takes for them to understand the futility of it all. I'm for Tiddly Winks. Or Chess... of course.
My personal view, is that religion is the cancer. Not entirely ground-breaking, I know, but without it, where would we stand? Could there be morality without religion, truly?
We, and by that I mean the western world, have already embroiled ourselves in Iraq and Afganistan, I can see little that we could do now to extricate ourselves from that problem (whether your country has troops in the ME or not). We should sort out our own mess, and let nature run it's course, human nature that is.
One final point, to simplify this even further than I have already! Triangles don't work, that is if you work with the constraints that no two points can appease each other without upsetting the third. The relationship between Christianity, Judeaism and Islam is a prime example of this - it will never work with the three remaining as the do today.
Just thought I should state some of the more obvious points that seem to be escaping some people at the moment.
A.
Originally posted by HumeACan I vote for you please?
Surely the crux of the entire issue is that good and evil doesn't actually exist. Certainly not on such a grand scale.
Despite popular belief, we don't actually live in Middle Earth. This world is not black and white, but shades of grey, if you will excuse the cliche.
I'm sure it will not come as a shock to anyone, that a person's concepts of good and e ...[text shortened]... of the more obvious points that seem to be escaping some people at the moment.
A.