Opinions on the Israel-Lebanon war...

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by azuren82, Aug 2, 2006.

  1. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    All said and done, this makes very little difference, Justy. Look at it from the other side of the fence. If your say.... mother, father, 7 brothers, 1 sister and your dog was killed, would you mind whether the enemy targeted you or the terrorist holding quarters next door to you?

    Matter of the fact is that Israel managed to kill lots of civilians with non too subtle weapons. It's like a lazer-guided atomic bomb. The atomic bomb managed to fly in the window of the terrorist and killed him instantly after igniting on photo-recognition.

    Sadly though, the rest of the town was also sent back to the stone age... You die anyway.

    I admit I overdrew the comparison a bit. But sometimes you have to do this to shed another light over the issue. Sadly though, Israel used fuel bombs, which are just about as subtle as anything else in the wmd category. They shouldn't have, they damn well know it and now they're getting what they asked for, condemnation from the Western world.

    I, for one, don't believe this necesserally. I really think every last single Isreali could destroy or turn in anything up to and including their airguns and be just about as safe. Yes, the Palestinians will smell a minor chance of victory (in that, nothing will change, I suppose) - But who would really dare to invade and kill all Jews. Please remember that the last regime to try this, failed very horribly in the end. But that's not the reason. The reason is that whoever touches Israel, especially when unarmed, is touching the US, with equal or greater force. And the US will strike back. With force. Greater then with wich touched. After all, this is Isreal, we're talking about.

    But I implied a UN force, not the handing in of weapons. You can have weapons - maybe to defend yourself (Isreali's seem quite fond of this - Palestines aren't allowed anyway). The Isreali army remains in existance. As would the Palestinian defense forces. The point is that whoever hurts the other gets punnished. And that's it. No more "you did X to us so we do Y to you", in which Y>X. I see no other path to peace other then "let's build a wall around Israel, give them all a lot of weapons and ammo, and let's see what remains in 5 years time".

    I would like to conclude by saying that, for future reference, if a group of people demand a country, occupied by a different nation, on a 2000 year old claim, let's go ahead with that. Even if this particular group of people suffered a great loss during a war or if they have a great lobby with one of the mightiest nations in the world... We've done that once - and it failed. Miserably.
     
  2. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    Believe it or not, that's your choice.

    In 1981 Iraeli's struck a nuclear facility Saddam was using to create weapons grade plutonium. Despite this was a huge favor to the entire world, Israel was widely condemned for it.

    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9300(198307)77:3<584:IASUTI>2.0.CO;2-L&size=LARGE

    Un Inspectors had verified Saddam had weapons as late as 1998, 7 years after sanctions had been placed on him.

    The entire reason for resolution 1441 was that Saddam was expelling weapons inspectors, this was the reason Clinton went on a bombing campaign in Iraq in 1998.

    From Bill Clinton himself.

    http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
     
  3. Cascador

    Cascador Who's Anakin?

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    30,515
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Belgium
    Ratings:
    +384 / 0 / -0
    sorry buddy, but I need more proof than just the word of the president of the US...I got nothing against Americans, but I don't trust the media or the governement.
    I can believe that he might have been making them in 1981...but I don't think he would make the same mistake twice...
     
  4. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    You can believe whatever you want about the weapons, but his kicking out of inspectors is a verifiable fact.

    This isn't just President Clinton speaking by the way, this is Clinton with United nations intelligence on the matter.
     
  5. Blackness

    Blackness Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,947
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +145 / 0 / -0
    SO what if he had nuclear weapons?
    America, GB, France, Pakistan,North Korea and India have it, don't they?

    HOw do you dare to forbid someone having their own nuclear weapons?

    I for one, believe that no one should posses them, but if you have it, why wouldn't they too?
     
  6. Cascador

    Cascador Who's Anakin?

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    30,515
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Belgium
    Ratings:
    +384 / 0 / -0
    well I can guess the answer...They are a threat to the world...America "thinks" they are not...
     
  7. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    I doubt anyone other than terrorists lose sleep at night knowing the US is well armed and equipped. The US president doesn't make weekly speeches calling for the destruction of another nation. Arab dictators and Radical Muslim Clerics do this on a daily basis. Who's safer in the world when the arms balance is on one side?

    And second, why would we give up our nuclear arms? If all nations agreed to do it, and one nation secretly hides weapons, then everyone would be at the risk of one nation.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    Your president has been talking like a bully for years.He goes like "this country should do this,that leader should do that,this country shouldn't this.Do this or we will lead a coalition and blah blah blah.Don't do that and we will do that to you" etc.

    I don't know about you or what people say in your country,but here everybody says that at least when the Soviet Union still existed there was a balance of power through fear or retaliation and that helped a relevant peace and balance be kept.Now USA does whatever it wants with hardly anyone saying no to it.The only ones who say "No" to what USA wants usually get black listed by Bush who keeps saying "Whoever is not with us is against us".That's what Anakin said to Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars III and we all know how he ended up.

    And like Blackness said I believe as well that noone should have nuclear weapons.But since noone from the countries that have nuclear weapons is willing to reduce or destroy all of its nuclear weapons,then it's useless to talk about it.Why is Iran not permitted to have nuclear weapons while Israel has?Why is USA ok with India and Pakistan both having nuclear weapons when the entire world knows that in the case of a war between them they will annihilate each other?But of course USA doesn't care if India or Pakistan annihilate each other since they are both on good speaking terms with USA and Israel as well.
     
  9. Blackness

    Blackness Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,947
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +145 / 0 / -0
    too true Foinikas... too true...
     
  10. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Possibly because Israel won't necessarily use them against Iran, but there's a more than small chance that Iran, who constantly states that Israel should be destroyed, would launch a nuclear attack against Israel.

    Which would be kind of pointless to make your holy land uninhabitable for the next 50 years due to radiation, but hey.....

    As Justice pointed out, no matter how evil you think the US is, rightly or wrongly, I don't think anyone here can seriously think that they'd launch a random nuclear attack. If they do something aggressively, they'll stick to regular bombs and ordinance.

    Whereas terrorists who are generally small groups trying to fight against the big bad USA, need to find bigger and more spectacular ways of "destroying the infidel." 9/11 was pretty massive. A chemical or nerve agent that kills thousands would be pretty spectacular as well. But if terrorists got their hands on nuclear or dirty bomb technology, I don't think they'd have any hesistations in setting it off in a deliberate civilian area. Notice how they don't seem to target military targets, they seem to prefer killing civilians going about their daily business.
     
  11. Cascador

    Cascador Who's Anakin?

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    30,515
    Likes Received:
    362
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Belgium
    Ratings:
    +384 / 0 / -0
    I don't know...the pentagon and the white house (they say one of them was actually heading to the white house) pretty much strike as military targets to me. But yeah I'm still no t100% convinced that was the work of terrorists...
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2006
  12. Dwimmerlaik

    Dwimmerlaik Captain of Despair

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    5,752
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Angmar (aka. GA)
    Ratings:
    +31 / 0 / -0
    the pentagon, was there not a "civilians" in the pentagon when it was hit?
     
  13. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Well Anakin's conspiracy theories aside, to me a military target is one predominantly manned by military personnel, either armed combat troops or a training ground or an army base and yeah perhaps the Pentagon at a stretch.

    I class a civilian target as one predominantly occupied by Mum and Dad Average doing their 9-5 shift. Like the World Trade Centre. Or a bus full of schoolkids or people doing their grocery shopping.

    My point being that terrorists don't care about civilians and deliberately target them, because to them we are all the same - evil scum that deserve to die. Whether I've got a rifle in my hands or a bag of groceries.
     
  14. Dwimmerlaik

    Dwimmerlaik Captain of Despair

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Messages:
    5,752
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Angmar (aka. GA)
    Ratings:
    +31 / 0 / -0
    agreed mub.. but people in the pentagon , were not all military based. more of a goverment target..
     
  15. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0
    I'm surprised right now there has been virtually no coverage whatsoever of the small scale civil war in Palestine right now. Fatah and Hamas factions have been fighting each other which, compared to each other by scale, is more of a civil war than what is going on in Iraq. Iraq is religious factions carrying out hits on each other. There is no insurrection against the government except for the level of uncontrollable chaos. In Palestine there are political parties fighting each other in a power grab. That is the definition of a Civil War.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1973445,00.html

    This is from the Guardian, which is an ultra extreme Liberal Bush bashing paper, and even they admit it looks like a Civil War. Of course they take several shots at Israel because they refuse to send $600 million dollars in aide to Palestinians, but then again it's their own money. The money was refused after Palestinians elected Hamas, a militant terrorist group responsible for many of the terrorist attacks on Israeli civillians.

    For a very short time a truce between the two parties was called.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16235716/

    But days later the truce was broken and since then the violence has not stopped.

    http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061218/NATION/612180343/1020



    So I guess a lot of the problems of the Palestinian people ARE the results of embracing extremist Islamic terrorist martyrdom style beliefs instead of the evil Israeli's who "refuse" to allow them to ahve their own nation. I say "refuse" because that claim is blatantly untrue. Israel has offered them a chance to become a nation several times, the the Palestinians refused because they want ALL of Israel, not just the parts Israel has already given up.
     
  16. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    I wonder how frustrating it must be for Palestinians who actually want forward progress, of any kind, to see their politicla parties fighting each other rather than "the common enemy." Violence and conflict are a sad fact of daily life in some parts of the world.
     
  17. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0



    Bumping this thread today because the Palestinian government has now collapsed.

    Mahmoud Abbas has now dissolved the government ran by Fatah because of the violent outburst from radical terrorist group Hamas. A state of emergency has been declared.

    And this entire situation all came to fruition without those "evil Israeli's" sticking their noses in. Radical Islamic fundamentalism has taken over Gaza.

    Amazing. Really amazing. I really don't see how the Palestinians still get this shield that places them above all criticism.
     
  18. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    I'll bet you're really happy to see the Palestinians kill each other.

    But you're right in one thing.Hamas started this and Hamas is doing all the bad stuff right now.From what I read and hear on the news they want to take control of all the Palestinian state and change everything.They want to impose an Islamic state in Palestine(I mean the West Bank and Gaza)but they say nothing will change in the culture and lives of the people(wtf?)so...they must be the ones who started all this and they are definetely the ones responsible for this civil war and all the casualties it has.
     
  19. Blackness

    Blackness Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,947
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +145 / 0 / -0

    Wow Foinikas... this must be the first time i agree with you :)
     
  20. Justice

    Justice New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0

    You sir are incredibly intellectually dishonest, you know that right? When you can't argue an issue, so try to demonize those who disagree with you.

    I am calling you out on this. I do not delight in seeing death and suffering. I am pointing out how wrong people are when they claim all the suffering of the Palestinian people are being caused by the Israelis when the Israelis have had nothing to do with this civil war that has broken out in Gaza.

    Until you stop such dishonest tactics I do not see any reson to "debate" with you.