- New! We now accept ACH Payments, View Payment Options
Forums > Social Discussion > Israel back at war (a rant)
Login/Join to ParticipatePosted:[rant]Now for many years I have opposed Israel for their politics in Palestine, Gaza and so on... These days it seems to be mainstream, especially since Israel is back at war with the nations around them, threatening the "rest of the world".
I certainly have a natural opposition towards people, who were suffering the holocaust and seem to put this fate on other, innocent people - it seems as if they have not learned from their own history.
But nope - not this time. I am sick and tired of news and stories about extremists and insurgents, kidnapping and killing other innocent people.
For quite some time, the Israeli govt has done efforts to come to peace with the troublemakers (yes, heck they are troublemakers themselves and yes "collateral damage" done by the Israeli military to innocent people in Lebanon and Gaza is hard to accept...) it just doesn't stop...
And now, I only have to imagine that it would have been the sister of my ex-girfriend to be one of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers - it would disturb me just as much as imagining that my arab cousin lives in Beirut...
I know that war (as violence) is never the way and retaliation is as wrong as attacking, but please tell me: If you're making efforts to live your life in peace and you find out that all compromises you make are answered with neglect (yes, the majority of arabs DO actually WANT PEACE finally and do NOT support the hizbullah - I acknowledge this fact) - bottom line is that there are some blinded people who never learn - how can this be ended? It's a merry go round...
It's not ironic that I am sitting in a hebrew internet cafe in Bangkok - it's almost hilarious! There are millions of young and old jews across the globe who would just LOVE to finally see peace in the middle east and I am sick and tired of reckless politicians who condemn a nation just because of their faith, they actually DO have a democracy and prosper AND that their small number of soldiers (with high tech) is able to keep the entire arab nations around them in check (and do not tell me that those nations would not have the funds to arm up with as much high tech)...
I am SICK of it! I want it to END, I want the killing to STOP NOW!!!!! Why does it seem further away than ever? Why is war the way?
Disclaimer: and pls note that I am not falling into the mainstream thinking that muslims are generally to be held responsible for extremism - it's individuals and their political interest, it's NEVER collective.[/rant]
sorry guys
I certainly have a natural opposition towards people, who were suffering the holocaust and seem to put this fate on other, innocent people - it seems as if they have not learned from their own history.
But nope - not this time. I am sick and tired of news and stories about extremists and insurgents, kidnapping and killing other innocent people.
For quite some time, the Israeli govt has done efforts to come to peace with the troublemakers (yes, heck they are troublemakers themselves and yes "collateral damage" done by the Israeli military to innocent people in Lebanon and Gaza is hard to accept...) it just doesn't stop...
And now, I only have to imagine that it would have been the sister of my ex-girfriend to be one of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers - it would disturb me just as much as imagining that my arab cousin lives in Beirut...
I know that war (as violence) is never the way and retaliation is as wrong as attacking, but please tell me: If you're making efforts to live your life in peace and you find out that all compromises you make are answered with neglect (yes, the majority of arabs DO actually WANT PEACE finally and do NOT support the hizbullah - I acknowledge this fact) - bottom line is that there are some blinded people who never learn - how can this be ended? It's a merry go round...
It's not ironic that I am sitting in a hebrew internet cafe in Bangkok - it's almost hilarious! There are millions of young and old jews across the globe who would just LOVE to finally see peace in the middle east and I am sick and tired of reckless politicians who condemn a nation just because of their faith, they actually DO have a democracy and prosper AND that their small number of soldiers (with high tech) is able to keep the entire arab nations around them in check (and do not tell me that those nations would not have the funds to arm up with as much high tech)...
I am SICK of it! I want it to END, I want the killing to STOP NOW!!!!! Why does it seem further away than ever? Why is war the way?
Disclaimer: and pls note that I am not falling into the mainstream thinking that muslims are generally to be held responsible for extremism - it's individuals and their political interest, it's NEVER collective.[/rant]
sorry guys
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
Posted:I think Doc Lightning alluded to an "important" question a few pages back.
I'll paraphrase it, and ask "Why do the Jews keep getting caught in holocausts?"
Now it may seem unfair to ask this question given the Nazi holocaust, but when history keeps repeating itself, there may be another explanation. I know some of the reasons I learn at school. But I'd like to know more - Who are the Jew being that gets everybody offside with them? And what could they do, or who would they have to be to bring peace back to the world?"
And don't go saying it's not our fault, and blaming others. Because clearly it is Israels fault. Saying things like it was our bombs that killed civilians, we fired them, but its not our fault because Hezbollah made us kill civilians, is childish.
Yeah! And what do people think God thinks of this killing ?
Time for another flood springs to mind.
I'll paraphrase it, and ask "Why do the Jews keep getting caught in holocausts?"
Now it may seem unfair to ask this question given the Nazi holocaust, but when history keeps repeating itself, there may be another explanation. I know some of the reasons I learn at school. But I'd like to know more - Who are the Jew being that gets everybody offside with them? And what could they do, or who would they have to be to bring peace back to the world?"
And don't go saying it's not our fault, and blaming others. Because clearly it is Israels fault. Saying things like it was our bombs that killed civilians, we fired them, but its not our fault because Hezbollah made us kill civilians, is childish.
Yeah! And what do people think God thinks of this killing ?
Time for another flood springs to mind.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Deleteonewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3252
GOLD Member since Aug 2002
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Patriarch917
When I read OWD suggestion that the Jews should be removed from Israel, I thought of how the president of Iran (who arms and supports Hezbollah) suggested the same thing. Is the best solution we can come up with simply to join the enemies of Israel in their mission to drive away the Jews?
..........
Back to my point. Making the Jews leave Israel would seem to suggest that they are the ones causing the problem.
That solution isn't about agreeing with the enemies of Israel, it's simply a way of stopping a conflict which is unlikely to cease by any other means.
Neither does it suggest that the Israelis are causing the problem- I think it's been well established that neither the Israelis or their enemies are the sole cause of the current conflict- both have played a part.
Relocating Israel is simply a proposed solution to the problem, in no way is it a form of punishment for the Israelis.
Written by: Patriarch917
Who can we call the “criminal” in this situation. Given the choice between removing the Jews, and removing their enemies, which shall we relocate?
I think it may be helpful to try to determine which party is more likely to live peacefully in the absence of the other, and which is more likely to seek out new victims.
Relocating Israel is simply far more practical than relocating their enemies, as-
a. there's a lot less of them
b. they're capeable of living peacefully in the available alternatives (America, Australia etc) in a way that their enemies almost certainly aren't
c. given that the current long-running violence is due, in large part, to the previous relocation of their enemies to make room for Israel in the first place, it would seem unwise to think that repeating it on a far greater scale would help in any way at all
Whilst the decision to locate Isreal in the middle east in the first place is a matter of history which can't be changed; presumably most here would agree that, if it was known then what we know now (that the current long-lasting and bloody conflict would ensue), that nobody in their right mind would have supported the decision to locate israel there?
When I read OWD suggestion that the Jews should be removed from Israel, I thought of how the president of Iran (who arms and supports Hezbollah) suggested the same thing. Is the best solution we can come up with simply to join the enemies of Israel in their mission to drive away the Jews?
..........
Back to my point. Making the Jews leave Israel would seem to suggest that they are the ones causing the problem.
That solution isn't about agreeing with the enemies of Israel, it's simply a way of stopping a conflict which is unlikely to cease by any other means.
Neither does it suggest that the Israelis are causing the problem- I think it's been well established that neither the Israelis or their enemies are the sole cause of the current conflict- both have played a part.
Relocating Israel is simply a proposed solution to the problem, in no way is it a form of punishment for the Israelis.
Written by: Patriarch917
Who can we call the “criminal” in this situation. Given the choice between removing the Jews, and removing their enemies, which shall we relocate?
I think it may be helpful to try to determine which party is more likely to live peacefully in the absence of the other, and which is more likely to seek out new victims.
Relocating Israel is simply far more practical than relocating their enemies, as-
a. there's a lot less of them
b. they're capeable of living peacefully in the available alternatives (America, Australia etc) in a way that their enemies almost certainly aren't
c. given that the current long-running violence is due, in large part, to the previous relocation of their enemies to make room for Israel in the first place, it would seem unwise to think that repeating it on a far greater scale would help in any way at all
Whilst the decision to locate Isreal in the middle east in the first place is a matter of history which can't be changed; presumably most here would agree that, if it was known then what we know now (that the current long-lasting and bloody conflict would ensue), that nobody in their right mind would have supported the decision to locate israel there?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001
![Doc Lightning]()
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
GOLD Member since May 2001
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: andrealee
If you did, why repeat yourself again? I said bluntly I did not know, and suggested bringing in information from other people who may have some well founded practical approaches-- people who work or study that field.
You would think, from your post, that Israel hadn't considered this.
Again: Hezbollah has explicitly said that they are not interested in peace with Israel under any conditions.
Hence, I propose a wall.
If you did, why repeat yourself again? I said bluntly I did not know, and suggested bringing in information from other people who may have some well founded practical approaches-- people who work or study that field.
You would think, from your post, that Israel hadn't considered this.
Again: Hezbollah has explicitly said that they are not interested in peace with Israel under any conditions.
Hence, I propose a wall.
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001
![Doc Lightning]()
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
GOLD Member since May 2001
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: andrealee
cute gremilin though
Non-Https Image Link
Aww, gee...thanks!
cute gremilin though
Non-Https Image Link
Aww, gee...thanks!
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
Posted:Doc, I can get how you might have misunderstood. But I meant that we should try that, in terms of developing our discussion, not as a reference to anything Isreal has/has not tried or considered.
Sometimes taking a well- defined perspective/suggestion/solution and critiquing it is a good way to begin explore an idea. Then one can extrapolate from it into new possibilities, rather than just pulling narrow opinions from a hat or a newspaper. The process sometimes leads to enough understanding of the background, and issues involved , that someone may then more confidently venture out with a new idea of their own ...perhaps one more strongly based in the realities of a given situation.
Hope that is clear now.
Sometimes taking a well- defined perspective/suggestion/solution and critiquing it is a good way to begin explore an idea. Then one can extrapolate from it into new possibilities, rather than just pulling narrow opinions from a hat or a newspaper. The process sometimes leads to enough understanding of the background, and issues involved , that someone may then more confidently venture out with a new idea of their own ...perhaps one more strongly based in the realities of a given situation.
Hope that is clear now.
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
DeletePosted:oh yeah, OWD, I really like how clearly you lay out your thought processes! TX!
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
DeletePosted: Written by: Doc Lightning
This is an Israeli soldier, or the whole IDF? And the ruling of a British court is absolute fact?
Israeli court actually. But then maybe they thought they would sacrifice their soldier just to appease the Brits?
And I don't think the issue here is one Israeli soldier vs the whole IDF, it's an issue of one dead British citizen vs thousands of dead Palestinians.
This is an Israeli soldier, or the whole IDF? And the ruling of a British court is absolute fact?
Israeli court actually. But then maybe they thought they would sacrifice their soldier just to appease the Brits?
And I don't think the issue here is one Israeli soldier vs the whole IDF, it's an issue of one dead British citizen vs thousands of dead Palestinians.
Delete
Posted:Yes, there are more Palestinian dead than Israei dead since the start of the 2nd Intifada, but do yo know why that is?
1) Palestinians refuse to allow their citizens to be treated in Israeli hospitals. Israel has offered to treat anyone injured in the 2nd Intifada at Israel's cost, and thsi has been refused by the government. And their doing the same for the Lebanese http://www.medindia.net/news/view_news_main.asp?x=12672
. You don't see that reported though, do you?
2) Researchers found that "Palestinians are directly responsible for the deaths of at least 185 of their own number - one out of every eight Palestinians killed" in the conflict thus far.
3) Palestinians count in the death toll the bombers themselves, people shot before they could blow themselves up and bomb makers families and schools next door when home made bombs explode without warning. How are these people Israeli caused casualties?
4) Israels medical centre's are better and more advanced than the Palestinians. Hence, more non-fatal injuries prove fatal in Palestine than in Israel.
In short, the attackers aren't getting any less murderous, its just getting harder to kill.
1) Palestinians refuse to allow their citizens to be treated in Israeli hospitals. Israel has offered to treat anyone injured in the 2nd Intifada at Israel's cost, and thsi has been refused by the government. And their doing the same for the Lebanese http://www.medindia.net/news/view_news_main.asp?x=12672
. You don't see that reported though, do you?
2) Researchers found that "Palestinians are directly responsible for the deaths of at least 185 of their own number - one out of every eight Palestinians killed" in the conflict thus far.
3) Palestinians count in the death toll the bombers themselves, people shot before they could blow themselves up and bomb makers families and schools next door when home made bombs explode without warning. How are these people Israeli caused casualties?
4) Israels medical centre's are better and more advanced than the Palestinians. Hence, more non-fatal injuries prove fatal in Palestine than in Israel.
In short, the attackers aren't getting any less murderous, its just getting harder to kill.
'If your deeds shouldn't be known, perhaps they shouldn't be done, if your words shouldn't be shared, perhaps they shouldn't be spoken. Act with attention, for all your acts have consequences" (Rabbi Judah HaNassi)
DeletePosted: Written by: FireTom
@ all: What would you suggest to be the best solution to this conflict - apart from relocating the Israeli nation? What if you'd have the power to do something?
I think Israel is here to stay. Whether we like it or not I think we need to accept that. It's a fact that most Arabs also accept I think, definitely at a government level. However that doesn't mean that the creation of Israel was justified. I think that is something the Israelis need to accept. That the country of Israel was not their god given right, and that it's creation caused a lot of suffering. I think that realisation and acceptance has to be the first step towards reconciliation .
Following that, if Israel returns to its 1967 borders, all Arab countries would recognise it as a legitimate country and establish diplomatic ties with it. Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia have already formally stated this: http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm
br>
The threat of attacks by extremists who do not accept this reality (there will always be a few idiots on both sides who want to derail the process) would have to be tacked in a number of different ways. Firstly, Israel could build a wall along its 1967 borders, which the world would not object to, unlike the present wall which runs through occupied land. Money would also have to be pumped into the new Palestinian state to improve the standard of living, so that people actually have a reason to want to live, which presently is not the case.
I think with full Arab recognition of Israel (especially by Saudi Arabia) and a withdrawal to 1967 borders there would be tremendous pressure on Palestinians to accept Israel and get on with establishing their own country. I realise that peace plans have been put forward in the past, but there have been many problems associated with them. Some major problems have been that despite moving towards 'peace', Israel continued to build settlements, innocent Palestinians continued to die, and consequently they continued to send suicide bombers into Israel.
Sound like a plan?
@ all: What would you suggest to be the best solution to this conflict - apart from relocating the Israeli nation? What if you'd have the power to do something?
I think Israel is here to stay. Whether we like it or not I think we need to accept that. It's a fact that most Arabs also accept I think, definitely at a government level. However that doesn't mean that the creation of Israel was justified. I think that is something the Israelis need to accept. That the country of Israel was not their god given right, and that it's creation caused a lot of suffering. I think that realisation and acceptance has to be the first step towards reconciliation .
Following that, if Israel returns to its 1967 borders, all Arab countries would recognise it as a legitimate country and establish diplomatic ties with it. Arab countries, led by Saudi Arabia have already formally stated this: http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm
br>
The threat of attacks by extremists who do not accept this reality (there will always be a few idiots on both sides who want to derail the process) would have to be tacked in a number of different ways. Firstly, Israel could build a wall along its 1967 borders, which the world would not object to, unlike the present wall which runs through occupied land. Money would also have to be pumped into the new Palestinian state to improve the standard of living, so that people actually have a reason to want to live, which presently is not the case.
I think with full Arab recognition of Israel (especially by Saudi Arabia) and a withdrawal to 1967 borders there would be tremendous pressure on Palestinians to accept Israel and get on with establishing their own country. I realise that peace plans have been put forward in the past, but there have been many problems associated with them. Some major problems have been that despite moving towards 'peace', Israel continued to build settlements, innocent Palestinians continued to die, and consequently they continued to send suicide bombers into Israel.
Sound like a plan?
Delete
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001
![Doc Lightning]()
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
GOLD Member since May 2001
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: andrealee
Doc, I can get how you might have misunderstood. But I meant that we should try that, in terms of developing our discussion, not as a reference to anything Isreal has/has not tried or considered.
Sometimes taking a well- defined perspective/suggestion/solution and critiquing it is a good way to begin explore an idea. Then one can extrapolate from it into new possibilities, rather than just pulling narrow opinions from a hat or a newspaper. The process sometimes leads to enough understanding of the background, and issues involved , that someone may then more confidently venture out with a new idea of their own ...perhaps one more strongly based in the realities of a given situation.
Hope that is clear now.
My argument stays the same, that you're talking in circles. You keep talking about "peaceful alternatives" and then you acknowledge that none may exist without a large committee of university professors and lord-knows-who sitting down and going over it all.
RIGHT NOW as the rockets sail across Israel's border, they need to make it stop RIGHT NOW. And they need to keep it stopped long enough for any other action to take.
When Germany bombed England (and yes, the analogy is fair), England fought back. Lebanon bombed Israel and Israel is fighting back.
Doc, I can get how you might have misunderstood. But I meant that we should try that, in terms of developing our discussion, not as a reference to anything Isreal has/has not tried or considered.
Sometimes taking a well- defined perspective/suggestion/solution and critiquing it is a good way to begin explore an idea. Then one can extrapolate from it into new possibilities, rather than just pulling narrow opinions from a hat or a newspaper. The process sometimes leads to enough understanding of the background, and issues involved , that someone may then more confidently venture out with a new idea of their own ...perhaps one more strongly based in the realities of a given situation.
Hope that is clear now.
My argument stays the same, that you're talking in circles. You keep talking about "peaceful alternatives" and then you acknowledge that none may exist without a large committee of university professors and lord-knows-who sitting down and going over it all.
RIGHT NOW as the rockets sail across Israel's border, they need to make it stop RIGHT NOW. And they need to keep it stopped long enough for any other action to take.
When Germany bombed England (and yes, the analogy is fair), England fought back. Lebanon bombed Israel and Israel is fighting back.
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
Posted: Written by: Doc Lightning
When Germany bombed England (and yes, the analogy is fair), England fought back. Lebanon bombed Israel and Israel is fighting back.
Hey hey hey. I don't know what history books you read but mine never mentioned anything about England using their military might to opress other cultures. And I'm CERTAIN that England never bombed cities with civilians in them. That would have been rude.
When Germany bombed England (and yes, the analogy is fair), England fought back. Lebanon bombed Israel and Israel is fighting back.
Hey hey hey. I don't know what history books you read but mine never mentioned anything about England using their military might to opress other cultures. And I'm CERTAIN that England never bombed cities with civilians in them. That would have been rude.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
Posted:i was thinking about the wall idea
if it was possible to build a dome force field over Israel that would let air and sunlight through but not missiles and people
if it was possible to build a dome force field over Israel that would let air and sunlight through but not missiles and people
Delete
Posted: Written by: FireTom
Yellfire, in my eyes this was the most constructive post... Not condescending, dude
I agree with what you propose - on top of this I reckon there is need for an European peacekeeping force RIGHT NOW to put a buffer between Arabs and Israelis.
Thanks FireTom
Yes, I agree, a strong peacekeeping force / international inspectors in all occupied and border areas would have to be the first step.
Yellfire, in my eyes this was the most constructive post... Not condescending, dude
I agree with what you propose - on top of this I reckon there is need for an European peacekeeping force RIGHT NOW to put a buffer between Arabs and Israelis. Thanks FireTom
Yes, I agree, a strong peacekeeping force / international inspectors in all occupied and border areas would have to be the first step.
Delete
onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3252
GOLD Member since Aug 2002
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: FireTom
Relocating Israel is not practical - it has been mentioned a few times before. Not only the people living in Israel, also the (orthodox) Jews living outside Israel would strongly oppose this...
Any conceivable solution proposed to this conflict is going to be heavily opposed by some groups, so the fact that relocation is strongly opposed by orthodox jews is not necessarily fatal to the idea.
Personally, it's my belief that opposing relocation on fundamentalist religious grounds is wrong and I know that many others, including some Israelis and jews, would agree.
I think that no more credence should be given to opposing relocation on religious grounds, than is given to any other fundamentalist religious views that lead to oppression and violence.
If Israel remains where it is then the violence will continue for generations, each new generation of Israeli jewish children having to endure life in what is virtually a war zone.
Why should groups of religious fundamentalists be allowed to deny those new generations a genuine, peaceful homeland in a land with no enemies?
Relocating Israel is not practical - it has been mentioned a few times before. Not only the people living in Israel, also the (orthodox) Jews living outside Israel would strongly oppose this...
Any conceivable solution proposed to this conflict is going to be heavily opposed by some groups, so the fact that relocation is strongly opposed by orthodox jews is not necessarily fatal to the idea.
Personally, it's my belief that opposing relocation on fundamentalist religious grounds is wrong and I know that many others, including some Israelis and jews, would agree.
I think that no more credence should be given to opposing relocation on religious grounds, than is given to any other fundamentalist religious views that lead to oppression and violence.
If Israel remains where it is then the violence will continue for generations, each new generation of Israeli jewish children having to endure life in what is virtually a war zone.
Why should groups of religious fundamentalists be allowed to deny those new generations a genuine, peaceful homeland in a land with no enemies?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Posted:Firetom, I think you had some very valid suggestions, and a multifactored approach is definately one that holds the most promise for peace.
Mike, if you think I speak in circles it is because you keep saying the same thing repeatedly, sometimes in capitals with cute gremlins,but without any development of the concept. And I keep responding consistently, in the same manner, because nothing you say has changed any of my perspective.So it goes. Dull though, isn't it.
I am not a pacifist to the point where I would let someone attack me repeatedly.Dont beleive in that personally, and not as a nation. Not at all. I dont know what gave you that impression. Nor would I let someone supress me , repeatedly. I do think there is a place for the use of power, and even force. Not to create true peace, but sometimes just to control the situation enough that people can take a breather and sort out the immediate problems, injured, destroyed infrastructure , etc etc.
But I think this kind of force needs to be used very very selectively. From the historical examples I have seen, it is best developed and most successful when done with the agreement , financial support and physical involvement of the international community- not just a single nations stiking out on thier own against another. Germany and Britain were not the only countries involved in the war, and the winning of that war came about through collective action in defense of our values.
I dont see the attack Isreal made on Lebanon this way ,because though forceful, it is not likely to result in anything that would be *successful* in protecting their citizens or even allow for other long term solutions to manifest. If they do, and I hope they will- through the UN meetings taking place right now- it will be despite this behaviour, not because of it.
Peace I think is a much longer process, and yes, I would like to see the wisdom of a wide variety of people applied to its development!Of course! This can happen while other possibilities are being explored and acted on, it is not one or the other. You seem to think in dichotomies. I think this sort of divisive thinking exemplifies and aggravates this kind of problem.
I would agree with others that a powerful international military force should be put in place immediately within a significant buffer zone, and they should forcefully ensure that humanitarian aid can reach the area and help the citizens. Immediate ceasefire agreement, with severe consequences from the International community if anyone violates it on either side.
I have not bothered to mention my perspective on that because it seems rather obvious to me, as a short term solution. And from the media I get, likely to manifest. I personally have been more engaged in discussions of what pople are doing in regards to the long term perspectives. Historical background as it relates to future developments.
Lots of the issues I have been considering essentially appear to be cultural differences aggravated by economic imbalances and left to fester. Nations and cultures that have not had the financial security and independance to use what they do have productively. People that are safe happy and productive are lots less likely to bomb each other. Many of the various cultures invlved have had huge stretches of peaceful time coexisting cooperatively in prosperous communities. So maybe by looking at those periods of time, and trying to figure out what facilitated that, would be useful.
sorry this is waaay tooo long and I am out of time anyways!
Mike, if you think I speak in circles it is because you keep saying the same thing repeatedly, sometimes in capitals with cute gremlins,but without any development of the concept. And I keep responding consistently, in the same manner, because nothing you say has changed any of my perspective.So it goes. Dull though, isn't it.
I am not a pacifist to the point where I would let someone attack me repeatedly.Dont beleive in that personally, and not as a nation. Not at all. I dont know what gave you that impression. Nor would I let someone supress me , repeatedly. I do think there is a place for the use of power, and even force. Not to create true peace, but sometimes just to control the situation enough that people can take a breather and sort out the immediate problems, injured, destroyed infrastructure , etc etc.
But I think this kind of force needs to be used very very selectively. From the historical examples I have seen, it is best developed and most successful when done with the agreement , financial support and physical involvement of the international community- not just a single nations stiking out on thier own against another. Germany and Britain were not the only countries involved in the war, and the winning of that war came about through collective action in defense of our values.
I dont see the attack Isreal made on Lebanon this way ,because though forceful, it is not likely to result in anything that would be *successful* in protecting their citizens or even allow for other long term solutions to manifest. If they do, and I hope they will- through the UN meetings taking place right now- it will be despite this behaviour, not because of it.
Peace I think is a much longer process, and yes, I would like to see the wisdom of a wide variety of people applied to its development!Of course! This can happen while other possibilities are being explored and acted on, it is not one or the other. You seem to think in dichotomies. I think this sort of divisive thinking exemplifies and aggravates this kind of problem.
I would agree with others that a powerful international military force should be put in place immediately within a significant buffer zone, and they should forcefully ensure that humanitarian aid can reach the area and help the citizens. Immediate ceasefire agreement, with severe consequences from the International community if anyone violates it on either side.
I have not bothered to mention my perspective on that because it seems rather obvious to me, as a short term solution. And from the media I get, likely to manifest. I personally have been more engaged in discussions of what pople are doing in regards to the long term perspectives. Historical background as it relates to future developments.
Lots of the issues I have been considering essentially appear to be cultural differences aggravated by economic imbalances and left to fester. Nations and cultures that have not had the financial security and independance to use what they do have productively. People that are safe happy and productive are lots less likely to bomb each other. Many of the various cultures invlved have had huge stretches of peaceful time coexisting cooperatively in prosperous communities. So maybe by looking at those periods of time, and trying to figure out what facilitated that, would be useful.
sorry this is waaay tooo long and I am out of time anyways!
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
DeletePosted:But this is the phenomenon, no? People are used to the situation, because it's always been that way and nobody can change... or wants to.
Give'm nutella creemchease waffles and a kiss, hey.
Give'm nutella creemchease waffles and a kiss, hey.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001
![Doc Lightning]()
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
GOLD Member since May 2001
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: FireTom
Support for the (re)development of Palestine/ Lebanon housing and infrastructure, health and educational system by Israel, the US, Europe AND the surrounding arab nations.
I'm sure that would work just fantastically, just like it's working in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Non-Https Image Link
These changes have to come from within, not from without.
Written by:
I reckon this would be the way to go. As with Jerusalem, it has to belong to Israel as ONE.
What you think?
I think that giving all of Jerusalem to Israel is a terrible idea for a few reasons. First, the Muslims have been living there for about 2,000 years and they have just as much right to it as anyone else.
Second, the Temple Mount. Do you have ANY idea what would happen if Israel got control of it? They'd knock down the Dome of the Rock in a second and rebuild the Temple. And THEN...OMG...it would be a nightmare because the Chasidic Jews would be running around screaming about Meshiach (the Messiah) and this, that, and the other thing and it would lead to a rise in power of the Religious Right. And I hate them. Passionately. If you think that ultra-religious Christians and Muslims are bad, you have never run into the supreme arrogance and self-assurance that is an ultra-Orthodox Jew.
Of course, eventually, when the Temple is rebuilt and they have a red cow (yes, they need a red cow for some reason) and all their other stars aligned and Meshiach doesn't come back...
...Well that's an interesting thought.
Support for the (re)development of Palestine/ Lebanon housing and infrastructure, health and educational system by Israel, the US, Europe AND the surrounding arab nations.
I'm sure that would work just fantastically, just like it's working in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Non-Https Image Link
These changes have to come from within, not from without.
Written by:
I reckon this would be the way to go. As with Jerusalem, it has to belong to Israel as ONE.
What you think?
I think that giving all of Jerusalem to Israel is a terrible idea for a few reasons. First, the Muslims have been living there for about 2,000 years and they have just as much right to it as anyone else.
Second, the Temple Mount. Do you have ANY idea what would happen if Israel got control of it? They'd knock down the Dome of the Rock in a second and rebuild the Temple. And THEN...OMG...it would be a nightmare because the Chasidic Jews would be running around screaming about Meshiach (the Messiah) and this, that, and the other thing and it would lead to a rise in power of the Religious Right. And I hate them. Passionately. If you think that ultra-religious Christians and Muslims are bad, you have never run into the supreme arrogance and self-assurance that is an ultra-Orthodox Jew.
Of course, eventually, when the Temple is rebuilt and they have a red cow (yes, they need a red cow for some reason) and all their other stars aligned and Meshiach doesn't come back...
...Well that's an interesting thought.
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001
![Doc Lightning]()
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
GOLD Member since May 2001
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: andrealee
Mike, if you think I speak in circles it is because you keep saying the same thing repeatedly, sometimes in capitals with cute gremlins,but without any development of the concept. And I keep responding consistently, in the same manner, because nothing you say has changed any of my perspective.So it goes. Dull though, isn't it.
Not necessarily
Non-Https Image Link
. Why, you ask?
Written by:
I would agree with others that a powerful international military force should be put in place immediately within a significant buffer zone, and they should forcefully ensure that humanitarian aid can reach the area and help the citizens. Immediate ceasefire agreement, with severe consequences from the International community if anyone violates it on either side.
Ok, you say "buffer zone" I say "wall." Potayto, potahto, tomayto, tomahto...
Same thing. The point is that the two sides need to be separated and a long-term solution needs to be realized. I like a wall because it's easier than enforcing a buffer zone and it's more permanent.
Had Israel sat back on its haunches and the UN had come running, the UN would have been in the same jam as Israel, having to attack civilians and such and again Lebanese casualities would have far outnumbered Israeli casualties for the same reason. It doesn't matter who is defending Israel, it's that Hezbollah has set it up so that no defense is possible without massive civilian casualties.
So you want peacekeepers, so do I. And I want a wall. And I want Israel to stop shooting and let the lebanese keep firing across the wall until the world sees the truth.
The solution, however, is NOT to storm Beiruit and take out the government because we've already done that in two middle-eastern countries with strong Muslim cultures and that makes a mess.
The solution may be just to isolate Lebanon from Israel and let Lebanon work out its own issues. Either its people will rise up and change their government or a theocracy will take over. I don't think that there is a good external solution to changing the course of Lebanon's internal structure.
Mike, if you think I speak in circles it is because you keep saying the same thing repeatedly, sometimes in capitals with cute gremlins,but without any development of the concept. And I keep responding consistently, in the same manner, because nothing you say has changed any of my perspective.So it goes. Dull though, isn't it.
Not necessarily
Non-Https Image Link
. Why, you ask?
Written by:
I would agree with others that a powerful international military force should be put in place immediately within a significant buffer zone, and they should forcefully ensure that humanitarian aid can reach the area and help the citizens. Immediate ceasefire agreement, with severe consequences from the International community if anyone violates it on either side.
Ok, you say "buffer zone" I say "wall." Potayto, potahto, tomayto, tomahto...
Same thing. The point is that the two sides need to be separated and a long-term solution needs to be realized. I like a wall because it's easier than enforcing a buffer zone and it's more permanent.
Had Israel sat back on its haunches and the UN had come running, the UN would have been in the same jam as Israel, having to attack civilians and such and again Lebanese casualities would have far outnumbered Israeli casualties for the same reason. It doesn't matter who is defending Israel, it's that Hezbollah has set it up so that no defense is possible without massive civilian casualties.
So you want peacekeepers, so do I. And I want a wall. And I want Israel to stop shooting and let the lebanese keep firing across the wall until the world sees the truth.
The solution, however, is NOT to storm Beiruit and take out the government because we've already done that in two middle-eastern countries with strong Muslim cultures and that makes a mess.
The solution may be just to isolate Lebanon from Israel and let Lebanon work out its own issues. Either its people will rise up and change their government or a theocracy will take over. I don't think that there is a good external solution to changing the course of Lebanon's internal structure.
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
Posted:Wall is a bit different than a buffer zone marshalled by an international force... but I do see the point. Yet without the other measures- peace and social cultural developments, rather than simply defense and protection- it will come down to someone detonating a nuclear bomb in the area and walls will become quickly irrelevant. Or maybe they would decide to poison the water systems, use biological weapons, whatever. A wall would perhaps offer a little time out, but how fast could an immpenetrable wall be built anyways? Not fast enough , or effective enough.
An international force would be the relatively short term measure- just to stop the damage right now. Allow time to refocus on solutions and negotiations without adding to the slaughter. It is hard to even discuss peace while your people are being killed.
Sadly, the UN at the time would not likely have come running if Isreal had called prior to bombing- one of the major problems we need to look at as an international community is why we have not given the UN the power and cooperation it needs to be effective in peacekeeping and humanitarian issues. Rwanda, Darfour, Sierra Leone-- we have failed many times to intervene in a timely fashoin even when asked.
How that can be changed? If faith in the UN's ability to do such things has been broken, maybe throw out that form, learn from the mistakes and reinvent another international body in such a way that reflects current needs and visions of the future " global village".
And it is different if an international community kills civilians unintentionally while enforcing a ceasefire or buffer zone-for one, it does not feed the negative Isreali movement,and makes it harder for one group to say that another is persecuting , has always persecuted, etc etc thus feeding the flame for future generations. It shows that there is a consensus for a given action. That that action was deliberated and agreed upon by a substantial group, and was given enough significance that people from countries only indirectly involved would be willing to sacrifice themselves for a communal goal.
When just one country intervenes, financially or militarily, it is often seen as manipulation, profiteering, busy-bodying- etc etc... Often seen that way and often may be that way. A groups motives would reflect a braoder range of opinions and needs, and likely incite less suspiciion and animousity overall.
The international community is much more likely to get serious about solutions if they have commitment in the area. Hardly any Candians ever thought two bits about Afganistan, but now that our military is there at great expense and dying daily, we have become very motivated and active in working towards peace and development - so ultimately we dont have to use our military there.
Both Japans and Germanys governments( and societies) changed radically after the second world war. Not suggesting a third as a good idea, but just curious why you think one country is capable of change like that, after some serious international intervention- and another, like Lebanon, is not. Religious extremism?
Did the various rebuilding support $$ and programs offered by the world facilitate that change? Both those countries c grew from their defeat into prosperous peaceful nations.
Not saying I think Isreal or Lebanon could would or should, but curious...
An international force would be the relatively short term measure- just to stop the damage right now. Allow time to refocus on solutions and negotiations without adding to the slaughter. It is hard to even discuss peace while your people are being killed.
Sadly, the UN at the time would not likely have come running if Isreal had called prior to bombing- one of the major problems we need to look at as an international community is why we have not given the UN the power and cooperation it needs to be effective in peacekeeping and humanitarian issues. Rwanda, Darfour, Sierra Leone-- we have failed many times to intervene in a timely fashoin even when asked.
How that can be changed? If faith in the UN's ability to do such things has been broken, maybe throw out that form, learn from the mistakes and reinvent another international body in such a way that reflects current needs and visions of the future " global village".
And it is different if an international community kills civilians unintentionally while enforcing a ceasefire or buffer zone-for one, it does not feed the negative Isreali movement,and makes it harder for one group to say that another is persecuting , has always persecuted, etc etc thus feeding the flame for future generations. It shows that there is a consensus for a given action. That that action was deliberated and agreed upon by a substantial group, and was given enough significance that people from countries only indirectly involved would be willing to sacrifice themselves for a communal goal.
When just one country intervenes, financially or militarily, it is often seen as manipulation, profiteering, busy-bodying- etc etc... Often seen that way and often may be that way. A groups motives would reflect a braoder range of opinions and needs, and likely incite less suspiciion and animousity overall.
The international community is much more likely to get serious about solutions if they have commitment in the area. Hardly any Candians ever thought two bits about Afganistan, but now that our military is there at great expense and dying daily, we have become very motivated and active in working towards peace and development - so ultimately we dont have to use our military there.
Both Japans and Germanys governments( and societies) changed radically after the second world war. Not suggesting a third as a good idea, but just curious why you think one country is capable of change like that, after some serious international intervention- and another, like Lebanon, is not. Religious extremism?
Did the various rebuilding support $$ and programs offered by the world facilitate that change? Both those countries c grew from their defeat into prosperous peaceful nations.
Not saying I think Isreal or Lebanon could would or should, but curious...
"God *was* my co-pilot, but then we crashed, and I had to eat him..."
DeletePosted:Thanks for that FireTom, and Yellfire for your great posts. Id have to agree that relocating Israel is not practical, but peace seems a lot more possible than it did yesterday.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Delete
Posted:Gee you guys ripped me a new one 
Sorry i didnt come accross very well. Sorry also Patriarch917, I wasn't meaning ALL americans. I was only refering to Lightning and NYC. I feel its pointless to debate either of them as they are both more intelligent than me, and know more about the situation. Also i have never seen NYC admitt he was wrong, he will hold his ground in debate and not shift in opinion (maybe hes different IRL) Which is why i said i "Im not going to bother to even try to debate this rationally" though i didnt mean it
My reasons for exploring biast are complex.
How can you self assess if YOU are biast? Im not sure you can, you can remain biast and not even know you are. (Im not stating they actually ARE biast, they just come accross that way)
Ie Lightning is Jewish (i think) and also American. American (Govt) supports Israel (even sitting on your hands doing nothing is ACTION imo) Many Americans are christians (related to jews) so also have a loyalty to Israel. Therefor im not sure they can view this situation objectivly. (that and whats been posted) This works on both sides, if your a Jew chances are you support your people, Lebanese you support your side. (Although both sides know more about the situation than people on the outside, the outsiders have less biast) Also when all your people are forced to join an army, and the army uses desensorization techniques, its possible, for your whole nation to become desensortized. (meaning the hate on both sides is actually engrained)
But i digress, my whole main point was this:
If you deal with people on a human level you can make huge changes, both countries have to meet face to face and deal, not pretend the other dosnt exist. But is also starts with us. I mean if WE cant even have a chat about this without losing our heads, what chance is there for the Arabs and the Jews? We should take a look at ourselves, shelve our own biast, and really try to "make good" with each other. Only then have we got the right to tell others how to act. Like paying it forward. Leading by example.
Id like to think if i was born there, i would leave.
Putting up walls or peace keepers only serves to continue the hate and segrigation. (It may be successful at lowering the death toll *if you call that peace*) If you really want peace you actually have to learn to live with your enemy. If you cant accept that, youll be at war forever.
Maybe there is no solution
i honestly have no idea, except i think its crap and we should all except others as people regardless of beleif.
There have been some really interesting points on both sides of this. Atleast my brain is learning
Sorry i didnt come accross very well. Sorry also Patriarch917, I wasn't meaning ALL americans. I was only refering to Lightning and NYC. I feel its pointless to debate either of them as they are both more intelligent than me, and know more about the situation. Also i have never seen NYC admitt he was wrong, he will hold his ground in debate and not shift in opinion (maybe hes different IRL) Which is why i said i "Im not going to bother to even try to debate this rationally" though i didnt mean it
My reasons for exploring biast are complex.
How can you self assess if YOU are biast? Im not sure you can, you can remain biast and not even know you are. (Im not stating they actually ARE biast, they just come accross that way)
Ie Lightning is Jewish (i think) and also American. American (Govt) supports Israel (even sitting on your hands doing nothing is ACTION imo) Many Americans are christians (related to jews) so also have a loyalty to Israel. Therefor im not sure they can view this situation objectivly. (that and whats been posted) This works on both sides, if your a Jew chances are you support your people, Lebanese you support your side. (Although both sides know more about the situation than people on the outside, the outsiders have less biast) Also when all your people are forced to join an army, and the army uses desensorization techniques, its possible, for your whole nation to become desensortized. (meaning the hate on both sides is actually engrained)
But i digress, my whole main point was this:
If you deal with people on a human level you can make huge changes, both countries have to meet face to face and deal, not pretend the other dosnt exist. But is also starts with us. I mean if WE cant even have a chat about this without losing our heads, what chance is there for the Arabs and the Jews? We should take a look at ourselves, shelve our own biast, and really try to "make good" with each other. Only then have we got the right to tell others how to act. Like paying it forward. Leading by example.
Id like to think if i was born there, i would leave.
Putting up walls or peace keepers only serves to continue the hate and segrigation. (It may be successful at lowering the death toll *if you call that peace*) If you really want peace you actually have to learn to live with your enemy. If you cant accept that, youll be at war forever.
Maybe there is no solution
i honestly have no idea, except i think its crap and we should all except others as people regardless of beleif.There have been some really interesting points on both sides of this. Atleast my brain is learning
Delete
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001
![Doc Lightning]()
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
GOLD Member since May 2001
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: Dragon7
Ie Lightning is Jewish (i think) and also American. American (Govt) supports Israel (even sitting on your hands doing nothing is ACTION imo) Many Americans are christians (related to jews) so also have a loyalty to Israel.
I'm sorry, but in other threads, I have openly and gleefully ripped new arseholes in both U.S. and Israeli policy.
In this case, when faced with raw facts (nations have the right to defend themselves and Israel was attacked without provocation by a foreign military fighting illegally and using civilians as collateral), I have to side with Israel for being pragmatic.
Ie Lightning is Jewish (i think) and also American. American (Govt) supports Israel (even sitting on your hands doing nothing is ACTION imo) Many Americans are christians (related to jews) so also have a loyalty to Israel.
I'm sorry, but in other threads, I have openly and gleefully ripped new arseholes in both U.S. and Israeli policy.
In this case, when faced with raw facts (nations have the right to defend themselves and Israel was attacked without provocation by a foreign military fighting illegally and using civilians as collateral), I have to side with Israel for being pragmatic.
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
Posted:Um, it is 4.38am here, so excuse me if i've misunderstood....bur Doc, Israel already owns Jerusalem and Temple Mount....the closest the the Hassidics running round screaming Moschiach is the elderly tour leader scratching at the cement wall saying she'll get in eventually!
Anyway, the kill all the Red Cows in Israel.
Anyway, the kill all the Red Cows in Israel.
'If your deeds shouldn't be known, perhaps they shouldn't be done, if your words shouldn't be shared, perhaps they shouldn't be spoken. Act with attention, for all your acts have consequences" (Rabbi Judah HaNassi)
DeletePyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Total posts: 3289
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Total posts: 3289
Posted: Written by: NYC
And I'm CERTAIN that England never bombed cities with civilians in them. That would have been rude.
this thread is highly complicated by the usual HOP mix of illogic and emotional reasoning, so i dont know if youre being sarcastic NYC. The British command definitely ordered bombers to drop their bombs on civilian areas in Germany. My Grandfather was an English bomber pilot that received such orders - and when he questioned them he was instructed to drop the bombs or face court martial (or something similar).
And I'm CERTAIN that England never bombed cities with civilians in them. That would have been rude.
this thread is highly complicated by the usual HOP mix of illogic and emotional reasoning, so i dont know if youre being sarcastic NYC. The British command definitely ordered bombers to drop their bombs on civilian areas in Germany. My Grandfather was an English bomber pilot that received such orders - and when he questioned them he was instructed to drop the bombs or face court martial (or something similar).
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
Sym
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004
![Sym]()
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Total posts: 1858
BRONZE Member since Sep 2004
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Total posts: 1858
Posted:Thats got to be sarcastic....
heres a follow up from the link I posted before:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5255966.stm
heres a follow up from the link I posted before:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5255966.stm
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Delete
Posted: Written by: Doc Lightning
Written by: jeff(fake)
In any case the Isreali argument for war look very dubious to me. A far greater number of people have died (somewhere around a thousand now) as a result than would have done if peaceful resolutions were persued.
AAAARRGH!!!!
I swear to god the next person who brings up this bullhonkey about "peaceful alternatives" without ACTUALLY SUGGESTING WHAT FEASABLE PEACEFUL ALTERNATIVES THERE MIGHT BE...
Have you been READING the thread, Jeff?
How about this for a peaceful alternative:
1. Isreal withdraws immeadiately from Lebanon, requests an international peacekeeping force to stop Hezbola rockets. (assuming that they don't cease if Isreal withdraws, which seeing as they started being launched in bulk in retaliation to airstrikes they may well do)
2. Attempt diplomacy with those involved.
3. Apologize to everyone for being ass heads.
Wouldn't that be better than a thousand dead people?
Written by: jeff(fake)
In any case the Isreali argument for war look very dubious to me. A far greater number of people have died (somewhere around a thousand now) as a result than would have done if peaceful resolutions were persued.
AAAARRGH!!!!
I swear to god the next person who brings up this bullhonkey about "peaceful alternatives" without ACTUALLY SUGGESTING WHAT FEASABLE PEACEFUL ALTERNATIVES THERE MIGHT BE...
Have you been READING the thread, Jeff?
How about this for a peaceful alternative:
1. Isreal withdraws immeadiately from Lebanon, requests an international peacekeeping force to stop Hezbola rockets. (assuming that they don't cease if Isreal withdraws, which seeing as they started being launched in bulk in retaliation to airstrikes they may well do)
2. Attempt diplomacy with those involved.
3. Apologize to everyone for being ass heads.
Wouldn't that be better than a thousand dead people?
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
DeleteDoc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001
![Doc Lightning]()
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
GOLD Member since May 2001
HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by: jeff(fake)
1. Isreal withdraws immeadiately from Lebanon, requests an international peacekeeping force to stop Hezbola rockets. (assuming that they don't cease if Isreal withdraws, which seeing as they started being launched in bulk in retaliation to airstrikes they may well do)
2. Attempt diplomacy with those involved.
3. Apologize to everyone for being ass heads.
1) Airstrikes? Link, please?
2) Those involved have explicitly said they are not interested in diplomacy. Hezbollah has publicly and explicitly said they will not talk with anyone until Israel is gone. Maybe you missed the other six times I've said that.
3) Way to be impartial.
1. Isreal withdraws immeadiately from Lebanon, requests an international peacekeeping force to stop Hezbola rockets. (assuming that they don't cease if Isreal withdraws, which seeing as they started being launched in bulk in retaliation to airstrikes they may well do)
2. Attempt diplomacy with those involved.
3. Apologize to everyone for being ass heads.
1) Airstrikes? Link, please?
2) Those involved have explicitly said they are not interested in diplomacy. Hezbollah has publicly and explicitly said they will not talk with anyone until Israel is gone. Maybe you missed the other six times I've said that.
3) Way to be impartial.
-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura
Posted:I'm basing this information on the well referenced Wikiarticle.
Given that Israeli government's actions have resulted in the deaths of a thousand people so far, destabilised the region and destroyed Israel's international standing, I think Ass heads is an understatement.
Self serveing, irrational, rascist, murderous f**kt**ds, would be my description of choice for the Israeli government.
Given that Israeli government's actions have resulted in the deaths of a thousand people so far, destabilised the region and destroyed Israel's international standing, I think Ass heads is an understatement.
Self serveing, irrational, rascist, murderous f**kt**ds, would be my description of choice for the Israeli government.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Delete
Posted:Good point there Stone..What does God really think about this?
As an atheist I've always suspected that God uses war to mediate disputes and this action we're discussing here might just be part of God's plan. If so, then who are we to intervene?
A U.N. peacekeeping force might piss him off even more
As an atheist I've always suspected that God uses war to mediate disputes and this action we're discussing here might just be part of God's plan. If so, then who are we to intervene?
A U.N. peacekeeping force might piss him off even more
Delete
simian
![simian]()
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Total posts: 3149
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
Location: London
Total posts: 3149
Posted:um, so just read this thread for the first time.
i'm struck by doc's calls for a wall. Although i'm still confused about exactly where he wants it.
I'm surprised noone else has pointed out that there already is a pretty big one, with israeli snipers and everything. i think it's a bit lame.
i'm struck by doc's calls for a wall. Although i'm still confused about exactly where he wants it.
I'm surprised noone else has pointed out that there already is a pretty big one, with israeli snipers and everything. i think it's a bit lame.
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
DeleteSimilar Topics
Using the keywords [israel back war rant] we found the following similar topics.1. Learn > POI > Beginners Weaves > Reverse Behind the back Weave (3 beats BTB) *help/resource
2. Learn > Nunchaku > Rolls > Front too Back, Back too Back, and Continuous Back too Back Handrolls *help/resource
3. Learn > Staff > Intermediate > Back & Forth Behind Back *help/resource
4. Learn > POI > Advanced Weaves > Weave (5 Beats) Behind the back *help/resource
5. Learn > Nunchaku > Rolls > Back too Front, Front too Front and Continuous Front too Front Handrolls *help/resource
Show more..
© 1998 - 2018 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.