Why is Israel getting away with these atrocities?

sounds like pure right-wing fundie neo-con propaganda to me. as i've demonstrated here before, all of your "academic" points are nicely paraphrased in chick tracts. guess what kinds of sources make these arguments?no the academic ones.tell me, faith, have you ever read the qu'ran? even in translation? and "racism" simply means that you make gross generalizations about entire ethnic groups. no, generalizations rarely are specific. we've repeatedly seen you demonstrate your understanding of the word "fact." "facts" like the shoddy and fallacious argument that allah is a moon god who was formerly worshipped as part of a pantheon. another chick-tract-point, and totally ignorant of basic qu'ranic law. palestine blowing people up = bad.
israel blowing people up = good?i'm sorry, but dead people are dead people. yes, faith, murder is morally equivalent to murder. i don't care if you think one side is justified, or one side has claim to land because you think their god is real. my irrational formula that says that mutual hatred is the very cause of this problem, and that more hatred does not help?

---

palestine has no army. guess what? they're all civilians. just armed and angry civilians. israel bombs palestine claiming self defense.palestine bombs israel claiming self defense.curious, that. israel wants control the holy land.palestine wants control of the holy land.curious, that. actually, it appears that you again are the one blindly clinging to false dogma. you happen to think israel's claim to the holy land is valid, and that their god is closer to your god. you agree with their claims of self defense.you have not shown that their claims are valid. just that you agree. and because you agree with them and not the other people claiming the same exact thing, anyone who steps back from the dispute and says that both sides aren't exactly innocent is "just being politically correct."yeah. sure. it's a war, faith. it's been war for several thousand years. neither side is without blood on their hands. jews good, islam bad! i think you're the one glossing over the realities of the situation. you've done this consistently in your tenure here. israel is innocent, palestine is evil. "us and them" mentalities are rarely accurate, and never present the realities and the details of the situation. good v. evil seldom happens in the real world.and you've consistently glossed over the parts of the history where israel displaces palestinians from their own land, conquers their country, and establishes its own state. gee, i wonder why they're pissed.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo

---

maybe i'm missing something here, but this paramilitary organization happens to be an official political party in lebanon -- they are the democratically elected government. am i the only that sees the logical problem with this, apart for the obvious disgust? israel is kicking everybody else's butts faster and better than anyone can attack them -- and they're the victims? israel is allowed to destroy everyone else, in case everyone else tries to destroy them? sounds like you're playing favourites.

---

now israel is bombing subburbs.more than 200 casualties, for 2 kidnappings. at what point does it become obvious that this is a disproportionate response?

---

*sigh*why can't we all just get along? there are no winners in this.

---

yeah, i keep thinking of that song too. seriously good cd. uh, i'm not so sure, this album has alot of judeo-christian imagery, in place of lateralus's hindu imagery. i haven't really bothered to look at the lyrics yet, as the official ones have yet to be released, but there looks to be some more mixed feelings on this one -- particularly the title track. maynard seems to be both commending (and apologizing to?) his mother for her faith, but attacking (or at least questioning) god for his cruelty to her.

---

depends on how you define "civilians." see, since most terrorists are not in official armed forces of recognized countries -- they are civilians.and, in case you hadn't noticed, they're now bombing suburbs. yes, hezbollah has a strong presence there -- but that's like bombing the ghetto to get rid of a gang. i think they're a country much like any other, and do not deserve special consideration and allowences when they step over the line. hezbollah is an official and elected party in lebanon. they are a major part of an alliance that controls all of southern lebanon.make no mistake about this, this is not the bs excuse we use in this country about fighting one little group and nevermind the country. they are as much attacking lebanon as if someone attacked us to remove bush and the neocons from our government. israel is going to war, and treating this like a war. there is none of these petty "military action" excuses -- when a country attacks another country, it's war.is full-blown war and military assualt, and bombings of areas heavily populated with civilians a justified response to two, count them, two kidnappings? faith accuses me of moral equivalence because i say that 200 dead is more serious of a misdeed than 2 kidnappings, or rather, because i think that dead arabs aren't worth less than dead jews. the kidnapped may or may not be alive -- but the 200 dead are dead. and that was this morning, before israel bombed residential areas. how many more are dead now?

---

interesting. i'm divided on this. can you provide more information, like the reasons the lebanese are held in israel (i'm assuming israel has a reason)? clearly. they have to mantain their image as the toughest kid on the playground. i think the idea is to give everyone else the idea that they take terrorism so seriously, and threats so seriously that they will return any attack a 1,000 fold. eventually maing terrorism unthinkable out of fear of repurcusions -- and making other countries want to boot their own terrorists.maybe that's a good strategy, or maybe they've just seen "swordfish" one too many times.

---

yes, while "judith" seems to be a condemnation of his mother's faith, post-stroke, "wings for marie" does not seem to be. it might be highly questioning of god, or angry at god, but not his mother and her faith. though it might just be one of things someone tells someone on their deathbed -- what they want to hear. alot is still very condemning of her congregation, and the religion as a whole. probably had a lot to do with his mother. "jimmy" is also about her stroke, he was only 11 when it happened. that sorta thing can mess a child up.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

---

this presumes two things.1: that this is, in fact, not good strategy. nearest i can tell, war is generally evil and cut-throat. as our founding fathers knew, when they wore normal clothes and hid in the trees, the red-coats marching in formations were pretty easy targets. guess why we're a free country today?2: that when people fight in a war, they only shoot at the guys who like soldiers. this is demonstratably not true, especially since bombs are not picky. no, as of this morning they are targetting residential subburbs, because hizballah has a very strong presence there. has little to do with the airport, more to do with where hizballah occupies. that's a hypothetical rhetorical device, although it probably applies here. sounds like an oxymoron, but yes, i suppose you're right. they could be nuking lebanon. hurray, we're not in a nuclear war yet! is everything short of the worst possible scenario justified or restrained? how do you think people GET to the worst possible scenario? 200 in a week. before bombings began this morning in residential areas. in a country smaller than new jersey. yes, like bombing residential neighborhoods. anything but start a war in the middle east right now. much like republicans believe in downsizing government here, or making it ineffective? republicans aren't the only us government, and democrats are just as much a target as osama... what would you call it when one country bombs another for a week straight? this course of action does not solve the problem; it makes it worse. it makes hizballah's claims seem justified, because israel is attacking lebanon and killing civilians. it does not destroy them: it makes them stronger. martyrdom helps their cause. yes. murder is murder, no matter what country the victim is from. retaliation is not defense. it's revenge.

quote:

---

Deu 32:35 To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.

---

quote:

---

Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

---

quote:

---

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

​

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

---

you will find that this does nothing but escalate the conflict. eventually, the solution will be anhilation of one party. since hizballah is already committed to destroying israel, can utterly anhilating hizballah and killing every last member be justified as neccessary for the self-defense of israel?where do you draw the line?

---

yes, i agree. the world would be a lot safer is every human being on the planet were dead. republicans have the power to release the civilians held in gitmo and get out of american any time they like too. oh, wait, they don't want to? why not?

---

i believe if you ask hizballah, they sould say they kidnapped israeli soldiers as retaliation for their soldiers being kidnapped.it's the middle east. we're dealing with retaliation for retaliation for retaliation... going back a very, very long time.Edited by arachnophilia, : really bad typo

---

you are aware that hizballah is the main party in a democratically elected alliance control of southern lebanon, right? that's not quasi-government, that IS government.personally, a lot of us feel that bush and co hijacked our country. but if china starts bombing us, we're not gonna say "thank you." in fact, we'd probably support bush in bombing the hell out of them in return. israel is fighting a two-front war. ?—? —

---

and now picture canada bombing subburbs in montana in retaliation. no, actually, the point is that we wouldn't prefer something other than democracy -- but we just have to redress our greivances through the system. while we do not approve of the direction bush is taking the country, we would not welcome a foreign country bombing us. yes, by all means. hizballah is petty and childish, from what i have seen, and hate-mongers. i don't know a whole lot about them -- but if they are anything like hamas in their support of suicide bombings, they are despicable and evil for not only their murder of israeli civilians, but their abuse of people through the manipulatory power of religion. heinous on almost all fronts.i just don't think that "they want to kill us all" is a good enough reason to kill them all. it's hard to claim moral high ground when the solution is the same as the problem. from what i have heard, israel ceased bombings to allow civilians leave. while probably mostly a political gesture, it is a welcome and humanitarian one.but this "us or them" mentality doesn't work. disapproving of hizballah and hamas does not mean i have to approve of every israeli action against them. i disagree. if you take away the palestinians' guns, they will pick up rakes and torches. take those away, and they will pick up stones. this is life or death to them, and as the suicide bombings should prove, they are willing to fight it using their own bodies and lives as weapons. taking away their guns will only make them fight HARDER, if less effectively.if you take away the israelis' guns they will not all die. they've faced much bigger threats than some unruly palestinians. they've faced the babylonian empire, the assyrian empire, the roman empire, and nazi germany, and lived to tell the tales. taking away their guns, actually, would not do a whole hell of a lot, to the tell the truth. guns are piss-poor at stopping martyrs -- and martyrs happen to be the weapon the enemy is using. actually, i just turned your point around on you with a subtlety of dagesh placement. "selah" has two different meanings. the first -- the one you meant to use, is "exalt" or "lift up." it's probably used in music (psalms) to indicate a rest or pause. the other meaning, a more sarcastic usage, means "to make light of" although most of the times it's used in the bible it means "treading upon" (in the figurative sense -- abusing someone).edit: just for clarification and the purposes of accuracy and modesty -- i don't speak hebrew either. i've taken a few semesters of the language in college, and thus can read and figure out a good deal of things, but i am neither jewish nor israeli, and hardly fluent. but i'm working on that...Edited by arachnophilia, : added edit

---

well, i have a feeling you won't accept "ignore them" as a good answer. this war may well be more justified than the palestinian front, but the issue here is the disproportionate response.it might be effective strategy to kill ten times more than your enemy -- but it might just also piss off the islamic countries this regime is tied to. thus the "oh, great." there is no winning this, but actions that make things worse should probably be avoided. you don't want to strengthen your enemy's arguments, or provide them with martyrs.personally, i feel the best argument is found in the new testament. love your enemy. they bomb you, you send them care packages and take care of their poor. suicide bombings? send the family of the terrorist condolences on their loss. ridiculous, i know -- but you will not win this battle killing civilians to fight terrorists. that just creates more terrorists. rather, you will win by demonstrating that you are not what they claim you to be, and that you are in fact better for the people there than hizballah or hamas is. if the civilians are happy, they will not elect terrorist groups, and the terrorists will find no people to draft. i am aware that iran regularly sends aid and support to hizballah (mutual hatred of israel), but i'm not sure if they are taking orders from iran. if they are, well. we're looking at war with iran. we probably are anyways. bombing residential areas from the air = civilian deaths. always. i don't think it's that they don't care -- it's that there is little way around it. like i said, no win. however, i would like to continue my argument above, and give an example, from syria.remember the denmark cartoon thing? denmark is currently making special arrangements to evacuate every single danish citizen from lebanon and syria (where most civilians ran to)... even and especially the arab ones. often, the very people who were rioting in the streets. you treat people like enemies, and they are. help them as one of your own, and they are. the war in the middle east will be won with compassion and compromise -- not rockets and bombs. they will find ways. you will not pacify them by taking away their toys. you will only enrage them. the killing isn't so much the problem. a lot of palestinians are frustrated with their relationship to israel. if israel made it better, the pool of available terrorists-in-training drops dramatically. in my opinion, it HAS to be israel, because palestine simply lacks the resources (which is the problem, really), and israel seems more ready to compromise. israel is also in the position of power, undeniable, and that powers paints them as oppressors to the palestinians yes. it works though. they know they will not beat israel marching in formation. sneaky tactics are the ONLY ones that do any damage. it's not like they have jets, either. so no air force. you mean like tossing a bunch of tea into boston harbor and screaming defiance at england? i suspect you're mostly right though.Edited by arachnophilia, : typos

---