Israelis attack!

[KK]

<< Heh, yeah the israelis are purely innocent. Listen fool--you're OBVIOUSLY ignorant to the matter and have no insight about it, so just keep your mouth shut. You're just making a fool of yourself, trust me. You're not worth arguing with. >>



I was pointing out that one of the sides has to go. And it is far easier dealing with the israelis than it is dealing with the religious zealots of palestine. Who would you rather have as a neighbor, israel or palestine? I have yet to hear you voice what the solution should be. I am open for ideas, but don't think anything other than what has been said before will work. It's not pretty but war isn't supposed to be.

People, if anybody thinks anything besides what I have previously stated will work, please let me know.

KK

 

[DAPUNISHER]

<<

<< <<Complete BS. The resaon why the Arabs have been attacking Israel is the very same reason that Bin Laden is attacking the US: Their presence in the ME is an affront to their religion, and the infidels must be removed. This has little to NOTHING to do with land rights, and everything to do with pure hate brought on by the Arabs over religion. Israel was PERFECTLY fine to coexist with Arabs, but the Arabs have repeatedly refused to coexist with the state of Israel starting with a combined Arab attack on the very day Israel was declared a nation.>>

Nice Amused, I see you now are speaking for a whole bunch of peoples. I like this line:

<<He's fallen for anti-Israel propaganda, and hard. It seems you have too.>>

You, on the other hand, who have lived your life in a pro Israeli state and almost never exposed to the other side of the story, aren't infected with any propaganda. Sad that you can't admit that possibility. When you talk of historical knowledge, all you really mean is history as you know it.

It's interesting that you claim Arabs are responding to religion, and yet when the Christian bashing starts over crimes they commit, they always say it's not the religion, but flaws in people. Not saying you make that case, only that many do.

My point is that it's a bit distressing to see so many support violence as a solution to violence. They do so, of course, because they are sure. That type of certainty, it strikes me, is a form of insanity. It is saying that what I think is more important than someone elses
life. The alternative to violence isn't pacifism, it's love. >>



Translation: I have no counter point except to question your facts with ambiguous accusations of bias.

As for Christianity, yes, it has been, and is now to a far lessor extent the cause for many attrocities. This point falls flat with me. Next...

My point to Czar in another thread: How could Nazi aggression in WWII have been stopped with pacifism or "love" as you call it?

Moonie, there is a reason why the Buddhist nations have been walked all over and made to be everyone's bitch throughout history, and you're a perfect example of it. >>

I could not agree with this more! Sometimes you must fight for what is right or "perish from this earth"

 

[no0b]

ooo

 

[Riprorin]

<< Any Muslims out there? What makes me so inferior to you since I am not a muslim? Also, isn't Islam a fairly new religion compared to all the others? If so then how can all other religions be inferior to Islam if they were here long before 'Allah' made his presence known. And who is allah anyway? >>



Ur of the Chaldees is first mentioned in the account of Abraham's journey in Genesis 12:1. The
spiritual ruler of Ur was the moon-god. This god would ultimately become the supreme deity of the entire Babylonian empire. The root names of many individuals in Babylon preserves links to the gods of the Babylonian pantheon:

Senacherib, or "Sin Ech-erib" = "Sin multiplies his brothers."

The god "Sin" was elevated to the top of the Babylonian pantheon by Nabu-na'id (Nabodnidus) in an effort to make Babylonian religion more acceptable to subjects like the Arabians and Aramaeans. The Arabians esteemed the moon god, but had more difficulty identifying with Marduk, the supreme Babylonian deity associated primarily with the city of Babylon.

The god Sin, "The Controller of the Night," had the crescent moon as his emblem, and the lunar-based calendar, which became the primary religious symbols of Islam, was worshipped in Arabia as AI-Ilah. Mecca became the center of all pagan religions of Arabia before Mohammed. AI-Ilah, the Moon God, was the "Lord of the Ka'aba" ("cube") which was formerly the center of pagan worship, ruling over 360 idols. Lucrative trade routes resulted. The Ka'aba black cube in Mecca is of course the center of Islamic worship today.

Islam incorporates beliefs in jinns ( which are genies, fairies); in spells, magic stones, fetishes; and animistic beliefs (spirits living in inanimate objects). See: Suras 55; 72; 113, 114.

 

[snooker]

lol

I have no idea how to decifer that ;-)

 

[Corn]

<< Well what if I were to tell you, Corn, that you were a prisoner, and that your bars were your illusion that you were free. >>



What is "free"? Subjectively I am as free as I wish to be. In the realm of what is real, not just thought, the intractable truth is there are always limits on absolute freedom. Like we didn't know this already. This is an old game Moonie, don't ya think?



<< Do you think that if the truth were something easy to pass on that the world would be in the mess it's in? >>



Ah, but the truth is easy to pass on, which is why a large segment of the population of this world does act with civility to one another. The "truth" is also known to those that are at the root of that which causes much misery....alas perhaps it's that feeling of worthlessness of one's self that drives some to inflict pain unto others!




<< It's impossible enough trying to do so myself, and I'm alread onboard. All I can do is point. >>



Oh, you're "onboard" alright, but that boat is still in drydock.

The answers are all too simple, and the truth is you don't shoot at me and I won't shoot at you. That's an objective truth that most people accord themselves. Unfortunately, a powerful minority in the middle east would rather use their weak underlings to satisfy their bloodlust.

While I feel sorrow for the tragedy committed daily in that region of the world, I can't help but feel a small amount of relief that it's simply a demonstration of Darwinism in it's purest form. The weak are removing themselves at a significant pace, and soon we'll be rid of enough of them to recapture our humanity. Can this really be a bad thing?



<< Many want total destruction of both sides because of the disturbance they cause, the inconvenience they pose in their intractability. You don't suppose people react this way because conflict brings up feelings we would rather not feel, do you? >>



I don't think it's "disturbance" or "inconvenience" that causes some to want the obliteration of "one" or "both" sides of this, or any, protracted conflict. It's simply a projection of our own desire for a quick death a opposed to torture, better to get it over with cleanly and quickly then to hack of an inch or two at a time. Some might consider it the most humane of all feelings. Cancer unchecked can quickly overcome the whole, and our very existence as a species may depend on the removal of either or both "sides".

 

[Devistater]

<< All Israel has todo is to move out of the occupied lands, the gaza strip and the west bank. Remove all there settlements and stop building new ones, all the palistinians want is there homeland back which the Israelies stole 50 years ago. The Israelies have already agreed to do this, before Sharon was in power but it was never implemented.

The Palistinian poeple are undr siege, they don't have and army to fight with, any usefull weapons to use, they use the only thing they have - themselves to fight the Israelies. The Israelies cannot kill Arrafat, if they do then it'll be all out war, Arrafat will be a martre, Jehad - holy war.

They only way to get things moving in the right dirrection is to make concesions to the palistinians, like the uk did to the IRA, and put the ball in there court. >>



1)Why was it never implemented? Because arafat refused the deal. He was getting virtually everything he supposed "wanted" and refused it. Arafat, the so called palastinians, and the surrounding Arab countries have said before they will not be satisifed with anything short of the total descruction of Israel.

2) Oh really? So you justify suicide terrorist bombs by that argument? Do you also justify the 9/11 terrorist action by the same thing? There is NOTHING that justifies terrorist suicide bombings against innocent civilians.

3)That has been done, REPEATEDLY! Don't you read/listen to the news? I've been hearing constantly the past couple months, that arafat and the Israeli government agree to a cease fire for a a while... then bang, next day or whatever another bomb goes off. Concessions have been made and are constantly being made, and it DOES NOT MATTER.

 

[Devistater]

<< Very Good Read >>



No, not really. It describes the Christian Church as the new Israsel (something I disagree with, and can post the reasons if someone is interested in getting into a theological discussion). Also, it says Israel should respect the "God given right of the Palastinians." What rights are those? The right to be terrorists and bomb Israel while using the lies about having rights to the land? Sure they have a right to live, if they don't go around bombing everyone else.

 

[Devistater]

<< However, when you start sending suicide bombers to kill innocent civilians, you lose your right to be treated with any measure of respect. This much is clear: If the palestenians had the means to destory Israel, they would in an instant. Israel, however, has had the means to obliterate every palestenian, and has not done so. They simply want the attacks to end. Unfortunately, the only way to deal with extremists who are beyond rational thought is with force. You don't coddle or appease them - you do what is neccesary to stop them. >>



Exactly correct. I totally agree.