EnderAndrew

The Israeli people didn't transplant themselves so your analogy is flawed. They already lived in the area, and that was the historic birthplace of their people. Yes Muslims claim that they too descended from the Jewish people, so historic claims are both valid. Jewish people already lived there, and Jews that no longer had homes because they were victims of genocide needed a place to stay. Pray tell, what is your solution to this? And many have openly said they will only be happy when every Jew is dead. People forget that Jews were being massacred in the area before Israel is formed. People seem to be operating on the assumption that Arabs in the area are only upset about the forming of the Israeli nation. If that was the case, then Jews wouldn't have been massacred before the state was created. So Egypt shouldn't be punished for attacking Israel? And Palestine shouldn't be punished for practising terrorism? But Israel should be punished for being victims of genocide?

I said Palestine has a right to be upset. You're putting words in my mouth. You however only see one set of victims and repeatedly said Palestine has a right, and that the Israeli people are terrorists simply for living in their lands. And you called me a racist?

Depends on if you agree with them or not. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> WRONG http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freedom%20fighter A freedom fighter targets an oppressive government. A terrorism targets civilians. Does this distinction completely escape you? Edit: Amen! The US said they'd pull out the second the area is stable. If the insurgents wanted the US out, all they have to do is stop attacking. They don't care about getting us out of the area. They want to kill people for the sake of killing people.

And yet no one in this thread is defending the murder of innocent civilians? I understand the logic. That doesn't make the practice right. The UN, US and England as third parties are intervening in the situation. They are judging right and wrong here. They are telling Israel to make concessions to terrorists and not holding Palestine accountable. I'm not debating how logical or efficient Palestine's actions are. Do the concepts of right and wrong not mean anything? We live in a society of multi-tiered social contracts. The arguements in this thread defend Palestine practicing whatever tactics they can, except it ignores two vital points. The first is that murdering innocent civilians should never be tolerated by any world government. The second is that Palestine has demonstated that they have no intention to follow diplomacy or seek peace. People are being forcibly removed from the homes by soldiers under the premise that it will bolster diplomacy. Everyone here knows that is BS. You're using smoke-screens and other issues, when the topic is the Gaza Strip. Egypt isn't a party to what is going on. In my original post I asked how it is at all cool or justified to remove people forcibly from their homes in this situation. Is it going to bring peace? No. Will it help diplomacy? No. Will it create more victims? Yes. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Besides the several times Laozi defended it? Or what about: People are arguing that Palestine has a right to be upset. I've never said they don't. I'm arguing Palestine is using terrorism to further their cause. IN EVERY OTHER NATION AND SITUATION WE REFUSE TO NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS. WHY HERE? That was my initial question that no one wants to answer. Why is terrorism not a valid tactic simply because of economic disparity elsewhere in the world, but suddenly it is okay to kill innocent civilians just because they are Jewish? Doesn't that make the whole arguement suddenly seem a bit anti-semitic? A few things worth noting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War At this time the Jews hadn't claimed land or attacked anyone. They were just being killed for their religious beliefs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Suez_War You say Israel launched an illegal war to take the Sinai? Israel was being invaded by fundamentalists that undermined the Egpytian government and suddenly wished to see an end to peaceful trading. Israel reacted by taking land that allowed them to defend themselves from the attack they were currently undergoing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War It has been stated several times in this thread that Israel started all these conflicts, and that they have started more wars that anyone else in the area. Really? They were involved in three "wars" that were both started by outside forces in all three cases. I love how people forget Israel being attacked. They don't have a right to defend themselves. Why? If someone attacked England, they would have a right to defend themselves. If someone decided all English had to be killed simply for being English, the world would be up in arms. No one defends the Jewish people who have been repeated targets of genocide. The fact that you guys want to ignore the practices of genocide and terrorism and instead attempt to villianize victims frankly makes me both sad and sick.

That doesn't mean that Isreal should give the land to Palestine. If you feel Isreal doesn't have a right to that land, then perhaps it should go to Egypt. It should be noted that Egypt hasn't made any claim to that land since 1967.

From the same Wikipedia - "At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance" People also cite Japan's declaration that despite having already lost the war, that they would fight to the last man. Given their kamikaze tactics demonstrated in the war, we had reason to believe that to be the case. One could argue the deaths of 120,000 people prevented the deaths of millions. And you all seem to miss the big point. Technology is not the issue. Money is not the issue. Civilian vs government target is the issue. 3rd world countries could practice tactics beneficial to their position and one could argue the justification of their assault. However, murdering innocent civilians is never acceptable. Palestine could target military only targets with suicide bombers, but they attack malls, daycares, buses, public squares, etc. Murdering civilians is not acceptable.

Your arguement is that the Gaza Strip was taken from Egypt, so we should get it to terrorists? How does that make any sense?

Murdering civilians is black and white. I love how you ignore than issue. Please name one civilized nation where it isn't illegal and give me one good reason why we can ignore the murder of innocent civilians.

That doesn't justify terrorism. You make really weak excuses. I asked you what the correct decision would have been after WW2. You provide none. Sources? Are you defending the 9/11 terrorists? It sure sounds like you are. The WTC is a commercial building staffed by civilians. They murdered civilians and you equate that to policy of the US? Sure, we go out of the way to bomb targets that have zero military relevance and murder thousands of civilians. Find one instance of it. You've flat out made false statements. I can't call you a liar, but we both know the reality of the situation. That doesn't make it true, but you seem quick to discount murder and rush to it's defense. I wonder why that would be? What's your motivation here?

I almost joined the cloth. I was a religious lay-leader in boot camp and considered becoming a pastor. I have no qualms with gay marriage, and I believe in non-judgement. I believe God has a right to judge, not man. I don't know that I would have performed a gay marriage ceremony myself, but I certainly wouldn't turn a gay couple away from attending church.

Let me be clear then on my opinion. The decision of the UN was contraversial. I'm not sure there was a right answer. After WW2 the Isreali people had no home. Anywhere you stuck them, the home country could be upset that they are forced to make room. Again, there is possibly no right answer there. Isreal seemed the natural place, as that is their historic homeland. The place isn't overpopulated. The Isreali people seem willing to share and abide by the UN's wishes. I'm sure they have religious fundamentalists who aren't too happy sharing Jerusalem with Christians and Muslims, but they do it. The Palestinians refuse to share. They act as a petulant child and yet we treat them as an adult and expect them to react like an adult.

He said Isreal was the terrorist, and not Palestine. He was justifying their act by criminalizing Isreal with both of his comments, including the tank one. He either is rather biased against Isreal (perhaps due to anti-semitism) or is uninformed and thinks Isreal actually kills kids.

A very, very good point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Name one instance where an Isreali tank targetted a child. I dare you. I'll eat my words shamefully when you find it, except for the fact it never happened. Isreali targets government targets. Palestine targets civilians. Therein lies the difference in their tactics. Edit: And when did I put words in his mouth? He said Isreali doesn't have a right to attack the third world. They haven't. They didn't invade Palestine and take land, though he insists they did. The only time their military has interacted with Palestine was after Isreal had a legal right granted by the UN to be there, after they were moved in, and after Palestine attacked Isreal with terrorism.

They didn't attack or invade to move into Isreal. The UN gave them a free pass and they moved in. They have attacked Palestinian government targets only in retaliation to terrorism. So the Palestinians are okay killing innocent civilians. You are down with that. But the Isreali people can't retaliate by attacking government targets because they have more money and better technology? By your logic, we shouldn't punish the terrorists of 9/11 because we have better technology. We should ignore the murder of thousands of innocent victims. That's great. That my friend is a corner. Keep backing into it.

I said supposedly. I didn't state the apocalypse would occur. I said that's what the Bible states. Some people might find that fact relevant or interesting in attempting to understand motivations in the issue. If you think religious beliefs regarding the area have no relevance, then you don't understand the situation at all.

I can't FTP from here so I'll upload the log when I get home.

They invaded? When? Last I checked, they were the victims of genocide who had their homes removed and no longer had any place to live. Where would you stick them? What would you do with them? They have as much historical claim to Isreal as anyone and they had no other place to live. They didn't invade. The UN said that was their home. And appararently you also want to go on the record saying killing innocent children is a justifiable response in your opinion. I think that is utterly dispicable.

I didn't mention how Isreal initially acquired the Gaza Strip, but the reason Iseal is able to colonize it now is due to the fact Palistine has largely been abandoning the area. They want it back now that homes have been built, and new irrigation has been put in. How many times has Isreal been attacked? How often have measures been put before the UAE to unite all Arab nations to declare war on Isreal at once? Both Saddam and Osama bin Laden list in their public manifestos they want all Arab nations to unite and declare war on Isreal. For those who care, or even might find it in any way ironic, that the Bible also mentions this as one of the last signs of the apocalypse. When all of Isreal's neighbors do unite to attack Isreal, the end is supposedly nigh. I know people living in the area. Many of the Palestinians abandoned their homes a long time ago. You seem to have really old info. As far as who owns the land, both Isreal and Palestine have historical claims to the land. That gives them both the same arguement and rights. The UN said to split the land. Palestine refuses to abide by the UN's decision to split the land, and yet Isreal does. Palestine practices terrorism and murders innocent civilians. They have often bombed and targetted young children. The UN supposedly has a policy of not dealing with terrorists, except they do. From a pure legal perspective, Isreal has a right to that land. Have you ever spoken to a settler who actually lives in the area? I think your assumptions are a bit off. Try to talking to them. There is ZERO DEFENSE for murdering innocent civilians. Let me repeat that. There is ZERO DEFENSE for murdering innocent civilians. We operate in society on various social contracts. We have an international govering body (which may be a complete mockery) which we can turn to. If Palestine didn't like the UN's decision on forming Isreal, then they should deal with the UN. Palestinian clerics have gone on record saying they wish to see every last Isreali man and woman dead. On 9/11 we saw images of Palestinian's dancing in the streets saying "God loves us because he kills the Americans." In this situation the outside world is using diplomacy, patience and politics to deal with a group of people that seemlingly are fanatics. Logic doesn't work with fanatics. Palestine doesn't want to share. They don't want to behave. People were holding up signs of "Jerusalem Next" during the forcible eviction of Gaza Strip residents. Palestine's beef is that when Isreal was initially formed that they refused to abide by the agreement and were forced out of their homes. So two wrongs make a right? As it stands, the UN and the world say Isreal and Palestine must share land. As it stands, Palestine has been using terrorism for years and the world doesn't care. As it stands, Isreal is forced into one concession after another. And you defend the position of terrorism. Tsk, tsk. What are you talking about, eminent domain? That is where your home is sold, you are given the money and given time to move. Soldiers going door to door and dragging people away kicking and screaming is another thing. Those people have nothing.

Sharon, the Prime Minister of Isreal made this decision, pressured by the US and England. Muslims supposedly hate the US for our horribly pro-Isreal policy, but we give money to both Palestine and Isreal, and we constantly tell Isreal to make concessions to the Palestineans. How can Bush and Blair say never cave into terrorists and tell Isreal to cave into terrorists? Honestly, we treat Isreal differently than any other nation when it comes to terrorism. When you single out one person, race or nation, and treat them differently, that counts as discrimiantion. I think the world allows this to happen because of anti-semitism.

http://bloodsportthelemming.blogspot.com/ That is a blog of a personal friend of mine who moved back to Jersualem. She snuck pack military blockades and protested there. Read her first hand accountings. And this happened on the 17th.

I think the email I have linked to here is my SPAM mail which I don't check. Always email me at enderandrew at NOSPAM gmail dot com.

Here is the short of it. Expect a lengthy rant from me soon. I presume most people know about Palestine and Isreal and where their beef comes from. Palestine completely abandoned the Gaza Strip and declared the area uninhabitable. The Isreali people come in, irrigate, build and make the place a new settlement to live, despite constant terrorism there. Terrorists blow people up, murder children, and the world watches for years. In any other country in the world, we say you never buckle into the demands of terrorism. But for years and years we've all said we want peace in the middle east. To that extent the leaders of the civilized world keep telling Isreal to make concessions, and Palestine will stop supporting terrorism. Isreal has been making concessions for years, and they are just caving into terrorism. Seriously, I thought this was policy. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Yet, again Isreal is forced to make another concession. They have to give up the Gaza Strip and hand it to Palestine. To do this, the military is going door to door, busting down doors and forcibly removing people from their homes. They lose their home, everything they own and are ripped away. How is this in any way cool or justifiable?

I remember how the net reacted when they found out Volourn's real name, which I already knew. I'd point you to the greatest thread of all time (Volourn's Gender) but it was deleted.

You make Spellmar proud.