Israel must really stop their terrorist ways...

[vta]

Yet, just another day in Gaza. Where oh where is our friend Ban Ki-moon now?

Israeli warning over Gaza rockets

Rockets are still being fired from Gaza despite Israel's recent offensive Israel's prime minister has promised an "uncompromising response" if rockets continue to be fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel. Ehud Olmert said Israel's retaliation would be painful, harsh and strong.

Mr Olmert's statement came as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Egypt on Sunday on her first Middle East trip since taking office.
Meanwhile, Palestinian medics said five people had died when a smuggling tunnel under the Gaza-Egypt border collapsed.

Both Israel and the main Palestinian militant group in Gaza, Hamas, declared unilateral truces following Israel's three-week Gaza offensive on 17 January. (:rolleyes:)

But dozens of rocket strikes and other attacks from Gaza have been reported since then, apparently involving smaller militant groups.
Israel has responded with air strikes.

Tunnel collapse
... Earlier, Palestinian medical workers in Gaza said five people were killed and at least one is missing when a smuggling tunnel under the border with Egypt collapsed.

Reports said the cave-in was likely caused by heavy rainfall.
Gazans use tunnels to smuggle in goods that are not available in the territory because of Israel and Egypt's blockade of its borders.

Militants also use the tunnels to bring in weapons.
The ground around Rafah in southern Gaza, where the tunnels are concentrated, is sandy and notoriously unstable.

[zrinkill]

This is about to get bad.

There are signs that the War between Israel and Iran is about to really start.

[the fake norm hitzges]

Israel must stop its terrorist ways????
i think you got your thread title backwards my friend.

[ThaBigP]

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/iran_nuclear_bomb/2009/03/01/186938.html

And as for that satellite launch a little bit ago...the best scenario for Iran to get the best "bang for its buck" is to launch a nuke into low orbit...call it a "satellite" launch. Would be difficult to prove (or even suspect) otherwise. Put that puppy into low orbit, and at the right moment push the "boom" button...around 180 miles over the contenental US. Wouldn't kill a soul...directly. But rather destroy all of our electronic-dependant infrastructure.

I think the satellite launch we saw was just a test for such a scenario. Even the Iranians themselves have openly said that an EMP attack on the US would be their best option in the event of hostilities.

[ThaBigP]

Israel must stop its terrorist ways????
i think you got your thread title backwards my friend.

Check your sarcasm meter...I think it might need some calibration. :o:

[vta]

Israel must stop its terrorist ways????
i think you got your thread title backwards my friend.

Check your sarcasm meter...I think it might need some calibration. :o:

sssssSSSSSSHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOooooooommmm......... ;)

[vta]

This is about to get bad.

There are signs that the War between Israel and Iran is about to really start.

This particularly is the status quo and what is hardly ever given face time.

What's happening between Israel and Iran will probably get a little less ambiguous once Netanyahu is fully in position.

[the fake norm hitzges]

Check your sarcasm meter...I think it might need some calibration. :o:

sorry about that...
i get defensive when i hear people claiming Israel are the bad guys.
usually people that support the palestinians do not know anything about this conflict or just flat out anti-semitic.

no.....i am not accusing you of anti-semitism.

[Jon88]

These cease fires have meant absolutely nothing for the last, I don't know, 30 years. How about no more cease fires? Is Israel going to figure out this pattern or is it going to take a few more decades?

[burmafrd]

Might be worth the economic damage to turn Iran into a parking lot. Would solve that problem. Unfortunately Obama would not have the stones to do it.
Luckily Iran is years away from that capeability. They launched a very small satelite on a limited orbit. Their current booster does not have the power to move a big enough payload to be a worry-yet. Their next generation booster is another story.

[SultanOfSix]

Wait? What's the death toll caused by Israel in Gaza compared to the death toll that Hamas has caused?

[zrinkill]

What was the Death toll of the Hiroshima bomb compared the the death toll of Pearl Harbor.

Should we have not retaliated?

[SultanOfSix]

What was the Death toll of the Hiroshima bomb compared the the death toll of Pearl Harbor.

Should we have not retaliated?

I don't know. Ask God and see what he thinks.

[the fake norm hitzges]

I could care less what the ratio of the dead is on hamas.i hope 100% of them die from an Israeli rocket.

lets try not to draw a moral equivalence here.
when hamas decides to lay down its weapons,stops firing rockets into Israel and quits strapping bomb to themselves then and only then will they get peace.and also give up the false idea that one inch of Israel belongs to them.

[Cajuncowboy]

Wait? What's the death toll caused by Israel in Gaza compared to the death toll that Hamas has caused?

Well buckaroo, tell Hamas to stop firing rockets and blowing up these goof ball idiots with bombs on their backs in pizza parlors and buses and maybe the deaths would decrease on both sides.

[Cajuncowboy]

I don't know. Ask God and see what he thinks.

Pretty sure God would have said, defend yourself.

[Dallas]

Pretty sure God would have said, defend yourself.

Hamas isn't going to get any defense from anyone. I don't know why Sultan is even trying to defend that terrorist organization.

Nobody in the world will speak w/ them, unless its another terrorist country.


Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria...you get my point.

[zrinkill]

I don't know. Ask God and see what he thinks.


Which one are you talking about?

[Cajuncowboy]

Hamas isn't going to get any defense from anyone. I don't know why Sultan is even trying to defend that terrorist organization.

Nobody in the world will speak w/ them, unless its another terrorist country.


Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria...you get my point.

Because he is anti Israel.

It's pretty obvious.

[vta]

Wait? What's the death toll caused by Israel in Gaza compared to the death toll that Hamas has caused?

Ask Hamas, I'm sure they can more accurately enumerate the number of civilians they hide behind.

Better yet, ask them how many of their own have needlessly died died over the last 20 years, due to their incessant belligerence...

[SultanOfSix]

Pretty sure God would have said, defend yourself.

Sure. He would have said defend yourself by dropping a nuclear bomb on over 100K civilians, belligerent or not.

Next time you want to answer the question, ask yourself if would you have flown the plane that carried the bomb or pushed the button to drop it? If you answer yes to this, ask yourself this question again if you are Christian knowing that Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained predominantly Christian converts: women, children, old, and non-fighting people. If you answer yes to this again, ask yourself if you could defend yourself against God for what you did. It's easy to be an armchair soldier.

As for Hamas being a terrorist organization, that is in the eyes of Israel. The fact is, the Palestinian people elected them as their representatives in a democratic election. So, according to Western standards, they are supported by the people.

Over 1000 children have died in the bombing in Gaza, which is a prison. Why don't you guys go and live their for just one week and see how they live? What you see in the media is nothing. Open your eyes.

I am not anti-Israel. I am pro-justice.

[MetalHead]

Sure. He would have said defend yourself by dropping a nuclear bomb on over 100K civilians, belligerent or not.

Next time you want to answer the question, ask yourself if would you have flown the plane that carried the bomb or pushed the button to drop it? If you answer yes to this, ask yourself this question again if you are Christian knowing that Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained predominantly Christian converts: women, children, old, and non-fighting people. If you answer yes to this again, ask yourself if you could defend yourself against God for what you did. It's easy to be an armchair soldier.

As for Hamas being a terrorist organization, that is in the eyes of Israel. The fact is, the Palestinian people elected them as their representatives in a democratic election. So, according to Western standards, they are supported by the people.

Over 1000 children have died in the bombing in Gaza, which is a prison. Why don't you guys go and live their for just one week and see how they live? What you see in the media is nothing. Open your eyes.

I am not anti-Israel. I am pro-justice.
You don't know who you are talking to or talking about.
Where did you learn that nonsense about Hamas?

[vta]

Sure. He would have said defend yourself by dropping a nuclear bomb on over 100K civilians, belligerent or not.

Next time you want to answer the question, ask yourself if would you have flown the plane that carried the bomb or pushed the button to drop it? If you answer yes to this, ask yourself this question again if you are Christian knowing that Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained predominantly Christian converts: women, children, old, and non-fighting people. If you answer yes to this again, ask yourself if you could defend yourself against God for what you did. It's easy to be an armchair soldier.

As for Hamas being a terrorist organization, that is in the eyes of Israel. The fact is, the Palestinian people elected them as their representatives in a democratic election. So, according to Western standards, they are supported by the people.

Over 1000 children have died in the bombing in Gaza, which is a prison. Why don't you guys go and live their for just one week and see how they live? What you see in the media is nothing. Open your eyes.

I am not anti-Israel. I am pro-justice.

Leave God out of it.
Man is equipped with free will and is free to abide by God laws or not. Neither side is doing that in this and most earthly matters, so it's a moot point. You're not going to find God smiling on Israel or Palestine. Both are behaving badly.

On to our level... Over 1000 children were horribly misused and Hamas/Palestinians are just as complicit and even more so than Israel. If children were even a consideration, much less a concern Hamas/Palestinians wouldn't condemn their children to this **** like their filthy forefathers did to them, over a plot of land that wasn't theirs anyway.

It was under British mandate and they were fine with languishing under this rule, with no compunction for independence. Such are the hazards of such a lazy way to live. Condemning your future generations to this **** isn't the answer and if they weren't evolutionally retarded, they would have grasped this by now and jettisoned all outside influence (read Iran and Syria) and would simply accept the two state solution and learn to create a functioning society.

Given that a state with a far superior military will eschew simply wiping them out, in favor of taking a conquerers spoils, they should consider it a boon and learn to live like humans, instead of accepting this fantasy that extremists sell and thinking their end is going to be anything but a total waste.

[Cajuncowboy]

Sure. He would have said defend yourself by dropping a nuclear bomb on over 100K civilians, belligerent or not.

Next time you want to answer the question, ask yourself if would you have flown the plane that carried the bomb or pushed the button to drop it? If you answer yes to this, ask yourself this question again if you are Christian knowing that Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained predominantly Christian converts: women, children, old, and non-fighting people. If you answer yes to this again, ask yourself if you could defend yourself against God for what you did. It's easy to be an armchair soldier.

As for Hamas being a terrorist organization, that is in the eyes of Israel. The fact is, the Palestinian people elected them as their representatives in a democratic election. So, according to Western standards, they are supported by the people.

Over 1000 children have died in the bombing in Gaza, which is a prison. Why don't you guys go and live their for just one week and see how they live? What you see in the media is nothing. Open your eyes.

I am not anti-Israel. I am pro-justice.

:laugh2:

Gotta love a muslim telling me how to act as a Christian.

:bang2:

[burmafrd]

Sultan is just plain anti-West and pro Muslim no matter what. So just ignore him or laugh at him which is what I do (outside of trying now and then to poke him and see if he posts something stupid which he usually does).

[SultanOfSix]

Leave God out of it...


Umm, isn't that the whole claim for why Israel exists? Because God gave them the land? LOL.

[SultanOfSix]

:laugh2:

Gotta love a muslim telling me how to act as a Christian.

:bang2:

I didn't tell you to act in any way. I merely asked some questions which you obviously couldn't answer.

[ShiningStar]

I didn't tell you to act in any way. I merely asked some questions which you obviously couldn't answer.


I can answer them for you, Yes to all your questions. You are comparing apples and oranges.

The US wanted the Japanese dead, off the planet and had the means to do it. We saved lives that day, and to save lives is good right? Well if we have never dropped those bombs, a lot more Japanese would have died that didnt really have to.

Its the same lame argument when people tell me how wrong we were for containing them, because leaving them in an enemies land would have been so much more .....adventurous I guess to some.

Leave the Japanese out of this, they made a huge mistake and paid the price and even understood since they come here as well.

I dont know all of whats going on in the Middle East, but my American self says let Israel do what it has to do and stay out of it. If they get irked and decide its time to let it rip and flex some muscle, well i say America and Americans shouldnt say anything on it. They didnt bother us when we did our thing, I dont even know if they judged us, I know they were around a hell of a lot longer. So im not going to comment on them.

As far as I can tell with my little limited knowledge is they are trying to live in their land, and someone else is doing some real ungod like things to them. At some point a god has to take a back seat and let the people do what they have to do.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

sorry about that...
i get defensive when i hear people claiming Israel are the bad guys.
usually people that support the palestinians do not know anything about this conflict or just flat out anti-semitic.

no.....i am not accusing you of anti-semitism.

Israel is certainly not squeeky clean in that area.

They should shut down the provocative settlements in the conquered territories.

question though, if someone is against Israel and they are anti-semitic, if you are against the Arabs, does that make you anti-Arab?

[burmafrd]

No, only libs think in labels.

[vta]

Umm, isn't that the whole claim for why Israel exists? Because God gave them the land? LOL.

Do you believe that?

[Cajuncowboy]

I didn't tell you to act in any way. I merely asked some questions which you obviously couldn't answer.

Because your position of asking them is one of hate. You hate Israel and you hate Christianity. That's been proven. I just choose to ignore them because I know where it would lead.

[SultanOfSix]

Because your position of asking them is one of hate. You hate Israel and you hate Christianity. That's been proven. I just choose to ignore them because I know where it would lead.

I don't hate any country. It's just silly. I vehemently dislike the actions of those in power.

Why would I hate Christianity and where have I ever implied that I did? Nowhere because I don't. Otherwise, I would say "Peace to the Muslims who seek God's face."

You didn't answer it, because you wouldn't be able to do it because the situation I outlined was morally wrong and unacceptable, no ifs, buts, or excuses around it.

[SultanOfSix]

Do you believe that?

No. Why I don't is due to researching the claims, which would require going into Biblical passages, the history of the Children of Israel, the history of the Jews in general, the differences between the Sephardhim and Ashkenazi Jews, etc.

[Cajuncowboy]

I don't hate any country. It's just silly. I vehemently dislike the actions of those in power.

Why would I hate Christianity and where have I ever implied that I did? Nowhere because I don't. Otherwise, I would say "Peace to the Muslims who seek God's face."

You didn't answer it, because you wouldn't be able to do it because the situation I outlined was morally wrong and unacceptable, no ifs, buts, or excuses around it.

First of all, you and I had this discussion a long while back so I know where you are coming from. This isn't something new.

Second, There is no reason to answer your questions but if you would like, I will. Yes, it is morally acceptable to kill those trying to kill you.

Also, you would be a sniveling coward if you didn't protect and defend your country, family, and friends.

Further, there are instance after instance in the Bible where wars were fought at the direction of God to take over land.

So if that is where you want to go, then fine, but in the end, it will all come back to the same place.

Which is why answering your ridiculous questions get us no where.

[SultanOfSix]

First of all, you and I had this discussion a long while back so I know where you are coming from. This isn't something new.

Second, There is no reason to answer your questions but if you would like, I will. Yes, it is morally acceptable to kill those trying to kill you.

Also, you would be a sniveling coward if you didn't protect and defend your country, family, and friends.

Further, there are instance after instance in the Bible where wars were fought at the direction of God to take over land.

So if that is where you want to go, then fine, but in the end, it will all come back to the same place.

Which is why answering your ridiculous questions get us no where.

There was three questions. You didn't answer a single one of them. You simply grouped all of them unjustifiably under the above bold phrase.

[burmafrd]

because A they were not worth answering and
B you would not admit it anyway

[SultanOfSix]

because A they were not worth answering and
B you would not admit it anyway

No, because there is simply no justification for it.

[burmafrd]

Well there certainly is no justification for anything you say

[SultanOfSix]

Well there certainly is no justification for anything you say

If there is no justification, then simply answer the questions I asked. The truth is uncompromising, and it shatters falsehood to pieces, so if what I said was false, then shatter it.

[Cajuncowboy]

There was three questions. You didn't answer a single one of them. You simply grouped all of them unjustifiably under the above bold phrase.

That's called being conservative.

Do more with less. It's also called being resourceful.

But if you need more here you go.

#1 Yes, it is morally ok to kill people who are trying to kill you.

#2 Yes, it is morally ok to kill people who are trying to kill you.

#3 Yes, it is morally ok to kill people who are trying to kill you.

Hope that helps.

:rolleyes:

[Vintage]

No, only libs think in labels.


***?

You just got done calling Sultan "anti-west" and "pro-Muslim."

Then.... you just used the label "libs."


So, by your definition, you are a "lib."

Epic fail.

[Vintage]

That's called being conservative.

Do more with less. It's also called being resourceful.

But if you need more here you go.

#1 Yes, it is morally ok to kill people who are trying to kill you.

#2 Yes, it is morally ok to kill people who are trying to kill you.

#3 Yes, it is morally ok to kill people who are trying to kill you.

Hope that helps.

:rolleyes:

Its much simpler than that.

Historically, you either have the power to kill or lack the power and will be killed.

That's the justification. Power. You either have it; or you don't.

No, I'm not disagreeing with your intent.

[Cajuncowboy]

Its much simpler than that.

Historically, you either have the power to kill or lack the power and will be killed.

That's the justification. Power. You either have it; or you don't.

No, I'm not disagreeing with your intent.

Pretty much true.

The wisdom comes in knowing when to use it.

I think the fact that we are capable of destroying any other nation with the push of a button has demonstrated the overall wisdom our country has exercised in the past.

We have used it when we needed to but we didn't over use our power.

Even in the case of Japan, while the two bombs were obviously disastrous for Japan, two things happened....One, it ended a war that would have killed many more Americans and two, in the end, they became our allies.

So you are right, you either have the power or you don't. It's just how you use it.

[Vintage]

Also... a question for those who have been railing on Israel.

The law of proportionality. So if Hamas launches a few rockets, kills a few Israelis, should Israel respond in kind? What kind of deterrent is that?

After 9-11, we invaded Afghanistan. Do you think that acts more as a deterrent to states who sponsor terrorism than responding proportionally (like taking out 5000 or so Afghanis)? A leader of a terrorist state probably doesn't care too much for his own people. Saddam is proof of that. But Saddam is like any other leader - he likes the power. So if you can affect that, it acts as a deterrent.

States who were fence sitting on whether or not to support terrorism will look at the United States - see we invaded Afghanistan - regime changed Iraq - and will think twice before they sponsor terrorism - at least, overtly).

We do NOT have an obligation to limit the suffering of other people. We should. Its the right thing to do. And we do (and try to). But the government has an obligation to protect AMERICAN citizens - and American citizens only.

By responding harsher than the attacks we suffer, we try to deter future attacks.

Israel is doing the same. And they don't really have a choice.

[ScipioCowboy]

Sure. He would have said defend yourself by dropping a nuclear bomb on over 100K civilians, belligerent or not.

Next time you want to answer the question, ask yourself if would you have flown the plane that carried the bomb or pushed the button to drop it? If you answer yes to this, ask yourself this question again if you are Christian knowing that Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained predominantly Christian converts: women, children, old, and non-fighting people. If you answer yes to this again, ask yourself if you could defend yourself against God for what you did. It's easy to be an armchair soldier.

It depends on the situation. If dropping a nuclear bomb on a major population center is part of a concerted war effort that actually saves lives by ending the conflict much sooner, it's perfectly justifiable.

Women, children, elderly people, and civilians are always killed in war, even when it's divinely ordained. That's the very reason war is something to be avoided rather than rushed into.

[SultanOfSix]

It depends on the situation. If dropping a nuclear bomb on a major population center is part of a concerted war effort that actually saves lives by ending the conflict much sooner, it's perfectly justifiable.

You can't make a decision based upon a future set of undetermined possibilities, especially when it comes to playing people's lives, especially ones that are innocent, such as children.

Women, children, elderly people, and civilians are always killed in war, even when it's divinely ordained. That's the very reason war is something to be avoided rather than rushed into.

I would never use the term always, because there have been plenty of wars where such things have never happened.

The point being is I understand the rationalizations that people can go through to defend their actions. It is why in Islamic theology, those who are wrongdoers prior to being judged and their judgment executed, will submit and testify willingly to the evil of their own actions.

In war, killing someone, which is one of greatest sins in Islamic as well Judeo-Christian theology becomes "morally" acceptable. However, according to Islamic theology, it is absolutely forbidden to kill non-fighting women (as women can be soldiers), children, and old people (who cannot fight) even in circumstances of war, even if the enemy kills yours. So, those Muslims who are acting against this injunction are disobeying Islam and the injunctions of its prophet, according to the ahlul-Sunnah, or the majority opinion of the scholars. Just something to think about when those who participate in these activities take a moral high ground against Muslims. Because I am aware of what it says in the Bible in certain situations.

[Vintage]

You can't make a decision based upon a future set of undetermined possibilities, especially when it comes to playing people's lives, especially ones that are innocent, such as children.



I would never use the term always, because there have been plenty of wars where such things have never happened.

The point being is I understand the rationalizations that people can go through to defend their actions. It is why in Islamic theology, those who are wrongdoers prior to being judged and their judgment executed, will submit and testify willingly to the evil of their own actions.

In war, killing someone, which is one of greatest sins in Islamic as well Judeo-Christian theology becomes "morally" acceptable. However, according to Islamic theology, it is absolutely forbidden to kill non-fighting women (as women can be soldiers), children, and old people (who cannot fight) even in circumstances of war, even if the enemy kills yours. So, those Muslims who are acting against this injunction are disobeying Islam and the injunctions of its prophet, according to the ahlul-Sunnah, or the majority opinion of the scholars. Just something to think about when those who participate in these activities take a moral high ground against Muslims. Because I am aware of what it says in the Bible in certain situations.


Its only recently that we've developed the technology to limit the loss of civilian lives. In WW2, which was a total war, bombs were dropped over Germany, Great Britian, Japan, China, and in Pearl Harbor. Any time a bomb was dropped (unless it was in a complete military zone), civilian lives were going to be loss. They lacked the technology to drop them with precision.

There is nothing that can be done about that.

It was a total war effort. Bombs were dropped - needed to be dropped - to end the war as quickly as possible.

If you want to place blame, place blame on why the war(s) were started.

[vta]

No. Why I don't is due to researching the claims, which would require going into Biblical passages, the history of the Children of Israel, the history of the Jews in general, the differences between the Sephardhim and Ashkenazi Jews, etc.

Then we shouldn't bother asking God what he thinks about man's actions.
There are far too many beliefs and all sides will swear they are right, until they are blue in the face and it will, as it does, continue endlessly.

Throwing God into it at this point only serves to make excuses. If we could actually take responsibility for our own free will and the actions we undertake with it, we'd probably be better off and closer to understanding what God thinks.

The U.S. and Japan were not fighting a religious conflict and neither are Israel and Palestine, despite what both sides would say. Religion is just very adroitly used as a tool of coercion.

Let's call the people to task for what they do.

[daschoo]

the irony of bringing god into it is that muslim, jew, and christian all worship the same god.

not going to go into my beliefs on israel again, would just be repeating arguments from a previous thread

[Trouble]

Ask God and see what he thinks.


Everyones so-called "GOD's" seem to be the main cause of all theses wars & conflicts.

Maybe we should ask a Rock-N-Roll God like Mick Jagger? :bow:






....

[trickblue]

You can't make a decision based upon a future set of undetermined possibilities, especially when it comes to playing people's lives, especially ones that are innocent, such as children.

That's done on a daily basis in this world by every person in power...

[ScipioCowboy]

You can't make a decision based upon a future set of undetermined possibilities, especially when it comes to playing people's lives, especially ones that are innocent, such as children.

Says who?

Modern warfare is predicated on predicting undetermined possibilities. It's the basis of strategy, especially when devising acceptable kill ratios. In all likelihood, if the Allies had been forced to invade Japan in order to end the war, the number of casualties would have been far higher, and a larger number of non-combatants would've been killed as Allied forces moved from town to town.

[Dallas]

Says who?

Modern warfare is predicated on predicting undetermined possibilities. It's the basis of strategy, especially when devising acceptable kill ratios. In all likelihood, if the Allies had been forced to invade Japan in order to end the war, the number of casualties would have been far higher, and a larger number of non-combatants would've been killed as Allied forces moved from town to town.


The Battle of Okinawa should tell you exactly how far the Japanese were willing to go to win.

They lost over 100k soldiers in that battle. The U.S. 50k casualities and losing about 12k lives.

The Japanese military was forcing its own civilians of Okinawa to commit suicide or be shot, during this conflict.

From Wiki...


Some military historians believe that Okinawa led directly to the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A prominent holder of this view is Victor Davis Hanson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson), who states it explicitly in his book Ripples of Battle:

"...because the Japanese on Okinawa, including native Okinawans, were so fierce in their defense (even when cut off, and without supplies), and because casualties were so appalling, many American strategists looked for an alternative means to subdue mainland Japan, other than a direct invasion. This means presented itself, with the advent of atomic bombs, which worked admirably in convincing the Japanese to sue for peace, without American casualties. Ironically, the American conventional fire-bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II) of major Japanese cities (which had been going on for months before Okinawa) was far more effective at killing civilians than the atomic bombs and, had the Americans simply continued, or expanded this, the Japanese would likely have surrendered anyway. Nevertheless, the bombs were a powerful symbolic display of American power, and the Japanese capitulated, obviating the need for an invasion of the home islands."

[TheCount]

It depends on the situation. If dropping a nuclear bomb on a major population center is part of a concerted war effort that actually saves lives by ending the conflict much sooner, it's perfectly justifiable.

Women, children, elderly people, and civilians are always killed in war, even when it's divinely ordained. That's the very reason war is something to be avoided rather than rushed into.

There is no such thing as a divinely ordained war, so that solves that little riddle.

If people want to go out there and chop peoples heads off or burn people at the stake, that's on them.

[ScipioCowboy]

There is no such thing as a divinely ordained war, so that solves that little riddle.

If people want to go out there and chop peoples heads off or burn people at the stake, that's on them.

That's a matter of opinion. I was merely pointing out that, in every war (regardless of its impetus or cause), women and children are killed.

[ScipioCowboy]

The Battle of Okinawa should tell you exactly how far the Japanese were willing to go to win.

They lost over 100k soldiers in that battle. The U.S. 50k casualities and losing about 12k lives.

The Japanese military was forcing its own civilians of Okinawa to commit suicide or be shot, during this conflict.

From Wiki...


Some military historians believe that Okinawa led directly to the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A prominent holder of this view is Victor Davis Hanson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Davis_Hanson), who states it explicitly in his book Ripples of Battle:

"...because the Japanese on Okinawa, including native Okinawans, were so fierce in their defense (even when cut off, and without supplies), and because casualties were so appalling, many American strategists looked for an alternative means to subdue mainland Japan, other than a direct invasion. This means presented itself, with the advent of atomic bombs, which worked admirably in convincing the Japanese to sue for peace, without American casualties. Ironically, the American conventional fire-bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II) of major Japanese cities (which had been going on for months before Okinawa) was far more effective at killing civilians than the atomic bombs and, had the Americans simply continued, or expanded this, the Japanese would likely have surrendered anyway. Nevertheless, the bombs were a powerful symbolic display of American power, and the Japanese capitulated, obviating the need for an invasion of the home islands."

Precisely.

As Vintage pointed out, it's only very recently that we've been able to avoid major civilian casualties during wars.

[MetalHead]

That's done on a daily basis in this world by every person in power...

Shhhhh...don't tell him that...you may make him feel bad and ruin his perfect little world.

[MetalHead]

There was three questions. You didn't answer a single one of them. You simply grouped all of them unjustifiably under the above bold phrase.

Do you get your english from Al Jazeera?

[SultanOfSix]

All I've read is a bunch of rationalizations that say it is acceptable for civilian casualties to occur in war, causing the loss of lives to non-fighting women, children, and other innocents. I've also read that this has happened in all wars, which is entirely not factual. Just because it happens now due to modern day warfare doesn't make it any less wrong than it is. Soldiers accept the fact that they may die in wars. They choose to fight. Civilians do not, and should be entirely off limits. I believe God will agree with me.

[SultanOfSix]

Throwing God into it at this point only serves to make excuses. If we could actually take responsibility for our own free will and the actions we undertake with it, we'd probably be better off and closer to understanding what God thinks.

The U.S. and Japan were not fighting a religious conflict and neither are Israel and Palestine, despite what both sides would say. Religion is just very adroitly used as a tool of coercion.

Let's call the people to task for what they do.

I didn't throw God into the equation. Those who justified the existence of Israel did. Since I find that justification intellectually dubious from my own research, and because the Arabs had nothing to do with the Holocaust, then the control of land is simply based on the principle of "might makes right". The fact is, Palestine as of its current borders is also considered occupied territories by the UN. So, even according to the international (Western) rules of justice, the state of Israel is in violation of multiple ordinances, and those in power simply now uses the excuse of "war on terror" to continue its control policies in the areas and what are illegal Jewish settlements.

[ShiningStar]

All I've read is a bunch of rationalizations that say it is acceptable for civilian casualties to occur in war, causing the loss of lives to non-fighting women, children, and other innocents. I've also read that this has happened in all wars, which is entirely not factual. Just because it happens now due to modern day warfare doesn't make it any less wrong than it is. Soldiers accept the fact that they may die in wars. They choose to fight. Civilians do not, and should be entirely off limits. I believe God will agree with me.


Which culture started this, or do you just believe it cause you live in todays times. I got news for you, it wasnt uncommon when this country started, that a house of people would get killed on the whim of British soliders. God had no problem with that.

Where does this whole sense of women and children are off limits to your enemies? Who started this? When are the anti women (except in this country) and children missles being developed? I like to know where you get this sense that God is politically correct enough that women are not equal to men and should be saved because they are women. Is that written in any book of God? I just want to know where this all comes from? Is it because thats what you feel?

[SultanOfSix]

Which culture started this, or do you just believe it cause you live in todays times. I got news for you, it wasnt uncommon when this country started, that a house of people would get killed on the whim of British soliders. God had no problem with that.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean because He allowed it to happen, it was "ok" from a moral perspective? From an Islamic, as well as a Judeo-Christian perspective, just because we have been granted free will which allows us to do what we wish to do and we succeed at doing them (even things that are considered wrong by their specific theologies), doesn't mean we won't be held accountable for what we do.

Where does this whole sense of women and children are off limits to your enemies? Who started this? When are the anti women (except in this country) and children missles being developed? I like to know where you get this sense that God is politically correct enough that women are not equal to men and should be saved because they are women. Is that written in any book of God? I just want to know where this all comes from? Is it because thats what you feel?

Perhaps you should read one of the posts I wrote in this thread.

[ShiningStar]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean because He allowed it to happen, it was "ok" from a moral perspective? From an Islamic, as well as a Judeo-Christian perspective, just because we have been granted free will which allows us to do what we wish to do and we succeed at doing them (even things that are considered wrong by their specific theologies), doesn't mean we won't be held accountable for what we do.



Perhaps you should read one of the posts I wrote in this thread.


I have, you blame Isreal for sticking to their guns, and you want God to lord over everyones thoughts and actions. Which only tells me all your answers is behind the wall of God and his everlasting policies that changes per book or someones own perspective. Which leads me to believe you have nothing to say but that God will judge us and we're all doomed to a bad afterlife. DOesnt answer my question, but leaves you safe and secure behind the wall.

[SultanOfSix]

I have, you blame Isreal for sticking to their guns, and you want God to lord over everyones thoughts and actions. Which only tells me all your answers is behind the wall of God and his everlasting policies that changes per book or someones own perspective. Which leads me to believe you have nothing to say but that God will judge us and we're all doomed to a bad afterlife. DOesnt answer my question, but leaves you safe and secure behind the wall.

I'm sorry but I don't know what you're talking about. In life, we make our own choices. What is determined to be right or wrong is dependent upon what ethical system you adhere to, whether it is an absolute one, or a relative one. What the authority for that moral system is also dependent upon the system. In "God-based" moral systems, where "revelation" exists, God is the ultimate authority.

From my perspective, our morality comes from God, as He is the Creator, who created human beings in the best of molds, and "breathed" into them something of His spirit. Thus, belief in Him forms the basis for our morality and behavior. In other words, He has endowed human beings with a conscience - a self-accusing nature - which has its own faculty to discern what is right and wrong. However, I also believe that this faculty can be corrupted, since humans have been given free will, and so can choose other courses of action that don't conform to this nature, and so can lead themselves astray. Thus, religion is an ethical set of principles, when followed correctly becomes a "transforming, self-reinforcing set of principles". In general, all revealed religions teach people to be good. Those who really believe in a religion, follow it because it keeps reinforcing itself to be true. Thus, the reward for being good is good, in this life and in the next life. When one gives to the poor and sees a smile on their face, it makes one smile. When one helps an old lady across the street, and she says thank you, one feels good inside. When one prays to God, and He answers, one knows He exists because response is evidence for existence.

However, the opposite also holds true when one chooses not to do good. But, in this case the reaction is not transforming and self-reinforcing, but destructive and self-defeating. It is why in the Qur'an, it labels the wrongdoers as those who transgress against their own souls. So, the question then becomes how do we know what is good, and what is not? What becomes the ethical foundation for our morality, and this is what religion answers.

In my world view, reward and punishment in the next life, is tied to our own actions and our beliefs in this life, which are co-dependent upon each other. If one loses the ethical basis behind one's actions, i.e. one just goes through the motions, then one's beliefs are empty. Likewise, if one does not act upon one's beliefs, then one's beliefs are empty. Just like said, "faith without works is dead."

[ShiningStar]

I'm sorry but I don't know what you're talking about. In life, we make our own choices. What is determined to be right or wrong is dependent upon what ethical system you adhere to, whether it is an absolute one, or a relative one. What the authority for that moral system is also dependent upon the system. In "God-based" moral systems, where "revelation" exists, God is the ultimate authority.

From my perspective, our morality comes from God, as He is the Creator, who created human beings in the best of molds, and "breathed" into them something of His spirit. Thus, belief in Him forms the basis for our morality and behavior. In other words, He has endowed human beings with a conscience - a self-accusing nature - which has its own faculty to discern what is right and wrong. However, I also believe that this faculty can be corrupted, since humans have been given free will, and so can choose other courses of action that don't conform to this nature, and so can lead themselves astray. Thus, religion is an ethical set of principles, when followed correctly becomes a "transforming, self-reinforcing set of principles". In general, all revealed religions teach people to be good. Those who really believe in a religion, follow it because it keeps reinforcing itself to be true. Thus, the reward for being good is good, in this life and in the next life. When one gives to the poor and sees a smile on their face, it makes one smile. When one helps an old lady across the street, and she says thank you, one feels good inside. When one prays to God, and He answers, one knows He exists because response is evidence for existence.

However, the opposite also holds true when one chooses not to do good. But, in this case the reaction is not transforming and self-reinforcing, but destructive and self-defeating. It is why in the Qur'an, it labels the wrongdoers as those who transgress against their own souls. So, the question then becomes how do we know what is good, and what is not? What becomes the ethical foundation for our morality, and this is what religion answers.

In my world view, reward and punishment in the next life, is tied to our own actions and our beliefs, which are co-dependent upon each other. If one loses the ethical basis behind one's actions, i.e. one just goes through the motions, then one's beliefs are empty. Likewise, if one does not act upon one's beliefs, then one's beliefs are empty. Just like said, "faith without works is dead."


You know tihs would go a lot quicker if you just answered the question.

[SultanOfSix]

You know tihs would go a lot quicker if you just answered the question.

LOL. I just did.

[Cajuncowboy]

I believe God will agree with me.

:laugh2:

Boy, you have a stark revelation coming to you someday.

[SultanOfSix]

:laugh2:

Boy, you have a stark revelation coming to you someday.

So, I have a stark revelation coming to me because I believe non-fighting women, children, and old people shouldn't be killed in war and simply labeled with the politically soft term of "casualties of war"? Sure thing. I'd take that bet any day of the week for as long as I live.

[Cajuncowboy]

So, I have a stark revelation coming to me because I believe non-fighting women, children, and old people shouldn't be killed in war and simply labeled with the politically soft term of "casualties of war"? Sure thing. :) I'd take that bet any day of the week.

No, it's insane to think that God would disapprove of defending yourself. Further, the Bible tells us that God himself directed the destruction of lands that were in sin and it was either given away or it was utterly destroyed. (flood).

[ScipioCowboy]

Just like said, "faith without works is dead."

Actually, James said that.

[SultanOfSix]

No, it's insane to think that God would disapprove of defending yourself. Further, the Bible tells us that God himself directed the destruction of lands that were in sin and it was either given away or it was utterly destroyed. (flood).

Who said I disagreed with it not being ok to defend yourself? It's not my fault you can't follow context.

God does what He wills, and He will not be questioned.

[Cajuncowboy]

Who said I disagreed with it not being ok to defend yourself? It's not my fault you can't follow context.

God does what He wills, and He will not be questioned.

You posed this whole stupid scenario based around the moral idea that God would be against you defending yourself if it involved the loss of innocent life.

You further based it on the fact that you think Israel kills innocent people. That's how we got to this point.

Hamas aims their rockets and their homicide nutjobs at innocents people. They TRY, ON PURPOSE to kill INNOCENT people.

Israel on the other hand, TRIES to aim at HAMAS and NOT innocent people. But because those screwballs hide behind their own INNOCENT people, they get killed. And somehow that Israel's fault.

Your thought process is screwed up.

[SultanOfSix]

You posed this whole stupid scenario based around the moral idea that God would be against you defending yourself if it involved the loss of innocent life.

You further based it on the fact that you think Israel kills innocent people. That's how we got to this point.

Hamas aims their rockets and their homicide nutjobs at innocents people. They TRY, ON PURPOSE to kill INNOCENT people.

Israel on the other hand, TRIES to aim at HAMAS and NOT innocent people. But because those screwballs hide behind their own INNOCENT people, they get killed. And somehow that Israel's fault.

Your thought process is screwed up.

I posed no such scenario.

You have no idea what they do. Unlike me, you get your information from the news. I get mine from firsthand sources.

You think 1000 people died because of Hamas? Yeah, right.

[Cajuncowboy]

I posed no such scenario.

You have no idea what they do. Unlike me, you get your information from the news. I get mine from firsthand sources.

You think 1000 children died because of Hamas? Yeah, right.

Yes, I know what they do.

And you are simply a patsy for Hamas if you believe that.

Oh and your so called first hand accounts? Which Hamas leader is that?

And you think the news media is somehow in love with Israel you are crazy as a coon dog with the drops.

[Cajuncowboy]

Next time you want to answer the question, ask yourself if would you have flown the plane that carried the bomb or pushed the button to drop it? If you answer yes to this, ask yourself this question again if you are Christian knowing that Hiroshima and Nagasaki contained predominantly Christian converts: women, children, old, and non-fighting people. If you answer yes to this again, ask yourself if you could defend yourself against God for what you did. It's easy to be an armchair soldier.



You posed no such question?????

Really????

[SultanOfSix]

Yes, I know what they do.

And you are simply a patsy for Hamas if you believe that.

Oh and your so called first hand accounts? Which Hamas leader is that?

And you think the news media is somehow in love with Israel you are crazy as a coon dog with the drops.

Actually, they are either friends, or members of the Muslim community who have relatives or know people who live there. I never said the media was in love with Israel. I simply stated I had access to firsthand accounts, and you simply had access to the media. But, good job at imposing another self-defined assumption on me.

[Cajuncowboy]

Actually, they are either friends, or members of the Muslim community who have relatives or know people who live there. I never said the media was in love with Israel. I simply stated I had access to firsthand accounts, and you simply had access to the media. But, good job at imposing another self-defined assumption on me.

So your first hand accounts are friends, or friends of friends or friends of friends who know someone who lives there, or friends of friends of friends who know someone who has friends there.

That's some great first hand accounts.

Also very reliable as well since they are all muslim as you point out.

Simply put to use your own words. YOu only have access to muslims it seems.

[Vintage]

Actually, they are either friends, or members of the Muslim community who have relatives or know people who live there. I never said the media was in love with Israel. I simply stated I had access to firsthand accounts, and you simply had access to the media. But, good job at imposing another self-defined assumption on me.

Burm said only libs used labels.

Does that make burm/cajun libs?


(I've always suspected so, anyway....)


;)

[SultanOfSix]

Also very reliable as well since they are all muslim as you point out.

Good job. Feel free to put me back on ignore.

[Cajuncowboy]

Good job. Feel free to put me back on ignore.

No, I think I will be here to repudiate your nonsense for a while. I know it bugs you but you don't have a single thing to bolster your anti-Israeli position. Just friends of friends of friends of friends.

If you were to post any news with that kind of source in the football zone the post would be deleted as unfounded rumors.

In other words, no credibility.

[Cajuncowboy]

Burm said only libs used labels.

Does that make burm/cajun libs?


(I've always suspected so, anyway....)


;)

Yep, libby mclib here.

BTW, I didn't assume anything with slutan.

He made it pretty clear.

[SultanOfSix]

No, I think I will be here to repudiate your nonsense for a while. I know it bugs you but you don't have a single thing to bolster your anti-Israeli position. Just friends of friends of friends of friends.

If you were to post any news with that kind of source in the football zone the post would be deleted as unfounded rumors.

In other words, no credibility.

You do realize that there are Palestinian Christians, right, who vehemently oppose Israeli actions over there and who exist in the US? LOL.

You haven't repudiated anything. You can't even follow context

[Cajuncowboy]

You do realize that there are Palestinian Christians, right? LOL.

You haven't repudiated anything. You can't even follow context

Sure there are Palestinian Christians.

There are also Jewish Christians.

What's your point?

This has nothing to do with religion as far as military actions go, but you brought it into the equation.

And I have repudiated what you have said.

You just can't respond to me because you have nothing to respond with.

[SultanOfSix]

This has nothing to do with religion as far as military actions go, but you brought it into the equation.

Yes, because those Muslim sources certainly aren't reliable.

I think you've done me a favor in showing that you are certainly more anti-Muslim than I can ever be anti-Christian or anti-Jewish.

[vta]

I didn't throw God into the equation. Those who justified the existence of Israel did. Since I find that justification intellectually dubious from my own research, and because the Arabs had nothing to do with the Holocaust, then the control of land is simply based on the principle of "might makes right". The fact is, Palestine as of its current borders is also considered occupied territories by the UN. So, even according to the international (Western) rules of justice, the state of Israel is in violation of multiple ordinances, and those in power simply now uses the excuse of "war on terror" to continue its control policies in the areas and what are illegal Jewish settlements.


Yeah you did.

I don't know. Ask God and see what he thinks.

And the Palestinians had no problem with the 'might makes right' edict when it was the UK holding the land and allowing them to sit on it. As I said earlier, such are the perils of such an existence. They should have formed a cohesive society that would require independence.

The state of Israel is in a perpetual state of self defense and of course will end up being in violation of 'ordinance's, considering those ordinances do not apply in any way shape or form to those attacking them.

The Jews would have no cause to settle and cordon off the Palestinians if they would simply stop attacking, accept a solution with a measure of honesty and learn to live in a two state system. They'd have a more stable ground to stand on, when making complaints, if they did.

Instead they insist on their apocalyptic edicts and getting melodramatic about a strip of land that's smaller than New Jersey. In the end, it's s monumental waste. The dead are not vindicated, they're just dead.

[ShiningStar]

Yes, because those Muslim sources certainly aren't reliable.

I think you've done me a favor in showing that you are certainly more anti-Muslim than I can ever be anti-Christian or anti-Jewish.


Where has he or anyone shown you they are anti Muslim?

[SultanOfSix]

Yeah you did.

Yeah, when comparing death tolls. Not when defending the right to existence of the state of Israel.

And the Palestinians had no problem with the 'might makes right' edict when it was the UK holding the land and allowing them to sit on it.

As I said earlier, such are the perils of such an existence. They should have formed a cohesive society that would require independence.

The state of Israel is in a perpetual state of self defense and of course will end up being in violation of 'ordinance's, considering those ordinances do not apply in any way shape or form to those attacking them.

The Jews would have no cause to settle and cordon off the Palestinians if they would simply stop attacking, accept a solution with a measure of honesty and learn to live in a two state system. They'd have a more stable ground to stand on, when making complaints, if they did.

Instead they insist on their apocalyptic edicts and getting melodramatic about a strip of land that's smaller than New Jersey. In the end, it's s monumental waste. The dead are not vindicated, they're just dead.

Such is the case when a group of people allow the theft of another's land using intellectually dishonest methods: the "might makes right" policy goes into effect. The sad thing is according to Jewish theology, the right of return only comes with the appearance of the Messiah. It is why Hasidic Jews in New York vehemently deny the existence of the state of Israel as being a "Jewish" phenomenon.

[vta]

Such is the case when a group of people allow the theft of another's land using intellectually dishonest methods. The "might makes right" policy goes into effect.

Not really.
If it were a matter of simple might, the Palestinians might have shared the same fate as the American Indian.

Intellectual dishonesty? Or perhaps just a slanted perspective of a belief you will never entertain as true?

You, like that clown in Iran, want to rant about the stumbling block that their forefathers put before them, even using the same empty rhetoric about Holocaust fault, instead of recognizing it for what it is, accepting it and moving forward in a productive manner.

If the case is of wrong doing, what is the statute of limitations? Do you ignore the treatment of Jews by the previous occupants of Jerusalem and why the Jews were gone from it in the first place? Do you want to sweep that under the rug?

If we're going to cry endlessly over what is past, we'll never get what could be in the future. The Palestinians need to move on and learn to live there and be productive.

[JBond]

So, I have a stark revelation coming to me because I believe non-fighting women, children, and old people shouldn't be killed in war and simply labeled with the politically soft term of "casualties of war"? Sure thing. I'd take that bet any day of the week for as long as I live.

You need to let the crazy Muslims know that there actions are deplorable. The almost never target military installations. They target their attacks to inflict maximum damage to civilians including women and children. Why anyone would condone such barbaric acts, I'll never understand.

[ScipioCowboy]

Such is the case when a group of people allow the theft of another's land using intellectually dishonest methods: the "might makes right" policy goes into effect. The sad thing is according to Jewish theology, the right of return only comes with the appearance of the Messiah. It is why Hasidic Jews in New York vehemently deny the existence of the state of Israel as being a "Jewish" phenomenon.

Theft?

Prior to the reestablishment of the nation of Israel, the land was under British rule. The British then ceded it for purposes of creating a Jewish nation. No theft. Only the perfectly legal exchange of land.

[SultanOfSix]

Not really.
If it were a matter of simple might, the Palestinians might have shared the same fate as the American Indian.

Intellectual dishonesty? Or perhaps just a slanted perspective of a belief you will never entertain as true?

You, like that clown in Iran, want to rant about the stumbling block that their forefathers put before them, even using the same empty rhetoric about Holocaust fault, instead of recognizing it for what it is, accepting it and moving forward in a productive manner.

If the case is of wrong doing, what is the statute of limitations? Do you ignore the treatment of Jews by the previous occupants of Jerusalem and why the Jews were gone from it in the first place? Do you want to sweep that under the rug?

If we're going to cry endlessly over what is past, we'll never get what could be in the future. The Palestinians need to move on and learn to live there and be productive.

And you like, Mr. Ariel Sharon, think the theft of someone else's land is perfectly acceptable, and if the Palestinians won't submit to it, then they can be enclosed in prisons, or ethnically cleansed out. "The Jews" have lived quite amicably in Muslim lands for many centuries, and under Muslim rule in Palestine (even when power was granted to them under British colonial rule), they lived under their own religious laws, and had unhindered access to their religious places. Unlike the case, when the immigration of the Ashkenazi Jews post Balfour declaration into the land of Palestine from Europe and Russia, which was hastened due to the Holocaust, a completely Western phenomenon, did "religious" and cultural differences (ironically, many between the Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews) rear their ugly heads and lead to the violence that is seen today.

[vta]

And you like, Mr. Ariel Sharon, think the theft of someone else's land is perfectly acceptable, and if the Palestinians won't submit to it, then they can be enclosed in prisons, or ethnically cleansed out. "The Jews" have lived quite amicably in Muslim lands for many centuries, and under Muslim rule in Palestine, they lived under their own religious laws, and had unhindered access to their religious places. Unlike the case, when the immigration of the Ashkenazi Jews post Balfour declaration into the land of Palestine from Europe and Russia, which was hastened due to the Holocaust, a completely Western phenomenon, did "religious" and cultural differences (ironically, many between the Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews) rear their ugly heads and lead to the violence that is seen today.

Only at times, my friend, most notably the Ottoman Empire. It's easy to be magnanimous when in control, quite another when the shoe's on the other foot. And not for 'many centuries'; there's a reason they had to 'return'.

In any event, the history at this point is irrelevant, it's obvious that it has nothing to with peace or justice, just a validation of continued bad behavior and the fantasy of ultimate revenge.

I have nothing in common with Sharon - he sure doesn't represent me politically or religiously, but you on the other hand have too much in common with the backward thinkers and faulty rationalists. In 2009, the only answer is for the two to accept a peaceful resolution and a sharing of the land. But by all means continue to study dead events and think they hold the answer to today's conflict.

[SultanOfSix]

I have nothing in common with Sharon - he sure doesn't represent me politically or religiously, but you on the other hand have too much in common with the backward thinkers and faulty rationalists. In 2009, the only answer is for the two to accept a peaceful resolution and a sharing of the land. But by all means continue to study dead events and think they hold the answer to today's conflict.

I'm all for peace in that area and sharing the land NOW. However, I will not accept the intellectually dubious notions as foundations of proof for Israel's existence, nor will I accept the policies instituted by those who currently in power as acceptable, and if that's considered backwards and faulty, then so be it. And just in case anyone thinks I am one sided, I vehemently disagree with suicide bombing in any form whatsoever leading to loss of innocent Jewish lives declaring with certainty that it is completely un-Islamic. Unfortunately, sometimes extremism breeds extremism, miscreants on both sides become involved in unfortunate ways, leading to a loss of innocent lives on both sides.

I apologize for linking to you Sharon.

[Cajuncowboy]

Yes, because those Muslim sources certainly aren't reliable.

I think you've done me a favor in showing that you are certainly more anti-Muslim than I can ever be anti-Christian or anti-Jewish.

Woo Hoo!

Considering every muslim source of note seems to think the destruction of Israel seems to be the way to go, you'll have to excuse my questioning these bastions of righteousness and truth.

And as far as being anti-muslim. Not so, I am anti-lies. And you are crazy if you really believe that Hamas doesn't purposely target civilians.

There's not a sane person who believes that.

[vta]

I'm all for peace in that area and sharing the land NOW. However, I will not accept the intellectually dubious notions as foundations of proof for Israel's existence, nor will I accept the policies instituted by those who currently in power as acceptable, and if that's considered backwards and faulty, then so be it. And just in case anyone thinks I am one sided, I vehemently disagree with suicide bombing in any form whatsoever leading to loss of innocent Jewish lives declaring with certainty that it is completely un-Islamic. Unfortunately, sometimes extremism breeds extremism, miscreants on both sides become involved in unfortunate ways, leading to a loss of innocent lives on both sides.

I apologize for linking to you Sharon.

No need to apologize, I likened you to Ahmadinejad, first.
But I am reading some of the same things, in regard to Israel and Palestine, as I'm sure you felt my view is mirroring the Israeli's.

We know the history; focusing in on it isn't going to accomplish much, but enflamed emotions.