News Will Israel's Strikes Escalate to Full-Scale War?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Israel
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on escalating tensions between Israel and Hezbollah following the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, with concerns about potential wider conflict involving Iran and Syria. Israel has conducted airstrikes on Lebanese infrastructure, raising fears of a renewed war and the involvement of the Lebanese army. The role of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) is questioned, as they seem to lack a clear mandate in the current crisis. Participants express skepticism about the effectiveness of international diplomacy, particularly the U.S. response, and highlight the complex dynamics of regional politics. Overall, the situation is viewed as precarious, with the potential for significant escalation in hostilities.
  • #601
MeJennifer said:
That is just racism, plain and simple.

No. It's history. Failure to examine the possible consequences of actions before taking them has been a characteristic of SW Asian cultures for quite some time --- it's been particularly pronounced through the 20th century, and there's no indication that it's going to change.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #602
Yonoz said:
I was referring to the fact that the British could deal with the IRA on British soil. The IDF was not in Lebanon for 6 years now, hence the dissonance between the two cases, making the example void.
You can find dissidence between any two examples, but that is no excuse to overlook the similarities. Regardless, your statement begs the question; how much land should Israel control?
 
  • #603
Bystander said:
No. It's history. Failure to examine the possible consequences of actions before taking them has been a characteristic of SW Asian cultures for quite some time --- it's been particularly pronounced through the 20th century, and there's no indication that it's going to change.
Western culture has that problem as well, if it didn't we would have seen nothing but flowers in the street in Iraq. But laying such lack of foresight on a whole culture is stereotyping, and Israel's continuing occupation and expiation beyond the Green Line motivates Muslims to conform to the stereotype which you push on them.
 
  • #604
Israel pulls out of Gaza and suffered retaliation from militants there. Israel pulls out of Lebanon, and gets hit by Hizbullah. But if Israel takes down the settlements in the West Bank, everything will get better?

Yes, the Israeli settlements in the WB are illegal and they should be taken down. But to expect a drastic turn for the better following such a move is illogical. The terrorist groups (funded by Iran and Syria) are not arguing that Israel is occupying their land as much as they are arguing that Israel simply exists.
 
Last edited:
  • #605
Taking the settlements down and clearing out to completely behind the Green Line would resolve the most flagrant causes for grievance, and those who contest Israel existence will die off in time. We can't changes those with their minds set to take the land by force on either side, but we can stop supporting such people and work to resolve the conditions which promote their causes.
 
  • #606
Gokul43201 said:
Curious6, it is good practice to support an assertion like that with an argument. What you've just done is a hit and run.

Well, I'll provide an argument for him. Hezbollah's initial purpose was to end the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. Similarly, the IRA wanted the UK to cede Northern Ireland back to the rest of Ireland. Their methods were similar in that both used guerilla/terrorist tactics. The UK did not bomb Ireland and Israel did not bomb Lebanon during either of these periods of resistance.

The analogy breaks, however, when we consider what happened post resolution. Although Northern Ireland is still part of the UK, it is so by its own choice and hostilities seem to have ceased. Israel actually one-upped the UK and withdrew from southern Lebanon. However, at this point, there was no peace. Hezbollah continued on despite the fact that its intended aim had been accomplished, and has moved beyond the guerilla tactics to a flat-out assault with surface-to-surface missiles aimed at Israeli targets. As Yonoz pointed out about a hundred times, if, at this point, instead of easing off, the IRA had acquired surface-to-surface missiles and was aiming and firing these at cities within the British mainland, would the UK government continue its cease-fire? Or would it seek to destroy those outposts armed with surface-to-surface missiles by any means necessary before they could destroy all of the major industrial cities along the northwestern coast of Britain?

I'm not necessarily taking a side here, trying to say that the initial Israeli response to the kidnapping was justifiable, as I honestly have not been following this conflict and have no idea what the full reasons are behind each action taken by both parties. I'm only pointing out the flaw in the analogy, since there seem to be so many people vociferously defending the position. It's not as if this analogy needs to hold in order for there to be creedence lent to the claim that what Israel is doing is inappropriate, anyway.

It's worth noting that Gokul is right in his last post as well. It's a lot easier to negotiate with interests that only want you to give over the northern tip of an island. It's a lot harder when they want the complete destruction of your entire nation and the giving up of all of its land. These organizations do not seem to be the least bit interested in peaceful cohabitation.

Edit: Then again, I don't want to make a conflation error and equate the most extreme elements of radical Islamic terrorist groups with the consensus wishes of most regional Arabs. Assuming they are reasonable human beings like any ordinary person tends to be, I'm sure the average Palestinian or Lebanese would be more than happy with peaceful cohabitation. Still, they keep electing extremists that make it clear Israel has no right to exist at all.
 
Last edited:
  • #607
kyleb said:
Taking the settlements down and clearing out to completely behind the Green Line would resolve the most flagrant causes for grievance, and those who contest Israel existence will die off in time.
Get real.
kyleb said:
We can't changes those with their minds set to take the land by force on either side, but we can stop supporting such people and work to resolve the conditions which promote their causes.
Here's one more thing for you to consider then: if the Israeli public agrees to one withdrawal after another, and all that insures us is a place at the receiving end of daily rocket attacks from those very territories, you will definitely not see a peaceful end to this conflict for a while. That's not a threat, that's a reality check from a left wing Israeli.
 
  • #608
So tell me, really; how much land should Israel control?
 
  • #609
kyleb said:
So tell me, really; how much land should Israel control?

Why don't you tell us? How much land does Israel really need to give away before the attacks stop? And stop giving us this crap about "Well, they've withdrawn from all but one spot, and that's why the attacks have quadrupled in intensity"
 
  • #610
Anttech said:
You don't negotiate with terrorists is a slogan, just like Russ put earlier "Give peace a chance" is. Its something Bushco like to say all the time, as a premesis to do whatever they like. The UK Goverment negotiated with Terrorists in Ireland many times, and ohhh look there is now peace! Regardsless Hezbollah needs it sting taken away, I am all for that. But Israel is going way beyond a terrorist opp Like Putin said, it is now completely destroying Lebanon. A Free Deomcratic mixed race country.

Let me restate : you don't negociate with islamic terrorists.
 
  • #611
OK, do you negotioate with Isaeli terrorists? The ones that come and bulldoze your little home into the dirt? Israel (with US help) dominates the region, and they are making the South Africans look like pikers. The Zionists are ruining any hope for regional stability in the Middle East.
 
  • #612
What's the "or" sh*t? It's a "tactical necessity" that the Israelis deliberately target the psychopaths; it's an accident, unfortunate side effect, mistake (given lousy language translations) that the UN observers incurred casualties.

Believe it or not, this is the kind of thing that happens when some raving maniac starts a war. B*tch out the raving maniac for being so incredibly stupid in the first place, b*tch out the nincompoops who gave the raving maniac sanctuary, b*tch out the people who bankroll the raving maniac, but don't go griping to the people trying to clean up the mess.
hahahahahaha :)

Ohh wait you weren't referring to yourself. Please stop slandering
 
  • #613
"Slander?" Nasrallah, the gutless, hide out in Syria, raving maniac? Stupid? The people who let a gutless, raving maniac do their thinking for them?

They wake up and staple him and his ilk to anthills, then we'll talk about a future for the Arab and Islamic worlds.
 
  • #614
Are you going to have a intelectual debate? I know its hard but really, try at least to debate about the wrongs and right...
 
  • #615
"Right" and "wrong" are emotional and philosophical claptrap, not intellectual discussion. "The Is" of the situation is that the Arab world has picked enough fights with the Israelis to know they get their butts kicked every time out; "the other is" of the situation is that the Arab world prefers listening to raving maniacs and paying enormous material, social, and political costs rather than stapling them to anthills.
 
  • #616
Office_Shredder said:
Why don't you tell us? How much land does Israel really need to give away before the attacks stop? And stop giving us this crap about "Well, they've withdrawn from all but one spot, and that's why the attacks have quadrupled in intensity"
This isn't a fairy tale so the attacks won't magically disappear regardless of what land Israel holds. Now with that in mind, my question goes again to those defending Israel's continuing occupation and expansion into Palestine over the past four decades; how much land should Israel control?
 
  • #617
Everything the Palestinians and other Arab states give them as "spoils of war." If they want to give some of it back (hectare per Hamas or Hezbollah hoodlum hanged from a lamppost, or 10 hectares per diseased holy man staked out on an anthill), make it a win-win situation for the Palestinian "on the street" --- let him get rid of the punks who've been shaking him down for the past sixty years plus gaining lebensraum.
 
  • #618
turbo-1 said:
OK, do you negotioate with Isaeli terrorists? The ones that come and bulldoze your little home into the dirt? Israel (with US help) dominates the region, and they are making the South Africans look like pikers. The Zionists are ruining any hope for regional stability in the Middle East.

Classical islamic apologist stance.
 
  • #619
clj4 said:
Classical islamic apologist stance.

Since you're generalizing Islam here...The Hezbollah Shiites are closer to Christianity as the Israeli Jews
since they base their faith partly on Jesus Christ:

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Why_Dont_Jews_Believe_In_Jesus$.asp

http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1384/10/03/index-e.htm#b1The real message is of course that Israel is not simply a small religious
island in a large hostile Arabic sea. There is a lot of religious diversity in
Israel’s neighborhood. It’s not religion which inhibits a peaceful
coexistence. It’s politics. Regards, Hans
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #620
Bystander said:
Everything the Palestinians and other Arab states give them as "spoils of war." If they want to give some of it back (hectare per Hamas or Hezbollah hoodlum hanged from a lamppost, or 10 hectares per diseased holy man staked out on an anthill), make it a win-win situation for the Palestinian "on the street" --- let him get rid of the punks who've been shaking him down for the past sixty years plus gaining lebensraum.
So you think Israel should occupy and expand wherever and whenever want?
 
  • #621
Hans de Vries said:
Since you're generalizing Islam here...


The Hezbollah Shiites are closer to Christianity as the Israeli Jews
since they base their faith partly on Jesus Christ:

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Why_Dont_Jews_Believe_In_Jesus$.asp

http://www.president.ir/eng/ahmadinejad/cronicnews/1384/10/03/index-e.htm#b1


The real message is of course that Israel is not simply a small religious
island in a large hostile Arabic sea. There is a lot of religious diversity in
Israel’s neighborhood. It’s not religion which inhibits a peaceful
coexistence. It’s politics.


Regards, Hans


I think that you should look up what an islamic apologist is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #622
Do you know that there is quite a diversity in Israel's own Jewish population as well, many being non-religious but rather cultrally Jewish?:

http://www.avi-chai.org/Static/Binaries/Publications/EnglishGuttman_0.pdf

And I haven't been able to locate statistics, but there are non-religious Palestinians as well. Beyond that, there are also Jewish communities who contenue to oppose Israel while living in Palestine, such as the Edah Haredit mentioned here:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1145961235084

The 'Us vs Them' here is much more complicated than many people care to realize.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #623
I've been called up.
Hope this is the last war.
Be back soon.
 
  • #624
I don't see anything to inspire hope that this will be the last war, but I hope to see you back soon and unscratched.
 
  • #625
Good luck, take care and come back soon.
 
  • #626
kyleb said:
So you think Israel should occupy and expand wherever and whenever want?

Not even close --- there is a real language barrier here --- I'll restate it more clearly --- "When the 'sh*t for brains' militant Arabs and Moslems start a fight and the Israelis finish it, as has been customary, the Israelis are perfectly entitled to do whatever they wish with captured territory as spoils of war."

What that means, or, "So what I think," is that if the "sh*t for brains" militants don't start wars, they won't be losing territory, or, if the Arab "common man" wakes up and takes control of his life, and lynches or locks up the "sh*t for brains" militants, he keeps his land, his money, and his life.

Klar?
 
  • #627
Bystander said:
Not even close --- there is a real language barrier here --- I'll restate it more clearly --- "When the 'sh*t for brains' militant Arabs and Moslems start a fight and the Israelis finish it, as has been customary, the Israelis are perfectly entitled to do whatever they wish with captured territory as spoils of war."

What that means, or, "So what I think," is that if the "sh*t for brains" militants don't start wars, they won't be losing territory, or, if the Arab "common man" wakes up and takes control of his life, and lynches or locks up the "sh*t for brains" militants, he keeps his land, his money, and his life.

Klar?

Well put. The sh*t for brains started all the wars in the hope of "wiping out" the newly created state and lost all of these wars.
After loosing they start screaming for "justice".
 
  • #628
Again, the attacks won't disappear regardless of what land Israel holds. Furthermore, the Arab common man can't stop every terrorist attack on Israel just as the Israeli common man can't stop every Palestinian civilian death or Israeli terrorist attack. So with that in mind; should Israel contenue occupy and expand wherever and whenever deemed fit?
 
  • #629
kyleb said:
Again, the attacks won't disappear regardless of what land Israel holds.

This is a position that will eventually result in Islam going the way of the Thug cult in India --- within the century --- there's not room in the world for religions that refractory and reactionary. It moderates itself or ceases to be.

Furthermore, the Arab common man can't stop every terrorist attack on Israel

The Jordanians have made a very credible, "good faith" effort --- or, the Jordanian govt. has --- it is supposedly acting in the interests of the "common man." This is all the Israelis have asked.

just as the Israeli common man can't stop every Palestinian civilian death or Israeli terrorist attack.

The Israelis have been suicide bombing Arab communities at what rate? Compared to the Palestinian rate of, what, couple a month averaged over nearly sixty years? Doesn't "wash" --- "loose gun on deck" here and there, I'm sure, and I'm equally sure that a rule of law is exercised in Israel --- "Stashu" doesn't speak for the country, and "Stashu" ain't going to start a war for the country, so "Stashu" goes to jail or the looney bin.

So with that in mind; should Israel contenue occupy and expand wherever and whenever deemed fit?

Anytime the "sh*t for brains" militant Arabs and Moslems want 'em to expand, all they have to do is heave a couple rockets at 'em.

Are you getting the picture? Start a fight, get your butts kicked, and lose whatever the Israelis want to take from the table. Don't start fights, and the Israelis leave you alone.
 
  • #630
Yonoz said:
I've been called up.
Hope this is the last war.
Be back soon.

Good luck, go kick some ass. Come back soon.
 
  • #631
Bystander said:
Not even close --- there is a real language barrier here --- I'll restate it more clearly --- "When the 'sh*t for brains' militant Arabs and Moslems start a fight and the Israelis finish it, as has been customary, the Israelis are perfectly entitled to do whatever they wish with captured territory as spoils of war."

What that means, or, "So what I think," is that if the "sh*t for brains" militants don't start wars, they won't be losing territory, or, if the Arab "common man" wakes up and takes control of his life, and lynches or locks up the "sh*t for brains" militants, he keeps his land, his money, and his life.

Klar?

I find this sort of language disgusting and this should not be allowed here.
I suppose somebody with this kind of aggression and mentality,
born in the Gaza strip, would be among the first to join the extremists.
 
  • #632
Bystander said:
Are you getting the picture?
I believe so; your comparisons overlook how neither Jordanians or Israelis suffer anything even approaching the occupation and expansion Israel imposes on Palestinians, you use the actions of extremists as justification for the occupation and expansion which has continued for nearly four decades, and you show a flagrant disgust with all Muslims to the point that you call for genocide of Islam as a your own final solution. Is that it?
 
  • #633
How can there be spoils of war, as you not so eloquently put it, if there is no well defined enemy, or rather that enemy isn't actually the government of another country? Perhaps you don't seem to understand that Hezbollah arent actually Lebanon. Its a fringe terrorist group born out of the last Israeli PLO war that took place in Beruit.

Well put. The sh*t for brains started all the wars in the hope of "wiping out" the newly created state and lost all of these wars.
After loosing they start screaming for "justice".
Well the Palistans we a tad annoyed at having there land taken of them and given to the Jews during the British Mandate. Think about it for a little minute, what would you do if hypothetically the US lost its next war, and was past onto the administration of (for the sake of argument) France. France then decided to spilt your country in two and give the Land to Muslims. How would you feel about that?

The Israelis have been suicide bombing Arab communities at what rate? Compared to the Palestinian rate of, what, couple a month averaged over nearly sixty years? Doesn't "wash
Straighten your facts up a bit, the first suicide attack against Israel by a Palestine was in 1993, maybe my maths is a bit rusty, but I was say that's 13 years not 60.

This is a position that will eventually result in Islam going the way of the Thug cult in India --- within the century --- there's not room in the world for religions that refractory and reactionary. It moderates itself or ceases to be.
Would you like to elaborate a bit on that? What makes you believe that Islam is refractory and reactionary?
 
  • #634
Yonoz said:
I was referring to the fact that the British could deal with the IRA on British soil. The IDF was not in Lebanon for 6 years now, hence the dissonance between the two cases, making the example void.

The IRA typically were not living in Northern Ireland, they were living in Eire. They would cross the border and bomb the UK, they would also have proxy suicide missions against the UK Military and N.Ireland Civilians. All funded by the Americans. There are many similarities between the two cases, To ignore what happened there and not learn from the experience of the Brits there would be rather ignorant.
 
  • #635
clj4 said:
Classical islamic apologist stance.

What is an Islamic apologist? Someone who apologies for being a different religion that you? Quite the Racism, please.
 
  • #636
Anttech said:
Well the Palistans we a tad annoyed at having there land taken of them and given to the Jews during the British Mandate. Think about it for a little minute, what would you do if hypothetically the US lost its next war, and was past onto the administration of (for the sake of argument) France. France then decided to spilt your country in two and give the Land to Muslims. How would you feel about that?

There are large pockets of refugee populations that live in the US. For a simple example, a group of mountain dwellers in Laos known as the Hmong were enlisted to fight alongside the US to bring down the Laotian government during the Vietnam War. When they lost, they were relocated to refugee camps in Thailand and promised residence in the US. Not all of the promises have been kept, but there is a huge population in California's central valley in Merced County. There are parts of towns that are basically entirely Hmong. They have never assimilated into the surrounding culture and do create a lot of resentment from the fact that so many live off of welfare rolls and refuse to learn English and continue to practice an animistic religion that involves shamanic rituals and animal sacrifice (which somehow bothers people even though the deaths are a heck of a lot cleaner than what would happen in the average slaughterhouse).

I imagine that if the federal government decided to just carve out a piece of the central valley the size of Israel and let the Hmong govern themselves on it, there would be a good deal of objection to it, but ultimately, Californians would respect the fact that these people have nowhere else to live and there is plenty of other land in California to move to when the government buys you out and gives yours away. I cannot imagine any situation in which native Californians would start to bomb the Hmong ambulances and schoolbuses.

I don't speak for every Californian, but honestly, I've moved plenty of times in my life before. If the government came to me and said I needed to move again to make room for a group of displaced southeast Asians that had suffered a genocide in their own land, I'd gladly do it. Obviously, people in many parts of the world feel more attachment to the land than the average American, who moves two or three times in an adult lifetime, but even so. All of the friends I have from former Soviet republics felt attached to their land as well, but they were smart enough to know when it was best to just leave.

I realize this wouldn't be a truly analagous situation, but it's about as close as anything would ever come in the US. The real point is that the population that became Israel was not exactly in the easiest situation at the time, either. Would it really have been any better if they were simply told to remain in Germany and Poland and wherever else they had been prior to the roundings up? Granted, they wouldn't be in the same position the Hmong would be in, in that they would not have been openly killed by the government of the country they returned to, but even so. There is no easy solution to the problem posed by large groups of refugees that are not particularly well-liked just about everywhere they go.

Think about what happened to other groups of people hurt by the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The situation with the Azeris, Armenians, and Turks has involved just as much displacement, unfair land grabs, and even an all-out genocide, not to mention continued economic depression in the wake of the Soviet breakup. The situation there is arguably even more complex and historically one-sided, yet we do not see Armenians living in Turkey demanding the return of their ancestral land via terrorism. Many have ended up leaving the region entirely, with a heavy heart, no doubt, but is not leaving with a heavy heart just a bit more noble than blowing up schoolchildren? Hell, if the Armenians I've known and conversed with are any indication, many hate the US for its support of Turkey as much as any Arab hates the US for its support of Israel. Yet we haven't seen any Armenian religious groups crashing airplanes into US skyscrapers.

I don't wish to conflate innocent Lebanese and Palestinian civilians with the basically warlord groups attacking Israel, but how much sympathy would there be for an independent Sicily movement that elected a mob syndicate to govern them which subsequently began to attack mainland Calabria with surface-to-surface missiles provided by Libya?

Edit: Perhaps an equally good question to ask is what would the mainstream European and American east coast reaction be if the federal government did decide that because the Hmong had been living in refugee camps for the last thirty years, they did deserve a homeland, and decided to give them one in the central valley, and Californians did decide to go to war with this new country instead of allowing it?
 
Last edited:
  • #637
Hans de Vries said:
I find this sort of language disgusting and this should not be allowed here.
I suppose somebody with this kind of aggression and mentality,
born in the Gaza strip, would be among the first to join the extremists.

Finally --- does your disgust with the lunatic fringe who've been inciting the violence match, or exceed, your disgust with my language? There have been enough "poetic" paraphrases of less primitive statements of the situation that something unambiguous is necessary to clarify the point.

As to the "agression and mentality," and what "should not be allowed here (PF)," attacks on people posting rather than on content are NOT allowed --- check your mirror.

The OP had to do with the current situation and its potential to trigger WW III, hence the reference to "Same ol' sh*t." That is, the 20th century history of the area, and its "cultural traditions."

20th century history:

Ottoman dominion;
collapse of the Ottoman Empire;
League of Nations Mandate to GB, UK, "John Bull," whatever you like;
GB partitions, and withdraws from area in 1948 in accord with UN resolution, supported by or in support of UN resolution, whatever you will, following lengthy negotiations with affected parties;
Palestinians, Arab govts., and Islamic hardheads ignore UN mandate and partitioning agreement, declare war and perform as T. E. Lawrence would have predicted;
having behaved like complete fools, a cultural tradition of compounding the idiocy is invoked, and several more wars are started and lost.​

Relevant cultural history:

not worth occupation by Egyptians;
not worth occupation by Greeks;
not worth occupation by Rome;
not worth occupation by Ottomans;
that is, an accidental conditioning of cultural expectation that war does NOT involve loss of territory;
resulting in cultural indignation, surprise, and disappointment following the wars of the 20th century.​

Having made fools of themselves, and having found an unexpected "rule" change regarding warfare, we are witnessing the Palestinians going through the "n" stages of grief --- shock, denial, rage, and maybe the day comes when they accept the fact that this is planet Earth --- I ain't holding my breath.

______________________________________________________________

kyleb said:
Bystander said:
Are you getting the picture?

I believe so; your comparisons overlook how neither Jordanians or Israelis suffer anything even approaching the occupation and expansion Israel imposes on Palestinians, you use the actions of extremists as justification for the occupation and expansion which has continued for nearly four decades, and you show a flagrant disgust with all Muslims to the point that you call for genocide of Islam as a your own final solution. Is that it?

A simple "No" suffices --- you needn't demonstrate with incorrect paraphrase.

The Palestinians are "suffering" as a consequence of the actions of Palestinians. The Palestinians will not stop "suffering" the consequences of the actions of Palestinians until such time as they adjust those actions to result in something other than suffering. The Jordanians CONTROL extremists, something the Palestinian Authority would do well to emulate. Most people get the idea that hitting themselves on the head with a hammer hurts after the second or third impact. Do I feel any sort of compassion for Palestinians? A little --- they didn't ask their great grandfathers to be so idiotic as to trust other Arabs in conspiring to make war. I'd feel more so if they weren't insisting that their problems are the result of the actions of someone other than their great grandfathers, and if they actually took steps toward alleviating the problem rather than aggravating it.

"Flagrant disgust" with all M(o,u)sl(e,i)ms? Hardly --- those who listen to the likes of Zawahiri, Nasrallah, and other bearded psychopaths are on their ways to mass graves. The rest of the Islamic world need not follow. They wanta bang their heads against the ground five times a day? That's cool. They want me to pay them for breathing Allah's air? They're in for a big shock.
 
  • #638
LYN, the whole idea of just letting the land go does not apply to a large number of very devout Muslims. It is a terrible sin to do that. In fact, a woman may walk out (from what I've come to understand) on her husband against his wishes and not suffer the consequences if she is doing this to recover so much as a single square inch of Muslim land that was unjustly occupied by someone else.

You are applying an honor system to a people that go by a very different one than yours.
 
Last edited:
  • #639
Where did you get the wife/land bit?
 
  • #640
And also:
Bystander said:
This is a position that will eventually result in Islam going the way of the Thug cult in India --- within the century --- there's not room in the world for religions that refractory and reactionary. It moderates itself or ceases to be.
How is this anything but an ultimatum for genocide?
 
  • #641
Anttech said:
How can there be spoils of war, as you not so eloquently put it, if there is no well defined enemy, or rather that enemy isn't actually the government of another country?

The half of Palestine awarded to the Palestinians in the 1948 partition, which the Palestinians gambled away, the Golan Heights which the Syrians gambled away, the Sinai Peninsula which the Egyptians gambled away and the Israelis gave back, the West Bank which was whatever it was. If there is "no well defined enemy," the Palestinians don't exist, nor the other Arab states and militant Islamic and Arab organizations.

Perhaps you don't seem to understand that Hezbollah arent actually Lebanon. Its a fringe terrorist group born out of the last Israeli PLO war that took place in Beruit.

This is news? When English isn't your first tongue, it's best to avoid constructions like "Perhaps you don't seem to understand ...," when trying to insult people --- assert that I'm unaware of that fact, or ask if I'm aware of that fact --- at least give people the impression you've got both oars in the water. The Lebanese government is hosting Hezbollah, has made no effort to intern, disarm, deport, or otherwise control Hezbollah, and is going to collapse as a result of its impotence. What that has to do with "spoils of war," in this instance is that the Israelis having to clean the Lebanese house of cockroaches are now in a position to "bill" the Lebanese for services, or occupy a "buffer zone" until the Lebanese demonstrate a commitment to controlling their own territory and border.

Well the Palistans we a tad annoyed at having there land taken of them and given to the Jews during the British Mandate. Think about it for a little minute, what would you do if hypothetically the US lost its next war, and was past onto the administration of (for the sake of argument) France. France then decided to spilt your country in two and give the Land to Muslims. How would you feel about that?

Palestine was taken from the Ottomans, given as a "mandate" to the British by the League of Nations, and the British gave half to the Israelis, and half to the Palestinians; there was no Palestinian control of Palestine prior to 1948. The great grandfathers of today's Palestinians then decided to play "all or nothing," and got what they deserved. The U.S. loses a war with France and gets turned over to a buncha sheep thieves, it deserves it. The U.S. picks a fight with France, loses it, and gets turned over to a buncha sheep thieves, it really deserves it.

Straighten your facts up a bit, the first suicide attack against Israel by a Palestine was in 1993, maybe my maths is a bit rusty, but I was say that's 13 years not 60.

Giving the peace-loving Palestinians a break --- average the suicide bombing over the full sixty years of Arab belligerence to cut the rate down to where someone can claim the Israelis are just as nasty. Fine, we'll do it your way --- someone else can post totals for the Israeli suicide bombings --- less than the number of fingers on one hand? And the Palestinians total that many a month --- we can pitch the "Israeli terrorist" argument. Agreed?

Would you like to elaborate a bit on that? What makes you believe that Islam is refractory and reactionary?

"Refractory?" When's the last time an infidel spent a full year in Saudi Arabia? Went sightseeing at the Kaba? That's "refractory."

"Reactionary?" What happened to Anwar Sadat? That's "reactionary."
 
  • #642
kyleb said:
And also:

How is this anything but an ultimatum for genocide?

Islam's direction and fate is up to Islam --- there is no "ultimatum" here. It is a statement of fact; there is no room in the world for a bunch of medeival, spoiled brats like Zawahiri, Nasfallah, bin Laden, and the like. Islam purges itself of the looneys, or the world purges it of looneys. Few more grade schools in Russia, Madrid bombings, WTCs, and that purge the world performs might be prosecuted with more rigor than is necessary, but certainly enough rigor to be prudent.

Does the rest of the world fear Islam? No. It's a caricature of religious lunacy --- is it enough a nuisance to provoke serious responses in the future? Yes.
 
  • #643
You clearly said that within the century Islam either meets you standards or it ceases to be. That is what you meant, right?
 
  • #644
kyleb said:
You clearly said that within the century Islam either meets you standards or it ceases to be. That is what you meant, right?

Islam meets the world's standards for tolerance of others, restraint of its reactionary membership/adherents, or it's gone with the Thugs, Aztecs, Druids, Nazis, and every other religion built around homicide and/or other criminal activities.
 
  • #645
Bystander said:
someone else can post totals for the Israeli suicide bombings
When you have a superior force and can impose your will, why would you resort to suicide bombing?

Reminds me of another war of occupation.

“Give us your bombers and we’ll give you our baskets,” says FLN leader Ben M’Hidi to the French, in reference to Algerian
women hiding bombs in handbaskets. He explains how the insurgents are forced to use their “unconventional” guerilla tactics
because of the disparity in traditional military might, because of the non-reciprocal structure of the conflict. What’s interesting is
that the French take the relatively clever tactics of the Algerians and demonize them as uncivilized and heartless. The French
seem to say: “Look at how the Algerian scum explode bombs in our cafés! It’s so much more refined when war is fought with
modern tanks and planes.”
It is all a matter of perspective. As long as both sides are unwilling to recognize the others grievances, real and/or perceived, they will continue the harsh words, name calling, and violence. Whether they drop bombs them from the air, or blow themselves up in a cafe. Roll in on tanks, bulldoze homes and orchards, or fire rockets from neighborhoods. Both sides are wrong, because violence is wrong.

Hezbollah and Israel are equally guilty for the destruction of Lebanon. And I might add that the US, by supplying the weapons, and keeping the international community from calling for a ceasefire share a portion of the blame as well.
 
  • #646
kyleb said:
How is this anything but an ultimatum for genocide?

I didn't want to get into this debate but I have to respond to this comment.
If religious fanatics are attacking you and you respond by defending yourself, that is not genocide. That is self-defense. It is the religious fanatics who initiated force.
Right now in the Middle East, it is the Israelis who are defending themselves against their genocide by Arab Muslims (not every Arab Muslim but the overwhelming majority).

To not support Israel in this war is tantamount to sanctioning the massacre (Suicide bombings and a few wars), the Palestinians, with the help of most of the Arab states around Israel, have inflicted on Israel in the past 60 years.

I don't agree with the limited scale of this attack. I would have supported an all out attack on Lebanon and Iran (mainly) without any regard for civilian casualties (the moral responsibility of any civilians caught in crossfire lies with the ones who initiated the war i.e. Iran & its friends). IMO, because of the half-hearted nature of the attack, it will harm rather than help Israel in the long run. But I do support fully Israel's right to defend itself against brutal barbarians.
 
Last edited:
  • #647
sid_galt said:
Right now in the Middle East, it is the Israelis who are defending themselves against their genocide by Arab Muslims (not every Arab Muslim but the overwhelming majority).
Exactly how many Arab Muslims is Israel defending against genocide from in the Middle East right now? Also, what means do these Arab Muslims have to inflict genocide on Israel?
 
  • #648
This is news? When English isn't your first tongue, it's best to avoid constructions like "Perhaps you don't seem to understand ...," when trying to insult people --
It is my first tongue! You like to harp on about you world view as if it is *fact* yet you post are riddled with misinformation, and opinion twisted as if it is fact.

Right now in the Middle East, it is the Israelis who are defending themselves against their genocide by Arab Muslims (not every Arab Muslim but the overwhelming majority).
Islam has >1.2 billion followers, 300 million of those are 'Arabs'. So an overwhelming majority would be what? For the sake of argument let's assume you mean 200 Million. If 200 million strong Army was to attack a country of 7 Million, I think we can assume that Israel would no longer exist, and those spoils of war which bystander likes to go on about would be in the Arabs domain. Yet strangely enough that isn't actually what is happening, is it?

I don't agree with the limited scale of this attack. I would have supported an all out attack on Lebanon and Iran (mainly) without any regard for civilian casualties (the moral responsibility of any civilians caught in crossfire lies with the ones who initiated the war i.e. Iran & its friends).

Lucky that is the 'overwhelming' consensuses of the free world, and of course the geneva convention and other international human rights contracts, that the leaders of the free world ratified.
 
Last edited:
  • #649
"Refractory?" When's the last time an infidel spent a full year in Saudi Arabia? Went sightseeing at the Kaba? That's "refractory."

"Reactionary?" What happened to Anwar Sadat? That's "reactionary."

My friend here is about to move to Dubai (Arabic and Islamic state) to start work for an 'infidel' company. I know many people who have worked in Saudi, hell I have even been asked if I would be interested in an interview for a job there. I turned it down because I wouldn't want to be so far from my Family (and I make more money here).

The actions of one person within a community of 1.2 Billion does not constitute anything, nor does it indicate the whole. (Is that not completely obvious?). So why not give some real examples, this time.
 
Last edited:
  • #650
kyleb said:
Exactly how many Arab Muslims is Israel defending against genocide from in the Middle East right now? Also, what means do these Arab Muslims have to inflict genocide on Israel?

?
Perhaps I was not clear. I meant that the Israel is defending itself against the genocide (i.e. destroying or killing a political, racial or cultural group - in this case Jews) initiated by the Arab Muslims against Israel which has been going on for the past 60 years.
 

Similar threads

Replies
132
Views
14K
Replies
92
Views
18K
Replies
126
Views
16K
Replies
75
Views
11K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
18
Views
5K
Back
Top