Texsox Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 And until the Palestinians realize that, every time they committ violent acts vs Israel, that they will be retaliated upon, then they (Palestinians) won't stop! But both sides think they are retaliating for the other guy's acts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Golda Meir once said, "Until the Palestinians love their own children, as much as they hate Israel, there can never be peace.". Amazing person. In any conflict. Until both sides love peace more than they love war, it will continue. I've read inteligent scholars who come to the conclusion that there will never be a negotiated peace. Only until one side has oceans of blood on their hands will it end. It's a sad comment on the human spirit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Amazing person. In any conflict. Until both sides love peace more than they love war, it will continue. I've read inteligent scholars who come to the conclusion that there will never be a negotiated peace. Only until one side has oceans of blood on their hands will it end. It's a sad comment on the human spirit. Unfortunately, like I said before, you can't sell something (peace) to someone who's not interested in buying it (Palestine). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Unfortunately, like I said before, you can't sell something (peace) to someone who's not interested in buying it (Palestine). But if the Palestinians who want peace, join with the Israeli's who want peace and neutralize those who do not want peace, we may have a solution. Imagine that. You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 But if the Palestinians who want peace, join with the Israeli's who want peace and neutralize those who do not want peace, we may have a solution. Imagine that. You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one From your mouth to His ears, Texsox! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 From The NY Post Sheikh Yassin was up to his eyeballs in blood. It's hard to see how his removal from the equation is anything but a step forward fro peace in the Middle East, at least in the long term. And a step forward for the rest of the world, as it wil serve to remind would-be terrorists that some of their enemies fight back. PM Sharon had little choice but to take the action he took. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 From The NY Post Sheikh Yassin was up to his eyeballs in blood. It's hard to see how his removal from the equation is anything but a step forward fro peace in the Middle East, at least in the long term. And a step forward for the rest of the world, as it wil serve to remind would-be terrorists that some of their enemies fight back. PM Sharon had little choice but to take the action he took. This is true if death is a deterent to terrorists. As has been proven, death is not a deterent. It only makes the survivors more determined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 This is true if death is a deterent to terrorists. As has been proven, death is not a deterent. It only makes the survivors more determined. We know Yassin can't order any more attacks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 This is true if death is a deterent to terrorists. As has been proven, death is not a deterent. It only makes the survivors more determined. After the latest story about the boy manipulated into being a suicide bomber, you have to wonder who exactly these suicide bombers are who don't care about death. Are they terrorists or people duped into being suicide bombers? I've heard reports that only a few of the 9/11 hijackers knew they were on a suicide mission. Maybe death is a little more daunting than we thought. Osama seems to be doing his utmost to stay out of the Muslim Paradise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 But it's good that we know that ideas die when the person who created them is killed, right? Just wanted to pull this quote back up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted March 26, 2004 Author Share Posted March 26, 2004 Nuke, After you get done fixing the world, from street gangs to terrorist operations, are there any buildings standing? How long until people who have no homes begin to riot? The only solution you see seems to be at the end of a tank or missle. Do you really believe its time to destroy civil law and resort to military operations everywhere? We have to make sure not to hit the Burger King and the local 7-11 in my neighborhood aside from that everything is fair game. Seriously though, just because I think more problems could be solved by force of arms than not doesn't mean I'm out to annihilate the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 We have to make sure not to hit the Burger King and the local 7-11 in my neighborhood aside from that everything is fair game. Seriously though, just because I think more problems could be solved by force of arms than not doesn't mean I'm out to annihilate the planet. I know. And I do believe that some problems have to be solved by the military. However, I am not a big fan of military operations on US soil Link to boy killed by Marines while herding his goats "He was an innocent who never did anything to anyone," his mother said. "He was a teen-ager who didn't drink, didn't smoke, who wasn't a troublemaker. He was a teen-ager whose only goal was to help us and to go to school so he could be better off one day." Six weeks ago, one of four Marines patrolling against drug smugglers shot at Ezequiel -- known to his family as "Juni," for Junior because he was named for his father -- as he herded goats near his home. The military said Ezequiel shot at the Marines with the .22-caliber rifle he normally carried as he herded and was killed by return fire. But what seemed to be a case of a Marine defending himself has turned into a mystery that has pitted the U.S. military against the Texas Rangers, compounding a family's tragedy and a community's fear, distrust and anger. What really happened on the ridgetop a short walk from Ezequiel's front yard may never be known. Did he fire on the Marines or just into the desert? Was he readying to fire again, as the Marines allege, or had he raised his gun at all? Did Ezequiel even know the camouflaged Marines, dressed to look like desert scrub, were there? Or did he mistake their movements for a coyote or rattlesnake or other animal coming after his precious goats? And why did the Marines wait so long to call an ambulance, and why wasn't a military helicopter ambulance that was stationed a few miles away immediately dispatched? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Part 1 is exactly correct. One side note: There is a difference in taking out a factory and taking out a person. This difference is noted in International Law. But setting that distinction aside . . . You just proved my point. They knew innocent people would be killed. Doesn't that mean the innocent people were targeted? How can one simultaniously argue one side would never target innocents, then claim it's a normal sad side effect of war? The civilians were factored into the equation. The innocent make up part of the target. Both sides in this conflict have knowingly killed civilians. Then they engage in a debate whether their side's reasons for killing innocent people is better than the other side's reasons. Then they cheer the deaths. If you know you will be killing civilians, they are targeted. If you want to hide behind "we needed to take out this person and killing 1 or 10, or 100 women, children, and men civilians was unavoidable" that's fine but do not then come back and say my side never targets innocents. Just to toss an idea for debate out there, There are fugitives from US Law in Mexico, should be toss a missle into the cars of these fugitives? Some of these are the biggest drug lords. Should we send in an Apache helicoptor and take them out? A target is a target. Factory or individual or tank or whatever. Sometimes, when you take out a taget, innocents are casualties. It's a fact in war. You used the example of a single soldier among a group of civilians. At first, I would say no, you don't take that group of civilians out to kill that one soldier. However, if I am holding an RPG launcher and that soldier starts shooting at me, those people are toast. You have to put things into a certain perspective. If the elimination of an enemy private worth the killing of 25 civilians. Common sense says no. But, would I have bombed a dinner club in Berlin if I knew Rommel was enjoying a meal there? Yes, I would have. Hitler? Hell yes. Sargeant Shultz? Nope. You said both sides knowing killed civilians. That would be a true statement for any war ever fought in the history of mankind, I would guess. I disagree with saying those civilians are targeted. They are not the target. The are an example of the horrors of war, but not the target. In your drug lord example. If they crossed the border in the US, send the DEA. If the DEA felt they needed an Apache to take them out without getting killed, by all means get one out there. However, we couldn't cross in Mexico and do that, so it's a moot point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 YASNY International Law draws a distinction on assassinations. What further clouded this is that there is not a declared war here. In effect, Israel and Palestine are trying to stop war-like actions with police tactics. This makes, for some people, a difficult moral decision. So we have a sliding scale to justify killing civilians. I can agree with that. If you are sitting next to Sgt. Schultz your civilian life is worth more in the equation than if Rommel was hiding in a building you happen to live in. Such is the ugly side of * war *. But I still contend they are part of the entire target. It is like saying we were just trying to blow up a couple buildings in Hiroshima. Those buildings were our real target. No. To stop the horrors of war we have to accept the target is everything that will be destroyed by the bullet, bomb, or missle. Call a spade a spade. If you know something will be destroyed or a person killed, they are a portion of the target. You are already factoring them in when you state when it is ok vs. when it is not. Rommel + 10 civilians = ok, bombs away Schultz + 10 civilians = not ok See, they are in the equation? Then should Israel just declare war? Should there be a difference of behavior if you have declared war vs. not? I think there should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Then should Israel just declare war? Should there be a difference of behavior if you have declared war vs. not? I think there should. Palestine isn't a nation. It is hard to declare war against, or as, someone who doesn't technically exsist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Palestine isn't a nation. It is hard to declare war against, or as, someone who doesn't technically exsist. Which then leads to this: Those that believe Israel has the moral right to execute Palestinians, is it ok if they happen to be at O'Hare Airport? Maybe a couple Israeli agents could pump him full of .22s while he's waiting for his luggage. Any problem with an Apache coming down the Kennedy at rush hour to take out a Hamas leader? If it takes out a couple Americans would it would be ok if the Hamas leader was high enough in the command. If assassinating Yassin was worth killing a few, it shouldn't change if it was Americans being killed. Can Israel attack them in Egypt, France, Germany, Syria? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Can Israel attack them in Egypt, France, Germany, Syria? They have assassinated people in other countries before. Go back and reread the account of the killing of all of the people involved in the terrorism of the 72 Olympics. They even managed to kill an innocent citizen of another country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.