Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Israel has not landed any troops near Syria. Their ground movement has been limited to the South.

Wrong again Rue.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206514,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/01/...main/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5236834.stm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/01/...in1853364.shtml

The Bekaa Valley is not in the south. There are troops in the area. Israel has widened their attack strategy. When will you say that enough is enough? When Hezbollah is gone? At the same time devestating Lebanon? I cannot see this working.

Lebanon is getting pounded from the ground/air from the south and the navy is lobbing stuff from the west.

I am not wrong and you should carefully read what they were doing before you suggest troops have landed. In fact there was a limited commando attack -that is NOT TROOPS LANDING. More to the point Israel will attack where-ever Hezbollah operates. That is the point.

If you want to know the difference between a strategic commando attack and troops landing perhaps you should read more carefully.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 493
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am not wrong and you should carefully read what they were doing before you suggest troops have landed. In fact there was a limited commando attack -that is NOT TROOPS LANDING. More to the point Israel will attack where-ever Hezbollah operates. That is the point.

If you want to know the difference between a strategic commando attack and troops landing perhaps you should read more carefully.

I think what he was referring to was you saying that Israel had only sent a drone to the north. The IDF news conference from some of these links said that Israeli troops had landed near Syria in a town in northen Lebanon, carried out a raid and then left.

They did land though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Israeli pilots 'deliberately miss' targets

onatan Shapiro, a former Blackhawk helicopter pilot dismissed from reserve duty after signing a 'refusenik' letter in 2004, said he had spoken with Israeli F-16 pilots in recent days and learnt that some had aborted missions because of concerns about the reliability of intelligence information. According to Shapiro, some pilots justified aborting missions out of 'common sense' and in the context of the Israeli Defence Force's moral code of conduct, which says every effort should be made to avoiding harming civilians.

Shapiro said: 'Some pilots told me they have shot at the side of targets because they're afraid people will be there, and they don't trust any more those who give them the coordinates and targets.'

He added: 'One pilot told me he was asked to hit a house on a hill, which was supposed to be a place from where Hizbollah was launching Katyusha missiles. But he was afraid civilians were in the house, so he shot next to the house ...

'Pilots are always being told they will be judged on results, but if the results are hundreds of dead civilians while Hizbollah is still able to fire all these rockets, then something is very wrong.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel has not landed any troops near Syria. Their ground movement has been limited to the South.

Wrong again Rue.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,206514,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/01/...main/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5236834.stm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/01/...in1853364.shtml

The Bekaa Valley is not in the south. There are troops in the area. Israel has widened their attack strategy. When will you say that enough is enough? When Hezbollah is gone? At the same time devestating Lebanon? I cannot see this working.

Lebanon is getting pounded from the ground/air from the south and the navy is lobbing stuff from the west.

I am not wrong and you should carefully read what they were doing before you suggest troops have landed. In fact there was a limited commando attack -that is NOT TROOPS LANDING. More to the point Israel will attack where-ever Hezbollah operates. That is the point.

If you want to know the difference between a strategic commando attack and troops landing perhaps you should read more carefully.

Foxnews said it was a MAJOR OPERATION

CNN said that they hit the ground with boots running.

BBC saif they had troops on the gound and in that hospital as well as taking out two fuel stations.

CBS tells us it is a major operation.

I read what was printed. Israeli troops are on the ground in the Bekaa valley. Wether it is large numbers or a small tactical unit,,, the fact is ISRAELI TROOPS are on the ground in the Bekaa Valley. Are you denying this then? Are you saying that this is all bull? If so, who can you trust in the reporting? A small tactical Israeli Defence Force team on the ground is not considered TROOPS on the ground? How can you make such a distinction? How many troops need to be on the ground before you can consider them being there?

Yes it is all about the 'language' one uses top describe said events. That 'language' can be twisted and the story and view changes based on the 'language' used.

And Rue.. I am still waiting for an answer to this question.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=125071

I asked you to point out, on a global map, where the nation state of Palestine exists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way to solve the problem is to DISARM HEZBOLLAH and help Lebanon take control of their country. Anything short of that and violence will eventually break out again when Hezbollah goes and murders/tortures more civilians in Israel or kidnaps more IDF troops. When Israel strikes back again, all the crybabies in the Western World will claim that Israel is the aggressor.

Disarm the terrorists or kill them all...I don't really care which. That's the only way this is going to end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Disarm the terrorists or kill them all...I don't really care which. That's the only way this is going to end.

Kill them all and the moderates become terrorists.

I know the "right wing" doesn't think negotiating with them is worthwhile, but would it not be productive to find out WHY they are terrorists?

Why is a moderate muslim moderate?

Why is a fanatical muslim fanatical?

Until we know this we will never stop terrorism in the middle east.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disarm the terrorists or kill them all...I don't really care which. That's the only way this is going to end.

Kill them all and the moderates become terrorists.

I know the "right wing" doesn't think negotiating with them is worthwhile, but would it not be productive to find out WHY they are terrorists?

Why is a moderate muslim moderate?

Why is a fanatical muslim fanatical?

Until we know this we will never stop terrorism in the middle east.

No, it doesn't matter "why" they're terrorists. If they want to join an organization that murders innocent civilians -- and it doesn't matter WHAT the reasons are, you don't intentionally target civilians for murder and torture -- they need to be treated as murderers.

We throw murderers in jail in this country, other nations aren't as nice. There's ZERO recidivism for murderers in Texas and Florida because they die.

I don't care about pandering to Islamo-fascists. Negotiating with people who think they can take innocent civilians captive or launch rockets at them or blow themselves on buses just tells those terrorists that these tactics work and will allow them to be heard. We must NEVER listen to those who think they can get their voice heard by murdering innocent people.

When the Islamo-Fascists want to hold "peaceful protests" and seek diplomatic means to their political ends, then we will listen.

Until then and as long aos they're in the business of murdering jews and trying to "drive Israel into the sea," I do not believe in finding out their "root causes" or listening to them one bit. I believe in striking back at them and protecting the people of Israel. Whether or not that creates more terrorists is not the point. The point is that Israel has every right to defend its people from these murderers, especially considering Lebanon can't be bothered to reign these people in themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disarm the terrorists or kill them all...I don't really care which. That's the only way this is going to end.

Kill them all and the moderates become terrorists.

Then we kill them all too. I don't really care either.

I know the "right wing" doesn't think negotiating with them is worthwhile, but would it not be productive to find out WHY they are terrorists?

Because they're ignorant religious wackos. You don't need more of an explanation than that.

Why is a moderate muslim moderate?

Where are these mythical moderate muslims to be found? In Britain, where 40% told a survey they wanted Sharia law? In Canada, where most of their young men are sent "home" to find brides because their families don't want them marrying Canadian "whores"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it doesn't matter "why" they're terrorists. If they want to join an organization that murders innocent civilians -- and it doesn't matter WHAT the reasons are, you don't intentionally target civilians for murder and torture -- they need to be treated as murderers.

How many Lebanese civilians have been murdered as of late? Who intentionally murdered them?

We throw murderers in jail in this country, other nations aren't as nice. There's ZERO recidivism for murderers in Texas and Florida because they die.

Yes, even the innocent ones. We don't have the death penalty here... and for good reason. We don't kill our citizens.

I don't care about pandering to Islamo-fascists. Negotiating with people who think they can take innocent civilians captive or launch rockets at them or blow themselves on buses just tells those terrorists that these tactics work and will allow them to be heard. We must NEVER listen to those who think they can get their voice heard by murdering innocent people.

It's not about "pandering" to them. It's about negotiating peace. Peace does not come about by wiping out entire groups of people. Peace comes about when both sides know what the other side wants. This can only be accomplished by talking, it is not accomplished by warring.

When the Islamo-Fascists want to hold "peaceful protests" and seek diplomatic means to their political ends, then we will listen.

Until then and as long aos they're in the business of murdering jews and trying to "drive Israel into the sea," I do not believe in finding out their "root causes" or listening to them one bit. I believe in striking back at them and protecting the people of Israel. Whether or not that creates more terrorists is not the point. The point is that Israel has every right to defend its people from these murderers, especially considering Lebanon can't be bothered to reign these people in themselves.

We should ban religion althogether. Then no one would fight over any one "special God-spot" on the earth. All this fighting is because some ancient book says some ancient city is "holy" and religious groups all think this "holy city" belongs to them. Frig! it makes me sick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disarm the terrorists or kill them all...I don't really care which. That's the only way this is going to end.

Kill them all and the moderates become terrorists.

Then we kill them all too. I don't really care either.

I know the "right wing" doesn't think negotiating with them is worthwhile, but would it not be productive to find out WHY they are terrorists?

Because they're ignorant religious wackos. You don't need more of an explanation than that.

Why is a moderate muslim moderate?

Where are these mythical moderate muslims to be found? In Britain, where 40% told a survey they wanted Sharia law? In Canada, where most of their young men are sent "home" to find brides because their families don't want them marrying Canadian "whores"?

You advocate killing all muslims?

That dear, is hatred. Pure white-hot hatred.

Isn't that illegal here in Canada? To spew your hatred?

Oh that's riiiiiiight, it's only hatred if it's directed towards a group "other than" muslims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How many Lebanese civilians have been murdered as of late? Who intentionally murdered them?

Yes, even the innocent ones. We don't have the death penalty here... and for good reason. We don't kill our citizens.

It's not about "pandering" to them. It's about negotiating peace. Peace does not come about by wiping out entire groups of people. Peace comes about when both sides know what the other side wants. This can only be accomplished by talking, it is not accomplished by warring.

Okey dokey, let's wipe out all the fanatical (and percieved-to-be-fanatical) muslims in the world. Then the world will be a muuuuuch safer place.

Actually we should ban the Q'ran all together, really get rid of muslims. Anyone caught practicing Islam should be killed outright. Then the world would be a much safer place.

Actually we should ban religion althogether. Then no one would fight over any one "special God-spot" on the earth. All this fighting is because some lousy book says some lousy city is "holy" and religious groups all think this "holy city" belongs to them. Frig! it makes me sick.

I don't know, how many Lebanese civilians have been murdered as of late? I don't know what the numbers are, but I can tell you who intentionally murdered them.

Hezbollah murdered them, by setting up shop in their neighbourhoods and holding them hostage by not allowing them to leave when Israel dropped flyers on their towns telling the civilians to leave because bombing would commence.

Hezbollah murdered them by starting a war with Israel and retreating into residential areas of Lebanon. If you honestly think Israel launched strikes on Lebanon to specifically kill INNOCENT civilians, then I'm sorry but you have absolutely no grasp on reality.

I really shouldn't have to repeat myself that negotiating with those who target innocent civilians just tells terrorists around the world that killing innocent people works. I'm sorry you don't "get it," but no matter how many different ways I say it, the fact remains the same. As soon as you negotiate with terrorist groups that torture and murder civilians you tell them their tactics work.

You want to know what makes me sick? People like you who would take my post, that suggests we disarm Hezbollah and strike back against, and turn it into me suggesting we wipe out an entire religion. Never once did I suggest that Islam be wiped out.

Unlike the terrorists you support, whom actually want to wipe out all the Jews and Christians in the world, I simply suggested wiping out the terrorists. I suggested punishing and disarming the terrorist groups and allowing Lebanon to retake control of its country. You see, for me it's not about what religion these fanatics are....it's about these militant groups murdering innocent people and Lebanon continuing to allow it to happen.

Israel has a right to defend itself and until Hezbollah and all other terrorist organizations are disarmed, the middle east will continue to burn. These people do not believe in freedom and democracy...they want to spread their Islamo-fascist beliefs on everyone. Hell, they're even killing other muslims that don't s hare their fascist views. As a free democratic nation, it is our responsibility to share the gift that we have with the rest of the world. Everyone deserves freedom and basic human rights....and as long as these militant groups continue to terrorize those who have that freedom, we should continue to fight them wherever they are.

So, I'm glad wiping out an entire religion makes you sick to your stomach because that's exactly what these terrorists wants to do. It's just unfortunate you're too stupid to understand that it isn't the Jews who want to eradicate Islam, it's the other way around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disarm the terrorists or kill them all...I don't really care which. That's the only way this is going to end.

Kill them all and the moderates become terrorists.

Then we kill them all too. I don't really care either.

I know the "right wing" doesn't think negotiating with them is worthwhile, but would it not be productive to find out WHY they are terrorists?

Because they're ignorant religious wackos. You don't need more of an explanation than that.

Why is a moderate muslim moderate?

Where are these mythical moderate muslims to be found? In Britain, where 40% told a survey they wanted Sharia law? In Canada, where most of their young men are sent "home" to find brides because their families don't want them marrying Canadian "whores"?

You advocate killing all muslims?

That dear, is hatred. Pure white-hot hatred.

Isn't that illegal here in Canada? To spew your hatred?

Oh that's riiiiiiight, it's only hatred if it's directed towards a group "other than" muslims.

Get it straight, he advocates defending against terrorists.

Since when did the word terrorist become synonymous with all muslims?

That dear, is racism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, I'm glad wiping out an entire religion makes you sick to your stomach because that's exactly what these terrorists wants to do. It's just unfortunate you're too stupid to understand that it isn't the Jews who want to eradicate Islam, it's the other way around.

I SAID that people fighting over a "percieved holy city" makes me sick. Please do not twist my post to suit your adgenda.

For calling me stupid, you will be reported to the moderator, as has Argus who advocates the killing of all muslims.

I do not support terrorists -- so do not label me such. I do not support any religion or group.

This is a volatile topic, but please people, can you refrain from advocating killing all members of a group, or calling other posters stupid. Sheesh.

It is possible to have a civil conversation. But only if one can step back and look at the big picture. The big picture being religions fighting over myths from ancient times! Silly when you think of it though aint' it? Fighting over an ancient city -- I shake my head at the silliness of both sides who advocate that they are the chosen/right/correct ones to live and worship in this ancient, supposedly "holy" area of the earth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I'm glad wiping out an entire religion makes you sick to your stomach because that's exactly what these terrorists wants to do. It's just unfortunate you're too stupid to understand that it isn't the Jews who want to eradicate Islam, it's the other way around.

I SAID that people fighting over a "percieved holy city" makes me sick. Please do not twist my post to suit your adgenda.

For calling me stupid, you will be reported to the moderator, as has Argus who advocates the killing of all muslims.

I do not support terrorists -- so do not label me such. I do not support any religion or group.

This is a volatile topic, but please people, can you refrain from advocating killing all members of a group, or calling other posters stupid. Sheesh.

It is possible to have a civil conversation. But only if one can step back and look at the big picture. The big picture being religions fighting over myths from ancient times! Silly when you think of it though aint' it? Fighting over an ancient city -- I shake my head at the silliness of both sides who advocate that they are the chosen/right/correct ones to live and worship in this ancient, supposedly "holy" area of the earth.

Actually, they're fighting over terrorists kidnapping their soldiers and firing rockets into their cities.

It was YOU who suggested that we wanted to kill all muslims, when that wasn't at all what was being said. I suggested disarming hezbollah or killing all the terrorists. Of course, "terrorist" and "muslim" are the same word to someone as racist as you. If anyone should be reported to the moderator it should be you for labelling all muslims as terrorists.

So don't try to turn this around on me by misinterpreting everything I posted and blowing it out of proportions by accusing me of being racist and intolerant when you don't even know my family's heritage.

Besides, I apologized for calling you stupid. You're definitly not stupid. You're just ignorant and misguided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes both you and Argus have been reported to the moderator.

Here are all my posts on this topic.

Kill them all and the moderates become terrorists.

I know the "right wing" doesn't think negotiating with them is worthwhile, but would it not be productive to find out WHY they are terrorists?

Why is a moderate muslim moderate?

Why is a fanatical muslim fanatical?

Until we know this we will never stop terrorism in the middle east

In this post I am advocating a dialogue between the warring factions.

to which Argus replies:

Then we kill them all too. I don't really care either.

Because they're ignorant religious wackos. You don't need more of an explanation than that.

Where are these mythical moderate muslims to be found? In Britain, where 40% told a survey they wanted Sharia law? In Canada, where most of their young men are sent "home" to find brides because their families don't want them marrying Canadian "whores"?

To this I reply:

You advocate killing all muslims?

That dear, is hatred. Pure white-hot hatred.

Isn't that illegal here in Canada? To spew your hatred?

Oh that's riiiiiiight, it's only hatred if it's directed towards a group "other than" muslims

Then cybercoma chimed in with this:

No, it doesn't matter "why" they're terrorists. If they want to join an organization that murders innocent civilians -- and it doesn't matter WHAT the reasons are, you don't intentionally target civilians for murder and torture -- they need to be treated as murderers.

We throw murderers in jail in this country, other nations aren't as nice. There's ZERO recidivism for murderers in Texas and Florida because they die.

I don't care about pandering to Islamo-fascists. Negotiating with people who think they can take innocent civilians captive or launch rockets at them or blow themselves on buses just tells those terrorists that these tactics work and will allow them to be heard. We must NEVER listen to those who think they can get their voice heard by murdering innocent people.

When the Islamo-Fascists want to hold "peaceful protests" and seek diplomatic means to their political ends, then we will listen.

Until then and as long aos they're in the business of murdering jews and trying to "drive Israel into the sea," I do not believe in finding out their "root causes" or listening to them one bit. I believe in striking back at them and protecting the people of Israel. Whether or not that creates more terrorists is not the point. The point is that Israel has every right to defend its people from these murderers, especially considering Lebanon can't be bothered to reign these people in themselves.

and I said:

It's not about "pandering" to them. It's about negotiating peace. Peace does not come about by wiping out entire groups of people. Peace comes about when both sides know what the other side wants. This can only be accomplished by talking, it is not accomplished by warring.

We should ban religion althogether. Then no one would fight over any one "special God-spot" on the earth. All this fighting is because some ancient book says some ancient city is "holy" and religious groups all think this "holy city" belongs to them. Frig! it makes me sick.

NO WHERE did I say that all muslims are terrorists. I did say that fighting over an ancient supposedly holy city is stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Argus,

Then we kill them all too.....Because they're ignorant religious wackos.
Where are these mythical moderate muslims to be found?
It does seem Argus is advocating genocide, but in this case I do not feel it is something that should be reported to the moderator.

In fact, it raises a valid question. Are we facing a global religious war? If we are, that means most everyone is going to have to pick sides, and generally it is prudent to hope that you kill as many of your enemy as possible, with the aim of getting the rest of the other side to quit the fight, or die.

Obviously, Argus has picked his side. He then goes on to outline a brutal, but arguably winning tactic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It was YOU who suggested that we wanted to kill all muslims, when that wasn't at all what was being said. I suggested disarming hezbollah or killing all the terrorists. Of course, "terrorist" and "muslim" are the same word to someone as racist as you. If anyone should be reported to the moderator it should be you for labelling all muslims as terrorists.

Please find my post that says this. I said if all the fanatical muslim terrorists are killed, then (some of) the moderate muslims would become terrorists. To this Argus replied that we should wipe them all out by saying this:

"Then we kill them all too." (meaning the moderates) "I don't really care either."

So don't try to turn this around on me by misinterpreting everything I posted and blowing it out of proportions by accusing me of being racist and intolerant when you don't even know my family's heritage.

Your heritage makes absolutely no difference. I am a Canadian. That is my heritage.

Besides, I apologized for calling you stupid. You're definitly not stupid. You're just ignorant and misguided.

Why, thank you so much for the "apology".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Argus,
Then we kill them all too.....Because they're ignorant religious wackos.
Where are these mythical moderate muslims to be found?
It does seem Argus is advocating genocide, but in this case I do not feel it is something that should be reported to the moderator.

In fact, it raises a valid question. Are we facing a global religious war? If we are, that means most everyone is going to have to pick sides, and generally it is prudent to hope that you kill as many of your enemy as possible, with the aim of getting the rest of the other side to quit the fight, or die.

Obviously, Argus has picked his side. He then goes on to outline a brutal, but arguably winning tactic.

Perhaps we are in for a religious war.

As an agnostic which "side" should I choose? I don't believe in Jesus, nor Mohammed, nor Buddah, nor Vishnu. They are all myths. Ancient myths that have no place in the 21st century.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps we are in for a religious war.

As an agnostic which "side" should I choose? I don't believe in Jesus, nor Mohammed, nor Buddah, nor Vishnu. They are all myths. Ancient myths that have no place in the 21st century.

If you don't believe, you are an athiest. If you don't know, you are an agnostic.

I am an agnostic but when it comes to choosing between a secular democracy (although one that may contain religious factions in its government) that respects personal freedoms and one which wants to impose a religious autocracy, the decision is a no brainer for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps we are in for a religious war.

As an agnostic which "side" should I choose? I don't believe in Jesus, nor Mohammed, nor Buddah, nor Vishnu. They are all myths. Ancient myths that have no place in the 21st century.

If you don't believe, you are an athiest. If you don't know, you are an agnostic.

I am an agnostic but when it comes to choosing between a secular democracy (although one that may contain religious factions in its government) that respects personal freedoms and one which wants to impose a religious autocracy, the decision is a no brainer for me.

I believe in God, not Jehova nor Yaweh nor Allah.... An atheist does not.

I highly doubt that the secular nations, Canada and largely the USA, Australia, etc would allow any religion to "take over" the govt.

That is the beauty of living in the western world, our secular population is there to keep the religious nuts in check.

If I was forced to chose between Christianity and Islam -- I would choose neither. Would I be killed for my non-choice? Would I be labelled a "terrorist sympathizer"?

*shiver* shades of a totalitarian (yer either with Christ or against him, yer either with Mohammed or against him) society truly are frightening. How anyone can be "for" or "against" a mythical figure is completely beyond my agnostic, scientific, logical comprehension.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe nature is God. We are simply part of nature, nothing more nothing less.

From Wikipedia:

"Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the (truth) values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, irrelevant to life."

I agree that dieties are irrelevant to me.

IMO we need to find out exactly what the fighting is about. It's not about kidnapped soldiers. It goes back much further than that.

Is it about the "temple mount"? Is it that both religions believe the area is theirs given to them by God?

We need to analyze this from it's beginnings -- everything else that is happening today is a symptom of the underlying issue -- 2 religions fighting over the same piece of "holy" ground.

Why not erect 2 (or 3) temples there.... one for the Jewish people, one for the Christians and one for the Muslims. Why not just share it? What difference does it make if the guy you are praying beside is praying to someone other than your god?

Like little kids -- share already!

I just think the world should just get along. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was YOU who suggested that we wanted to kill all muslims, when that wasn't at all what was being said. I suggested disarming hezbollah or killing all the terrorists. Of course, "terrorist" and "muslim" are the same word to someone as racist as you. If anyone should be reported to the moderator it should be you for labelling all muslims as terrorists.

Please find my post that says this. I said if all the fanatical muslim terrorists are killed, then (some of) the moderate muslims would become terrorists. To this Argus replied that we should wipe them all out by saying this:

"Then we kill them all too." (meaning the moderates) "I don't really care either."

So don't try to turn this around on me by misinterpreting everything I posted and blowing it out of proportions by accusing me of being racist and intolerant when you don't even know my family's heritage.

Your heritage makes absolutely no difference. I am a Canadian. That is my heritage.

Besides, I apologized for calling you stupid. You're definitly not stupid. You're just ignorant and misguided.

Why, thank you so much for the "apology".

Argus obviously meant the moderates that BECOME terrorists as you suggested. He advocated defending against the terrorists by killing them. You said that will cause moderates to become terrorists, so he suggested killing those terrorists too.

You also went off on a tangent about killing all muslims, blah blah blah. That wasn't even what was suggested.

I don't know why I'm pandering to this little game you're playing...but you should just stop it.

No one has suggested killing all muslims. The long and the short of it is that Israel has a right to defend itself against militant groups that are attacking it, whether it's within their borders or outside their borders. Lebanon hasn't done anything to stop these terrorist (in fact, they're using prisoners that the terrorists captured to broker a peace deal....figure that one out), so Israel has had to take it upon themselves.

The thread topic is options for Israel. The only option they have is to eradicate terrorism from the middle east, because Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda and others have made it clear that the bloodshed will not end until all the Jews are eliminated and Israel is returned to Islam.

How are they going to accomplish this? By blowing up buses full of civilians, launching rockets into neighbourhoods, and kidnapping, raping and murdering Jews...

Now if you want to negotiate with them and show them that those tactics will get you to sit at the bargaining table, I feel sorry for the world you would create after that. Rewarding that kind of behaviour is just plain stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now if you want to negotiate with them and show them that those tactics will get you to sit at the bargaining table, I feel sorry for the world you would create after that. Rewarding that kind of behaviour is just plain stupid.

So talking/negotiating is considered a reward? Tell that to the FBI/RCMP who negotiates with airline highjackers or kidnappers. Why not just snipe out the kidnapper? Why bring in a negotiator? Why does the FBI/RCMP train negotiators? Why negotiate with criminals at all? To save the innocents that's why. The criminal/kidnapper still will face consequences but the main goal of negotiating is to lessen the deaths of innocents.

OK so kidnappers and airline highjackers was a bad example, but police forces ALWAYS negotiate with the criminal when innocent lives are at stake.

The world I would create would be all three major religions either completely eradicated (not the people, the religions) or at the very least the 3 religions could share the "holy" land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...