Dnt let the door hit u on the way out reborn. You're a fucking joke. Me a Hezbollah cheerleader? Where did I ever say that? I just said the facts. Hezbollah handed it to Israel. I'm not cheering up and down, it's just the truth.
And you're an irritating little dink whose most original idea would appear to be "Islam is a perfect religion".
whose most original idea would appear to be "Islam is a perfect religion".
I have a feeling you are confusing MT posters but I may be wrong.
Hmm ... That's possible. I should know better than to respond anyways.
Anyhow, if your basic argument is that Israel did not stay in Lebanon because it was too costly in terms of casualties and that there was no way they could destroy Hezbollah, I agree. Those are the facts of the matter. Maybe my wording was poor in that other post. I was attempting to argue that defeating Hezbollah would require the destruction of Lebanon, which still doesn't strike me as an unreasonable argument, and that the Israelis therefore left, AFTER making themselves look horrible on the world stage via indiscriminant use of air raids. Surely we can agree on that.
Hmm ... That's possible. I should know better than to respond anyways.
Anyhow, if your basic argument is that Israel did not stay in Lebanon because it was too costly in terms of casualties and that there was no way they could destroy Hezbollah, I agree. Those are the facts of the matter. Maybe my wording was poor in that other post. I was attempting to argue that defeating Hezbollah would require the destruction of Lebanon, which still doesn't strike me as an unreasonable argument, and that the Israelis therefore left, AFTER making themselves look horrible on the world stage via indiscriminant use of air raids. Surely we can agree on that.
You are specifically talking about the 2006 war where I am talking about Lebanon post 1983. I am taking into consideration the occupation of south Lebanon and not just the war of 2006. The IDF said the occupation was too costly financially and the casualties were affecting public opinion in Israel as well.
With regards to 2006, israeli strikes were more sadistic than anything. They destroyed every bridge in the country with air strikes and by every bridge in the country I mean EVERY one. Even the stupid accessory metal one the army set up to have a back entrance to their barracks was bombed. Then they struck the oil deposit of the electricity plant contaminating the entire Lebanese coast of the Mediterranean. The oil spill even reached Syria and Israel. This is just mentioning a few things which had nothing to do with Hizbullah. The reason why I do not accept your argument is because the israelis failed on the ground as well. They advanced initially but Hizbullah fought back and they retreated in many areas. Their goal of reaching the Litani and securing it was never achieved. The other thing was that they had leveled an entire area within the southern suburbs of Beirut that was believed to be Hizbullah headquarters yet most of the leaders emerged unharmed. You see even leveling the whole country would not have defeated Hizbullah. That is what the 2006 war showed.
You are specifically talking about the 2006 war where I am talking about Lebanon post 1983. I am taking into consideration the occupation of south Lebanon and not just the war of 2006. The IDF said the occupation was too costly financially and the casualties were affecting public opinion in Israel as well.
With regards to 2006, israeli strikes were more sadistic than anything. They destroyed every bridge in the country with air strikes and by every bridge in the country I mean EVERY one. Even the stupid accessory metal one the army set up to have a back entrance to their barracks was bombed. Then they struck the oil deposit of the electricity plant contaminating the entire Lebanese coast of the Mediterranean. The oil spill even reached Syria and Israel. This is just mentioning a few things which had nothing to do with Hizbullah. The reason why I do not accept your argument is because the israelis failed on the ground as well. They advanced initially but Hizbullah fought back and they retreated in many areas. Their goal of reaching the Litani and securing it was never achieved. The other thing was that they had leveled an entire area within the southern suburbs of Beirut that was believed to be Hizbullah headquarters yet most of the leaders emerged unharmed. You see even leveling the whole country would not have defeated Hizbullah. That is what the 2006 war showed.
Well, I won't dispute any of this. A movement like Hezbollah is probably not defeatable by standard military means, and no matter how the 2006 war turned out, the latter could claim a political victory based on survival alone. My understanding is that this is exactly what they did, despite 1) taking heavier casualities than the IDF did and failing to destroy the IDF forces that invaded Lebanon, and 2) doing little or nothing to halt the aforementioned sadistic airstrikes. I suppose my issue is that all those Lebanese dead should be hard to pitch as a victory, but Hezbollah is more concerned with propaganda and making the claim that they are invincible. And the Israelis, in essence, walked right into it. Did they believe they could destroy Hezbollah, or was the goal to go in and give them a spanking, so to speak?
Well, I won't dispute any of this. A movement like Hezbollah is not defeatable by standard military means, and no matter how the 2006 war turned out, the latter could claim a political victory based on survival alone. My understanding is that this is exactly what they did, despite 1) taking heavier casualities than the IDF did and failing to destroy the IDF forces that invaded Lebanon, and 2) doing little or nothing to halt the aforementioned sadistic airstrikes. I suppose my issue is that all those Lebanese dead should be hard to pitch as a victory, but Hezbollah is more concerned with propaganda and making the claim that they are invincible. And the Israelis, in essence, walked right into it. Did they believe they could destroy Hezbollah, or was the goal to go in and give them a spanking, so to speak?
I think propaganda is used by everyone to further their goals so its not surprising Hizbullah would boast about it.
Relatively speaking the amount of casualties on the IDF side was huge compared to post 1990 operations on Lebanon where they'd use air strikes to bomb from the sky. I would think it is close to impossible for a militia to destroy the IDF but they did stop them from advancing and in some areas actually made them retreat. This is keeping in mind Hizbullah have nowhere near the equipment the IDF have. As for stopping the air strikes well this is impossible for Hizbullah or even the Lebanese army as they do not have the means to attack fighter planes.
I believe the exact language that was used to describe the invasion was "to deal Hizbullah a blow that they will never recover from", i.e. to destroy them beyond recovery.
Barak: make peace with Palestinians or face apartheid
Rory McCarthy Herzliya - Guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday 3 February 2010
Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister, last night delivered an unusually blunt warning to his country that a failure to make peace with the Palestinians would leave either a state with no Jewish majority or an "apartheid" regime.
His stark language and the South African analogy might have been unthinkable for a senior Israeli figure only a few years ago and is a rare admission of the gravity of the deadlocked peace process.
There have been no formal negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in more than a year, but Barak was speaking at a rare joint event with the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, as part of an annual national security conference in the Israeli city of Herzliya. The pair shook hands and both were warmly applauded.
Barak, a former general and Israel's most decorated soldier, sought to appeal to Israelis on both right and left by saying a peace agreement with the Palestinians was the only way to secure Israel's future as a "Zionist, Jewish, democratic state".
"As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic," Barak said. "If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."
He described Israel and the Palestinian territories as the historic "land of Israel" to which Israelis had a right.
"We have to demarcate a border within the land of Israel," he said.
"We have a linkage, we have a right, but the reality of standing on the stage of history in realistic terms requires us to pay attention to international constraints." Barak is in a delicate political position. He leads the Labour party, supposedly a centre-left movement, but accepted a position in a rightwing coalition under Binyamin Netanyahu, a decision that split his party.
Though Barak articulates a willingness for peace talks, he represents a government that has defied US and Palestinian calls for a full settlement freeze as a prelude to any negotiations. He was also defence minister during last year's Gaza war in which nearly 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed.
The Herzliya conference has echoed Israeli concerns about growing international criticism, particularly in the year since Gaza. Barak himself alluded to the danger that Israel might lose legitimacy if no peace deal was forthcoming. "The pendulum of legitimacy is going to move gradually towards the other pole," he said.
He acknowledged that Washington was pushing the two sides towards "proximity talks" but said this was "only an initial stage" before any return to full negotiations.
Fayyad, who has a limited political following among Palestinians, called on Israel to stop settlement building in the occupied territories and to halt military incursions in Palestinian cities as a sign of seriousness about negotiations.
"Things have to begin to happen in order to give the suggestion that this occupation is going to end," he said. "That Palestinian state is supposed to emerge precisely where settlements are expanding." Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has refused to start fresh negotiations with Israel unless settlement construction stops, in line with the 2003 US road map. Nearly 500,000 Jewish settlers live in east Jerusalem and the West Bank, even though settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law.
"How confident can we all be that once relaunched that political process is going to be able to deliver that which needs to be delivered, the permanent status issues and the key question of ending the occupation?" Fayyad asked.
Ehud Barak is a great politician, and while this probably sounds like an insult, I don't intend it as such. He is choosing his words carefully but at the same time is obviously aware of the need for a Palestinian state.
Pepe, I have already said this, but I have come to learn not to expect you to pay close attention to what people say. I would have no problem with an eventual Palestinian state creating a ribbon to commemorate Hamas. Or to be more precise, I might have a problem with it, but I would not be stupid enough to judge them for it. I would recognize that they have their own narrative of events and that a state has an interest in being as inclusive in its creation narrative as it can be.
As for the Israeli ribbon, it is utterly meaningless. It isn't awarded to current soldiers. It is entirely symbolic, a token to make a few old men, who have probably lived most of their lives feeling unappreciated feel recognized by their country. (I say that these men probably felt unappreciated because they were unappreciated due to the fact that the Lehi play a very minor, and to be quite honest somewhat negative role in the mainstream Israeli narrative, which is really the story of the Haganah and the Palmach.)
wow, poor guys and their families that they feel unappreciated in their reign of terror, blowing up trains, assassinating leaders and killing over 100 civilians in a village....i really feel bad for them.
i also find it odd that you can keep saying Hamas is the problem and terrorists but you wouldn't have a problem if they were commemorated for such acts.
what it says is they are commemorating the use of terrorism in the establishment of Israel, right? i do pay attention to what people say, i just think you are trying to spin it to seem meaningless when others wouldn't think of it as such. i wonder how meaningless the families of people murdered by this terrorist organization feel the ribbon in the use of terrorism in the establishment of Israel is?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
What I'm saying is not that the ribbon is not offensive to certain people. I'm sure it is. But we're talking about a minor decoration, given exclusively to a very small group of veterans, 40 years after the fact. It would be like a southern state giving confederate veterans medals that commemorate their sacrifice in the civil war in the year 1900. We would disagree vehemently with what the confederacy stood for, but we'd probably recognize that the awards were purely symbolic, and weren't really relevant to the current political situation. On reflection I recognize that this analogy is obviously flawed by the fact that racism and segregation were still rampant in 1900, but what I'm trying to say is that I think you are attributing a larger significance where there really isn't any. I would bet that if you polled most Israelis they wouldn't even know that the army had a Lehi ribbon. It just isn't relevant to anything happening in the here and now.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
I'll say it and stand by it. First I am a Muslim. Secondly, I dnt think Islam is perfect.matter of fact NO religion is perfect. I may be biased towards my religion but then again who isn't. Let me give u all something about Islam. That in which I mean TRUE ISLAM. It says that ANY muslim who kills another human being will be judged by god as if he killed all of humanity. Now being that they killed not in self defense. So all those suicide bombers in cafes or buses or mosques like in Iraq, not true Muslims. When u kill u play the role of god and in Islam there is only one god. What u see or hear in the media about Islam is all bullshit. It's funny cuz I'm 34 now and ever since I was a little "dink" I was told that there will come a time when muslims all over the world will be persicuted. And now it is happening. I ask every faith out there this question- why in the world would ANY god want his creations to kill in HIS name? NOT my god and I hope to god NOT any of yours. It is sad to say but seems like every religion has had swords used in it's name. I'm begining to think gods given up on all of us cause he can easily stop all this bullshit if he really wanted to. Shit, if we can't get along on earth together, how's it going to be in heaven????? If there is such a thing.......
What I'm saying is not that the ribbon is not offensive to certain people. I'm sure it is. But we're talking about a minor decoration, given exclusively to a very small group of veterans, 40 years after the fact. It would be like a southern state giving confederate veterans medals that commemorate their sacrifice in the civil war in the year 1900. We would disagree vehemently with what the confederacy stood for, but we'd probably recognize that the awards were purely symbolic, and weren't really relevant to the current political situation. On reflection I recognize that this analogy is obviously flawed by the fact that racism and segregation were still rampant in 1900, but what I'm trying to say is that I think you are attributing a larger significance where there really isn't any. I would bet that if you polled most Israelis they wouldn't even know that the army had a Lehi ribbon. It just isn't relevant to anything happening in the here and now.
to you and 'most Israeli's' having a ribbon commemorating a terrorist organization for their role in the creation and establishment of Israel may not be a big deal but i'm willing to bet to Palestinians it is felt differently. i wonder how the relatives who had their families wiped out by the Lehi feel? i wonder if the families of the innocent people blown up on trains would feel differently, too. i wonder how family members of native americans would feel if there was some ribbon for giving disease ridden blankets out?
you have to look at the bigger picture. what is the intention? to honor a terrorist organization that murdered 100s of innocent people in the creation and establishment of a country illegally occupying someone else's land.
it adds up on top of all the abuse by the IDF. and it doesn't matter how isolated you want to argue abuses are, the fact remains there is NO PUNISHMENT for them!
and hey, i don't try to imply every single member of the IDF abuse people but the ones who do are allowed to get away with it. do you think they have any encouragement to stop? or do you think they will continue to do behave that way and others who think similarly will bet since nothing happened to anyone else nothing will happen to them.
these officers ordered white phosphorus shells to be fired over and on top of a UN building housing over 700 Palestinians, that is a crime and illegal no matter how you try to spin it. it doesn't matter if it was to illuminate or cover, it was fired at an area with a lot of innocent people.
if i take a machine gun to a park and start shooting, can i claim i fired over all the kids heads, i didn't hit anyone, what's the big deal??
no, i'd be in jail. what they did was a war crime and the repercussion for a war crime according to Israel is a post it note placed in their file. who knows, maybe in 30 years they'll give them a special ribbon for it
you say political situation...so who were they playing to, exactly? people who support the mentality the Lehi had that god promised the land to them so they can take it violently?
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I'll say it and stand by it. First I am a Muslim. Secondly, I dnt think Islam is perfect.matter of fact NO religion is perfect. I may be biased towards my religion but then again who isn't. Let me give u all something about Islam. That in which I mean TRUE ISLAM. It says that ANY muslim who kills another human being will be judged by god as if he killed all of humanity. Now being that they killed not in self defense. So all those suicide bombers in cafes or buses or mosques like in Iraq, not true Muslims. When u kill u play the role of god and in Islam there is only one god. What u see or hear in the media about Islam is all bullshit. It's funny cuz I'm 34 now and ever since I was a little "dink" I was told that there will come a time when muslims all over the world will be persicuted. And now it is happening. I ask every faith out there this question- why in the world would ANY god want his creations to kill in HIS name? NOT my god and I hope to god NOT any of yours. It is sad to say but seems like every religion has had swords used in it's name. I'm begining to think gods given up on all of us cause he can easily stop all this bullshit if he really wanted to. Shit, if we can't get along on earth together, how's it going to be in heaven????? If there is such a thing.......
Well, as we discussed over PMs, the namecalling is unproductive and makes us both look bad. At the end of the day, you are not a dink and I am not a fucking joke. I will say that this post is pretty well on the mark, from my perspective. Every religion has its swords, and I feel pretty much the same way about a Christian nut who shoots an abortion doctor as I do about a Muslim who kills infidels in God's name. I have a ton of respect for those Muslims who live peaceful lives. I attended mosque recently with the family of a friend from work, and it was good for me to interact with Muslim folks who come across as level-headed, intelligent, and deeply sensitive people. I probably was influenced by things like the death threats that occur in response to some political cartoons, and I will admit that the Western media focuses on these sorts of problems and not the statistical norm in this case. In short, I am trying to work on opening my mind. Thanks for your post.
Comments
And you're an irritating little dink whose most original idea would appear to be "Islam is a perfect religion".
I have a feeling you are confusing MT posters but I may be wrong.
Hmm ... That's possible. I should know better than to respond anyways.
Anyhow, if your basic argument is that Israel did not stay in Lebanon because it was too costly in terms of casualties and that there was no way they could destroy Hezbollah, I agree. Those are the facts of the matter. Maybe my wording was poor in that other post. I was attempting to argue that defeating Hezbollah would require the destruction of Lebanon, which still doesn't strike me as an unreasonable argument, and that the Israelis therefore left, AFTER making themselves look horrible on the world stage via indiscriminant use of air raids. Surely we can agree on that.
You are specifically talking about the 2006 war where I am talking about Lebanon post 1983. I am taking into consideration the occupation of south Lebanon and not just the war of 2006. The IDF said the occupation was too costly financially and the casualties were affecting public opinion in Israel as well.
With regards to 2006, israeli strikes were more sadistic than anything. They destroyed every bridge in the country with air strikes and by every bridge in the country I mean EVERY one. Even the stupid accessory metal one the army set up to have a back entrance to their barracks was bombed. Then they struck the oil deposit of the electricity plant contaminating the entire Lebanese coast of the Mediterranean. The oil spill even reached Syria and Israel. This is just mentioning a few things which had nothing to do with Hizbullah. The reason why I do not accept your argument is because the israelis failed on the ground as well. They advanced initially but Hizbullah fought back and they retreated in many areas. Their goal of reaching the Litani and securing it was never achieved. The other thing was that they had leveled an entire area within the southern suburbs of Beirut that was believed to be Hizbullah headquarters yet most of the leaders emerged unharmed. You see even leveling the whole country would not have defeated Hizbullah. That is what the 2006 war showed.
Well, I won't dispute any of this. A movement like Hezbollah is probably not defeatable by standard military means, and no matter how the 2006 war turned out, the latter could claim a political victory based on survival alone. My understanding is that this is exactly what they did, despite 1) taking heavier casualities than the IDF did and failing to destroy the IDF forces that invaded Lebanon, and 2) doing little or nothing to halt the aforementioned sadistic airstrikes. I suppose my issue is that all those Lebanese dead should be hard to pitch as a victory, but Hezbollah is more concerned with propaganda and making the claim that they are invincible. And the Israelis, in essence, walked right into it. Did they believe they could destroy Hezbollah, or was the goal to go in and give them a spanking, so to speak?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDe65-nF3FQ
I think propaganda is used by everyone to further their goals so its not surprising Hizbullah would boast about it.
Relatively speaking the amount of casualties on the IDF side was huge compared to post 1990 operations on Lebanon where they'd use air strikes to bomb from the sky. I would think it is close to impossible for a militia to destroy the IDF but they did stop them from advancing and in some areas actually made them retreat. This is keeping in mind Hizbullah have nowhere near the equipment the IDF have. As for stopping the air strikes well this is impossible for Hizbullah or even the Lebanese army as they do not have the means to attack fighter planes.
I believe the exact language that was used to describe the invasion was "to deal Hizbullah a blow that they will never recover from", i.e. to destroy them beyond recovery.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/fe ... tine-peace
Barak: make peace with Palestinians or face apartheid
Rory McCarthy Herzliya - Guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday 3 February 2010
Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister, last night delivered an unusually blunt warning to his country that a failure to make peace with the Palestinians would leave either a state with no Jewish majority or an "apartheid" regime.
His stark language and the South African analogy might have been unthinkable for a senior Israeli figure only a few years ago and is a rare admission of the gravity of the deadlocked peace process.
There have been no formal negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in more than a year, but Barak was speaking at a rare joint event with the Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, as part of an annual national security conference in the Israeli city of Herzliya. The pair shook hands and both were warmly applauded.
Barak, a former general and Israel's most decorated soldier, sought to appeal to Israelis on both right and left by saying a peace agreement with the Palestinians was the only way to secure Israel's future as a "Zionist, Jewish, democratic state".
"As long as in this territory west of the Jordan river there is only one political entity called Israel it is going to be either non-Jewish, or non-democratic," Barak said. "If this bloc of millions of Palestinians cannot vote, that will be an apartheid state."
He described Israel and the Palestinian territories as the historic "land of Israel" to which Israelis had a right.
"We have to demarcate a border within the land of Israel," he said.
"We have a linkage, we have a right, but the reality of standing on the stage of history in realistic terms requires us to pay attention to international constraints." Barak is in a delicate political position. He leads the Labour party, supposedly a centre-left movement, but accepted a position in a rightwing coalition under Binyamin Netanyahu, a decision that split his party.
Though Barak articulates a willingness for peace talks, he represents a government that has defied US and Palestinian calls for a full settlement freeze as a prelude to any negotiations. He was also defence minister during last year's Gaza war in which nearly 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed.
The Herzliya conference has echoed Israeli concerns about growing international criticism, particularly in the year since Gaza. Barak himself alluded to the danger that Israel might lose legitimacy if no peace deal was forthcoming. "The pendulum of legitimacy is going to move gradually towards the other pole," he said.
He acknowledged that Washington was pushing the two sides towards "proximity talks" but said this was "only an initial stage" before any return to full negotiations.
Fayyad, who has a limited political following among Palestinians, called on Israel to stop settlement building in the occupied territories and to halt military incursions in Palestinian cities as a sign of seriousness about negotiations.
"Things have to begin to happen in order to give the suggestion that this occupation is going to end," he said. "That Palestinian state is supposed to emerge precisely where settlements are expanding." Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has refused to start fresh negotiations with Israel unless settlement construction stops, in line with the 2003 US road map. Nearly 500,000 Jewish settlers live in east Jerusalem and the West Bank, even though settlements on occupied land are illegal under international law.
"How confident can we all be that once relaunched that political process is going to be able to deliver that which needs to be delivered, the permanent status issues and the key question of ending the occupation?" Fayyad asked.
wow, poor guys and their families that they feel unappreciated in their reign of terror, blowing up trains, assassinating leaders and killing over 100 civilians in a village....i really feel bad for them.
i also find it odd that you can keep saying Hamas is the problem and terrorists but you wouldn't have a problem if they were commemorated for such acts.
what it says is they are commemorating the use of terrorism in the establishment of Israel, right? i do pay attention to what people say, i just think you are trying to spin it to seem meaningless when others wouldn't think of it as such. i wonder how meaningless the families of people murdered by this terrorist organization feel the ribbon in the use of terrorism in the establishment of Israel is?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
to you and 'most Israeli's' having a ribbon commemorating a terrorist organization for their role in the creation and establishment of Israel may not be a big deal but i'm willing to bet to Palestinians it is felt differently. i wonder how the relatives who had their families wiped out by the Lehi feel? i wonder if the families of the innocent people blown up on trains would feel differently, too. i wonder how family members of native americans would feel if there was some ribbon for giving disease ridden blankets out?
you have to look at the bigger picture. what is the intention? to honor a terrorist organization that murdered 100s of innocent people in the creation and establishment of a country illegally occupying someone else's land.
it adds up on top of all the abuse by the IDF. and it doesn't matter how isolated you want to argue abuses are, the fact remains there is NO PUNISHMENT for them!
and hey, i don't try to imply every single member of the IDF abuse people but the ones who do are allowed to get away with it. do you think they have any encouragement to stop? or do you think they will continue to do behave that way and others who think similarly will bet since nothing happened to anyone else nothing will happen to them.
these officers ordered white phosphorus shells to be fired over and on top of a UN building housing over 700 Palestinians, that is a crime and illegal no matter how you try to spin it. it doesn't matter if it was to illuminate or cover, it was fired at an area with a lot of innocent people.
if i take a machine gun to a park and start shooting, can i claim i fired over all the kids heads, i didn't hit anyone, what's the big deal??
no, i'd be in jail. what they did was a war crime and the repercussion for a war crime according to Israel is a post it note placed in their file. who knows, maybe in 30 years they'll give them a special ribbon for it
you say political situation...so who were they playing to, exactly? people who support the mentality the Lehi had that god promised the land to them so they can take it violently?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
Well, as we discussed over PMs, the namecalling is unproductive and makes us both look bad. At the end of the day, you are not a dink and I am not a fucking joke. I will say that this post is pretty well on the mark, from my perspective. Every religion has its swords, and I feel pretty much the same way about a Christian nut who shoots an abortion doctor as I do about a Muslim who kills infidels in God's name. I have a ton of respect for those Muslims who live peaceful lives. I attended mosque recently with the family of a friend from work, and it was good for me to interact with Muslim folks who come across as level-headed, intelligent, and deeply sensitive people. I probably was influenced by things like the death threats that occur in response to some political cartoons, and I will admit that the Western media focuses on these sorts of problems and not the statistical norm in this case. In short, I am trying to work on opening my mind. Thanks for your post.