IJ wrote:
All I said (other than that I thought the site was over the top and that I generally agreed with you) is that our aid to Israel isn't dependent on whether they conduct their defense in the manner we see fit.
Then we do what France, Germany and Russia are attempting to do with us through the U.N. and that is tell us how we are going to defend ourselves, we then tell the Israelis how they are going to do it. I don't think that is particularly fair when they are the ones picking their kids up out of the street.
Hasn't the US chided Israel for building and defending settlements that are either illegal or at a minimum very provocative, that is, in the west bank?
I personally think "The Settlements" are a wacky idea. I also think it does not much matter if they ended tomorrow, the Palestinians would still be doing what they have done for years.
Do we 100% support their policy of bombing the homes of families of suicide bombers? I don't think we do.
I heard a Gentleman who is an Israeli the other day on the radio commenting about Al Jazeera airing footage of our POWs. He stated that this used to happen to captured Israelis as well, then the video would air with torture footage or that of mutilating a dead body. Then Mossad would hunt down every person involved and kill them. He said from the people that did it to the people that filmed it, from the person that dubbed the tape to the person that put it in a cab to go to the media. DEAD.
They live in a tough place and if you want to play with bomb belts, you're going to get the weight of the response. I think back to the picture of the
infant in a bomb belt and think that the infant did not have much of what we would consider to be a "family."
1) How are Israelis supposed to defend themselves against people who target public places? Um, it's damn tough. If a single person for example wanted to terrorize the US and had 200$ or even less to do it with, it'd be damn easy. Does building settlements that piss off people who then bomb them help?
Like I said, this would be going on settlements or no settlements. You make a fine point, however, they don't have a measly $200.00 though, they have alot of money because terrorism, like racism, is a big business.
I think Israel has more or less created a Zero Tolerance Policy with teeth. The violence will continue until someone wakes up and realizes they have a right to exist there.
2) When did Israel recognize Palestine as a nation? These are two groups in an intractable fight because they think they own the land and the other doesn't. Does bombing the home of a suicide bomber protect Israel from Arafat's lack of diplomatic recognition?
Arafat's "diplomatic recognition?" He's a criminal. He's a thugass terrorist. He's a profiteer of misery and conflict, he is rich off of it. He's not even Palestinian, he's Egyptian. I would imagine when the Palestinians are tired of this and they get someone else to go to bat for them, things might improve.
4) This is breaking news, but not every palestinian can be equated with every other one. Some of the ones that are killed (by a country "blowing up innocent people"--not as intentionally) are without violent wishes. There ARE palestinians who can live at peace with israel, there are others that will NEVER, and the problem is we dont know which are actually wearing dynamite when they step on the buses. The Israelis also aren't responding in one block. There IS actually some gray involved in this matter, and it's not just as Star Wars simple as good and evil.
I understand that and nodded to that when I said Palestinians could vote and hold office in Israel, i.e., there has to be a certain segment of the population that are good, law-abiding people because they already exist in that Government.
I don't know if that constitutes a "boatload," but there it is. Keep in mind when replying that I support Israel in large part and condem any violence against innocent people.
I don't like to see truly innocent people hurt in any way either. I also think that at times it is the inevitable result of war. War is a terrible thing but as necessary as it is terrible as well. At times, war is necessary because not going to war carries a much higher price.
...and try not to regress to name-calling ("mentally ill liberals").
I believe that liberals like Michael Moore are mentally ill. Or, hopeless liars, maybe a little bit of both, you never know. I've seen the same nutter frequency on this board too, if you did not do it, that's great. But if I see another:
"Well, sh*t! I don't know what is going on, but it sure looks like something is going on, therefore I know something foul is afoot!"
Posts, I'm gonna hurl. That's mental, friend.
I'm not particularly surprised that these fanatics are conducting their war impolitely and are using propaganda and civilian shields and suicide bombers... that's just their best chance, and they're determined to win.
I can understand the suicide bombers. I will never understand marching innocent people out so you can use them as cover.
Re: the Iraqis shooting their own civilians, it's indefensible, it's the act of cowards and petty tyrants, and I'd love a reference.
Watch the news and not Al Jazeera either. That and a whole lot more.
But given that, how many people died when we incinerated Hiroshima or Dresden? How many were civilians?
You forgot Nagasaki.
I think we have tried to evolve from that. I don't have a source for this, given the nature of the Internet, perhaps someone will search to verify or shoot it down. But I think Churchill deliberately targeted a Children's Hospital in World War Two in retaliation against Germany.
As I said, war is a horrible thing but I think anyone who is honest would say that as times change, and they have, perhaps we won't have to do that anymore and certainly not to the degree that we have in the past with regard to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I think we have went to great lengths to limit civilian casualties in this conflict we are in right now. And it will cost us some lives in the process. As Saddam and his minions move about to use the civilians as cover, this will increase horribly. It is predictable and it is not our fault either, it is his fault.
I think Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are illustrative of the fact that sometimes you have to break the back of the enemy. To break their spirit. I also believe had we invaded Japan, we would have lost more people and the JAPANESE would have ultimately lost more people than they did when those two bombs were dropped. As it happened, it broke them and we did not have to resort to an invasion. In other words, I think it is better to kill 50,000 in an instant than 125,000 in three months. Not that those numbers are correct, I'm talking about proportion.
......I'm through asking questions, I know what happened. But lets backtrack a little 
.
.....but the insults we send to others sometimes reflect our own mental states 
... Don ,you're starting to scare me
