Democrats - bold enough to get away with anything and everything without consequences.

[SolomonVII]

I would think terrorism is a means to ward a country off from helping Israel, but the introduction of terrorism into any new country locks that country into the fight. Any faltering of that country is considered weakness in the eyes of the terrorist so, if Israel falls the next target will be that country.

It tends to start off a catch-22 loop that never ends.

If a country that would have formerly aided or helped or traded with Israel does not because of Hamas terrorism, then terrorism by Hamas has served its purpose. That is already happening.

Terrorism against a country also changes a countries behavior, such as what happened to Spain via el quada bombing of the trains.

Suffice it to say, that the goals of the Islamist movement as a whole, of which Hamas is but a branch of the Brotherhood, are global. There is every possibility that Israel will be the first liberal democracy to fall to the Islamists, but it will not be their last target.

 

[WordList]

If the shoe fits the person displaying it, then there is no argument just a denial of the fact. Please don't go down this red herring highway the bridges don't support the weight. Thank you.

Waffle

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Waffle

My description of your response was accurate. If not I would be interested in discussing why you think I am in error.

Your response to that was to that could clearly be construed as a personal attract sines it targets those who bring up the point in argument. I did not bring up Morale Equivalency as an argument you did. If any of this is in error I would entertain a discussion with you.

Seeing your one word response it would seem that this is degenerating into a game of personal insults? If so please tell me and I will start a conversation elsewhere.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

If a country that would have formerly aided or helped or traded with Israel does not because of Hamas terrorism, then terrorism by Hamas has served its purpose. That is already happening.

Terrorism against a country also changes a countries behavior, such as what happened to Spain via el quada bombing of the trains.

Suffice it to say, that the goals of the Islamist movement as a whole, of which Hamas is but a branch of the Brotherhood, are global. There is every possibility that Israel will be the first liberal democracy to fall to the Islamists, but it will not be their last target.

I'm thinking that we both agree with each other we are just coming at this topic from different direction and focusing on different aspects of the reality we both see there.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

As to the idea that one cannot condemn evil unless one is involved in the conflict; that's laughable (not to mention inconsistent when it's applied one way around only).

I do want to apologize for missing this. I was in a hurry and scanned this on the fly.

What I see here is a person naming something that I don't consider Evil as being Evil because it is a response geared to stop unnecessary violence that was perpetrated for the sake of violence. It is not laughable to claim that both parties are not responsible for what one started and would continue to do even if the other failed to reciprocate.

 

[WordList]

My description of your response was accurate. If not I would be interested in discussing why you think I am in error.

It doesn't say anything except.

Your response to that was to that could clearly be construed as a personal attract sines it targets those who bring up the point in argument. I did not bring up Morale Equivalency as an argument you did. If any of this is in error I would entertain a discussion with you.

I don't think I've ever used the phrase "morale (sic) equivalency" in my life.

 

[WordList]

I do want to apologize for missing this. I was in a hurry and scanned this on the fly.

What I see here is a person naming something that I don't consider Evil as being Evil because it is a response geared to stop unnecessary violence that was perpetrated for the sake of violence.

Bombing civilians in disproportionate response is evil.

It is not laughable to claim that both parties are responsible for what one started and would continue to do even if the other failed to reciprocate.

Key figures on both sides have no intention of stopping.
Plenty of other figures on each side would stop given a just way out.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Bombing civilians in disproportionate response is evil.


Key figures on both sides have no intention of stopping.
Plenty of other figures on each side would stop given a just way out.

The UN started this by annexing the land Israel now sets on from Palestine and they are the one's who must stop in. There is no just way out of blood lust and that is what you have there. The leaders reflect what the populous wants and Humas generously donates money from Iran to aid those who harbor them and these are the civilians you speak of.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

It doesn't say anything except.

This is an incomplete sentence so I'm at a loss as to what you mean by it.

I don't think I've ever used the phrase "morale (sic) equivalency" in my life.

This is what you posted: Shouting "moral equivalence" seems to have become the fashionable alternative to making an argument lately.

Since me previous posts were my argument and you seem to be stating that people who bring up this tactic use it as an alternative for an argument that you were claiming I had no ability to argue and had not been presenting one. This, to me is a cut down. Sorry if I was in error. I just want to put out my opinion and hear yours. As long as we understand and respect eachother I have no issue with anyone.

 

[WordList]

The UN started this by annexing the land Israel now sets on from Palestine and they are the one's who must stop in.

And how would you propose they do that?

There is no just way out of blood lust and that is what you have there. The leaders reflect what the populous wants and Humas generously donates money from Iran to aid those who harbor them and these are the civilians you speak of.

There are plenty of Palestinians who want peace.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

And how would you propose they do that?

And why should I propose anything. I know that the only body in the world capable of stopping this, started it. They have the worlds ear, do they not?

There are plenty of Palestinians who want peace.

under their own conditions, that is true, but are their conditions fair to the Israelites?

 

[WordList]

And why should I propose anything. I know that the only body in the world capable of stopping this, started it. They have the worlds ear, do they not?

Let me put it another way: what makes you think the UN has the capacity to stop it.

under their own conditions, that is true, but are their conditions fair to the Israelites?

A good proportion of Palestinians would be satisfied with a settlement that meets their needs and the Israelis needs in a reasonably equitable way.

Of course there are some on both sides who have no interest in compromise, and those, on both sides, gain the power. In a struggle between compromise and no-compromise , the latter is always the easier horse to back.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Let me put it another way: what makes you think the UN has the capacity to stop it.

Because they can use sanctions and restrict the inflow of assistance into both areas. They can also put boots on the ground and eyes in the air to monitor everything so tightly that nothing is done in any direction. These rockets have a limited range and with UN troops on the ground, in the areas that these weapons are deployed and can reach them more quickly than Israeli troops can.

P.S. your second quote had no responce to it, so I didn't add it to my response. Did you get my P.M.?

 

[SolomonVII]

I'm thinking that we both agree with each other we are just coming at this topic from different direction and focusing on different aspects of the reality we both see there.

For sure.
I wasn't quoting you in disagreement. I sometimes like to enter into discussions with people who have thought things through, and who try to make a semblance of sense though.
That is a much rarer quality that I ever would have thought before the internet demonstrated otherwise.

For sure, terrorism is a complex enough subject that the paragraph or two that we confine ourselves to writing will not cover everything, or that other points of view will not be enlightening.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

For sure.
I wasn't quoting you in disagreement. I sometimes like to enter into discussions with people who have thought things through, and who try to make a semblance of sense though.
That is a much rarer quality that I ever would have thought before the internet demonstrated otherwise.

For sure, terrorism is a complex enough subject that the paragraph or two that we confine ourselves to writing will not cover everything, or that other points of view will not be enlightening.

Thank you and have a marvelous day.

 

[WordList]

Because they can use sanctions and restrict the inflow of assistance into both areas.

Israel already does that to Palestine. The UN itself can't do that to Israel - it needs the U.S. and it's friends to do that, and the U.S. religious right isn't about to let that happen.

They can also put boots on the ground and eyes in the air to monitor everything so tightly that nothing is done in any direction.

Again, the UN has no army. Though I'm sure plenty of Islamic States would be up for supplying a peacekeeping force, I can't see that working out to well, can you!

These rockets have a limited range and with UN troops on the ground, in the areas that these weapons are deployed and can reach them more quickly than Israeli troops can.

Hamas rockets are little real danger anyway. They are symbolic.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Israel already does that to Palestine. The UN itself can't do that to Israel - it needs the U.S. and it's friends to do that, and the U.S. religious right isn't about to let that happen

The security council is a good ole boys network of self interest that doesn't like competition. Please don't lay the intransigence at the feet of the U.S. when the Russians and the Chinese are all in it for their own interests as well.

This doesn't change the fact that they are the only one's capable of forcing the Palestinians and the Israelites together to make a permanent peace.

Again, the UN has no army. Though I'm sure plenty of Islamic States would be up for supplying a peacekeeping force, I can't see that working out to well, can you!

The U.N. has member states that can use their own Armies. .

Hamas rockets are little real danger anyway. They are symbolic.

Have one land in your babies carriage and then get back with me on how symbolic they are.

P.S. I guess you are going to ignore my question about my P.M. does that mean you don't want me to inform you when I edit a post you commented on?

 

[WordList]

The security council is a good ole boys network of self interest that doesn't like competition. Please don't lay the intransigence at the feet of the U.S. when the Russians and the Chinese are all in it for their own interests as well.

I wouldn't pretend otherwise. But in this instance it's primarily the U.S. that would never agree to sanctions against Israel. And, FWIW, not so much for self-interest reasons as messed up theology.

This doesn't change the fact that they are the only one's capable of forcing the Palestinians and the Israelites together to make a permanent peace.

I'd say that the UN aren't capable of it.

The U.N. has member states that can use their own Armies. .

But, for good reason, those member states are reticent about deploying them.

Have one land in your babies carriage and then get back with me on how symbolic they are.

People get killed in car crashes. That doesn't justify nuking Detroit.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

I wouldn't pretend otherwise. But in this instance it's primarily the U.S. that would never agree to sanctions against Israel. And, FWIW, not so much for self-interest reasons as messed up theology

Theology is the bases for the entire conflict. If Israel was Muslim there would be no conflict. Americas interest in Israel is not theocratic. It is intelligence driven as it was in Iran before the fall of the Shaw, which the CIA placed in power there.

I'd say that the UN aren't capable of it.

I'd say the U.N. isn't interested in it because those who promote it are too powerful in the areas they control to make any intervention possible.

But, for good reason, those member states are reticent about deploying them

The reasons are not theirs.

People get killed in car crashes. That doesn't justify nuking Detroit.

That's a false comparison. Detroit isn't shooting cars at their owners and the people of Detroit isn't allowing the auto dealers to hide in their midst to escape reprisals.

 

[WordList]

Theology is the bases for the entire conflict. If Israel was Muslim there would be no conflict.

Well, yes and no but beside the point.

Americas interest in Israel is not theocratic.

Yeh. Right. ...

I'd say the U.N. isn't interested in it because those who promote it are too powerful in the areas they control to make any intervention possible.

Same same.

The reasons are not theirs.

eh?

That's a false comparison. Detroit isn't shooting cars at their owners and the people of Detroit isn't allowing the auto dealers to hide in their midst to escape reprisals.

Misses the point.